MLB News & Notes (other than Cubs or Sox)

[Andy]

The Dodgers are 30 games over 500 since June 21.

[1060Ivy]

The Dodgers are 30 games over 500 since June 21.

 

Whatever happened to those guys citing the Dodgers early struggles as proof that spending cash in the free agent markets is not a prudent baseball move?  Spending cash of free agents never guarantees a winner, hello LA Angels, but it shouldn't impeded a team's ability to compete.

[jstraw]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Andy" data-cid="208053" data-time="1376395323">
<div>
The Dodgers are 30 games over 500 since June 21.

 

Whatever happened to those guys citing the Dodgers early struggles as proof that spending cash in the free agent markets is not a prudent baseball move?  Spending cash of free agents never guarantees a winner, hello LA Angels, but it shouldn't impeded a team's ability to compete.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
You cover this ground a lot but you never point out the FA's Theo and Jed should have gone after.

[rok]

You realize that's the exception not the norm right now, correct? And what FA's did the Dodgers sign? Most of their acquisitions were the result of bad contracts dumped by other teams who made poor decisions in the first place on the FA market. Most of what has worked for the Dodgers thus far has been the result of the core that was already in place plus adding guys like Greinke. You have to have something to work with first before you start tossing around cash.

[Kid]

Last year, the Cubs' revenue was $274 M (source) to the Dodgers' $245 M (source), a difference of $29 M.

 

Under the Dodgers' old TV deal, they were bringing in $41.5 million/year from local broadcasting (source).  

 

The Dodgers signed a deal in the offseason that will pay them $8.5 billion over 25 years. That's an average of $340 M/year.  That leaves the Dodgers with, ho hum, just about $270 M/year more in revenue than the Cubs.

 

($245 M - $41.5 M old TV = $203.5 M + $340 M new TV = $543.5 M Dodgers - $274 Cubs = $269.5 M difference)

[1060Ivy]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="1060Ivy" data-cid="208061" data-time="1376397937">
<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Andy" data-cid="208053" data-time="1376395323">
<div>
The Dodgers are 30 games over 500 since June 21.

 

Whatever happened to those guys citing the Dodgers early struggles as proof that spending cash in the free agent markets is not a prudent baseball move?  Spending cash of free agents never guarantees a winner, hello LA Angels, but it shouldn't impeded a team's ability to compete.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
You cover this ground a lot but you never point out the FA's Theo and Jed should have gone after.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

And I'll continue to beat that dead horse until Cubs make more moves to make them competitive in the short term while re-building of the minor league system.  

 

Regarding players Cubs should have not only gone after but actually signed in the last offseasons - always fun with the assistance of hindsight - the list would include: Darvish, Fielder, Cespedes, Loriano, Upton, Nathan, etc. 

 

The Dodgers have a great new TV contract and the Cubs are expected to negotiate new TV deals in a few years after the current contracts expire.  And now to beat another dead horse, if the Cubs are competitive their new TV deal(s) may revile the Dodger contract but the Cubs have seen significant decreases in ratings as they continue to trot out non-competitive teams which may do long term harm to their ability to generate ratings and associated revenue.

[rok]

All of the FA's you mentioned either came with huge question marks (Liriano, Nathan, Upton - who is terrible BTW) or were unproven (Darvish, Cespedes) aside from Fielder. And he came with his own concerns as a viable NL first baseman deep into his later contract years. We would have competed for a few years, and then still ended up a shitty organization. How would that have been different from the Hendry regime?

[jstraw]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jstraw" data-cid="208065" data-time="1376402183">
<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="1060Ivy" data-cid="208061" data-time="1376397937">
<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Andy" data-cid="208053" data-time="1376395323">
<div>
The Dodgers are 30 games over 500 since June 21.

 

Whatever happened to those guys citing the Dodgers early struggles as proof that spending cash in the free agent markets is not a prudent baseball move?  Spending cash of free agents never guarantees a winner, hello LA Angels, but it shouldn't impeded a team's ability to compete.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
You cover this ground a lot but you never point out the FA's Theo and Jed should have gone after.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

And I'll continue to beat that dead horse until Cubs make more moves to make them competitive in the short term while re-building of the minor league system.  

 

Regarding players Cubs should have not only gone after but actually signed in the last offseasons - always fun with the assistance of hindsight - the list would include: Darvish, Fielder, Cespedes, Loriano, Upton, Nathan, etc. 

 

The Dodgers have a great new TV contract and the Cubs are expected to negotiate new TV deals in a few years after the current contracts expire.  And now to beat another dead horse, if the Cubs are competitive their new TV deal(s) may revile the Dodger contract but the Cubs have seen significant decreases in ratings as they continue to trot out non-competitive teams which may do long term harm to their ability to generate ratings and associated revenue.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Adding a couple of marquee players to a shitty core is not the same thing as adding a couple of marquee players to a solid core. The ONLY reason to tack on any couple of the guys you mention is to put more buts in the seats while the team is then slightly less shitty and better at dashing more illusory hopes. I don't want expensive FAs that will be old and worn out when the youth we're loading up on starts maturing. At *that* point I want to spend like drunken sailors to add not-old-and-worn-out marquee pieces to a solid core.

 

I honestly do not want the F.O. to do what you want them to do.

 

And what Rok said.

[funkster]

All of the FA's you mentioned either came with huge question marks (Liriano, Nathan, Upton - who is terrible BTW) or were unproven (Darvish, Cespedes) aside from Fielder. And he came with his own concerns as a viable NL first baseman deep into his later contract years. We would have competed for a few years, and then still ended up a shitty organization. How would that have been different from the Hendry regime?

And Darvish and Cespedes don't count...by all accounts the Cubs made serious runs at both of them.

[Runnys]

Ivy, you realize that Schierholtz has outproduced Cespedes?  For a hell of a lot less money too.

[vitaminB]

But he didn't win the home run durby.  You're forgetting how valuable that can be to an organization's street rep.

 

I think the Cubs are right where they need to be.  No real FA's I would get excited about next year. Now 15 looks to be a time, unless guys some guys get locked up prior to that, where some good FA's will be avialable and we should see the core of young guys making it to the bigs.  They'll be fun to watch in 2015.  I'll just focus on Bulls Basketball and the Bears until then.

[1060Ivy]

All of the FA's you mentioned either came with huge question marks (Liriano, Nathan, Upton - who is terrible BTW) or were unproven (Darvish, Cespedes) aside from Fielder. And he came with his own concerns as a viable NL first baseman deep into his later contract years. We would have competed for a few years, and then still ended up a shitty organization. How would that have been different from the Hendry regime?

 

The difference to the Hendry regime would be the parallel focus on minor league system while adding FA talent when available.  We are not talking about trading away minor league talent to acquire MLB ready talent but a parallel focus on putting out a competitive MLB roster to limit the damage to the Cubs brand.  FA talent is becoming more and more scarce as expected with the new CBA so FO will needs to take larger risks - many of which will fail miserably in Cubs fashion - but simply relying on prospects and saying wait till 2015 or 2016, 2017 is not a viable strategy for a major revenue generating MLB team.  The strategy is viable for a small market team that can rely on revenue sharing to generate profits but this is the Chicago Cubs playing in a baseball cathedral and charging some of the highest prices for tickets in baseball - the organization can and should do better.

 

Regarding the FA mentioned, hindsight is 20/20.  Schierholtz, DeJesus, Gregg, Navarro have all provided great relative low risk/cost additions to the roster. Still expecting that Jackson will eat up innings for a few more years and should keep the Cubs in most games if Cubs can develop an average MLB worth offense.  

[Kid]

The strategy is viable for a small market team that can rely on revenue sharing to generate profits but this is the Chicago Cubs playing in a baseball cathedral and charging some of the highest prices for tickets in baseball - the organization can and should do better.

 

This is always what it comes back to.  You don't think you're getting your money's worth as a season ticket holder.  Well, it looks like 2014 is going to be more of the same, so I'd strongly recommend that you not renew your season tickets.  If you do renew, you've been forewarned, so you'll have no right to complain.

 

(The article is Sullivan for the Trib, but now you have to pay to access it on the Trib's website, so the link is to the Miami Herald's website.)

[jstraw]

<sarcasm>

If I were a season ticket holder, it would mean a lot to me to know that I had a 50% chance of attending a home victory by a non-contending team, as opposed to a 45% chance of attending a home victory by a non-contending team. The team should spend tens of millions on that goal.

</sarcasm>

 

Frankly, if I were Epstein, I'd want Boras and the rest to know that I was building a hell of a core and that as soon as I had a legitimate shot at contention, I had piles of money hoarded to spend. I'd want him to know there were opportunities to lose by locking his clients into long-term contracts too soon. I'd want my pile of cash to be a gravitational influence on the FA market. I'd want to, in concert with the Dodgers and Yankees, keep the FA market as healthy as possible.

 

Small market teams *still* won't have the resources to lock up their stars. I hope the Royals et al keep developing young talent.

[BT]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Andy" data-cid="208053" data-time="1376395323">
<div>
The Dodgers are 30 games over 500 since June 21.

 

Whatever happened to those guys citing the Dodgers early struggles as proof that spending cash in the free agent markets is not a prudent baseball move?  Spending cash of free agents never guarantees a winner, hello LA Angels, but it shouldn't impeded a team's ability to compete.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

You are going to be proven wrong on this. They are bad now, even with Trout making no money, and the Pujols and Hamilton money will impede them from competing going forward. Their minor league system is ranked even lower than the White Sox (in no small part due to signing free agents and losing draft picks). In all likelihood they are going to be bad for a long time, unless someone rescues them from those contracts.

 

Which brings me to the biggest problem I have with your approach. Yes, they could use the "parallel focus" plan in order to placate the fans, and they could win a few more games a year, but right now we wouldn't have Baez, Bryant or Almora as they were all top 10 draft picks. We'd have a bunch of mid round to late round picks. The difference in talent between a top 3 pick and a top 15 pick, in general, tends to be huge. To give that edge up because season ticket holders THINK they would rather see a 75 win team instead of a 65 win team is the very definition of asinine. In other words, go ask the Nationals if they think "parallel focus" would have been worth picking 5th or 6th the years Strasburg and Harper were available.

 

And please, don't even try to argue that somehow the Cubs would have magically picked the Puigs and Darvish's of the free agent world and competed for a championship, because it's far more likely we'd be sitting with the Pujols and Uptons of the world. Because we don't get to sign them with hindsight.