Posts: 2,911
Threads: 67
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
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 was aware that the the Cubs payroll was bloated with overpaid unproductive veterans and that there was no quick fix to get us out of the mess. Theo backed that up in his first press conference saying that patience would be necessary and that the team would get worse before it got better.
Quote: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%
I agree with you, in principal. The problem is that there aren't any players available on the free agent markets that meet this definition. All of the top players have serious question marks and are getting long term deals at a significant rate. I don't think risk/reward ratio is where it needs to be, especially since we still wouldn't be competing for a pennant with the addition.
Quote: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.
I've thought about this myself. And I'm sure Ricketts has as well. I think the WGN deal runs through the 2014 season and the Comcast deal goes through 2018. Depending on when negotiations take place, the season that's most important would be 2014 and beyond, not 2013.
I'd like to see this team add an Edwin Jackson or Anibal Sanchez to the mix. Both are a #3 IMO, and I don't think they're worth $60-80M over 4-5 years like they're rumored to receive. One mistake like that could hamper the franchise for years to come. See Alfonso Soriano, see Alex Rodriguez, etc. Speaking of the Yankees, even they are significantly cutting payroll because years of poor decisions have put them in a postion where they have overpaid, underperforming veterans that are limiting money that could be spent on younger talent.
Patience, Daniel-sahn.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
[quote name='1060Ivy' timestamp='1354826235' post='200029']
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354801833' post='200005']
Everything that the organization has done is the complete opposite of shortsighted. If their goal is to just win 70-80 games by signing mediocre high price FAs then that's a different story, and harkens back to the. 1980-1990s Cubs.
[/quote]
The shortsighted comment is in regards to TV revenue opportunity which is seen as the most significant revenue stream in sports.
Cubs are putting together one of the least talented teams on the field, tanking seasons, just as TV revenues are expected to explode. Without the full shackles of the Tribune media umbrella directing Cubs to undervalue TV contract, Cubs may miss the boat as ratings will suffer due to 100 loss season(s) and value of contract decreases. Other teams will gain or enhance their revenue advantage over the Cubs making it even more difficult for the Cubs to attract free agents or retain existing talent.
[/quote]
You aren't honestly suggesting that Jeff Keppinger is going to influence cable deals are you? By the time these deals are due, guys like Keppinger, Blanton and Haren are going to be non-issues. The sell off of guys who are not going to help us makes perfect sense. Not signing middle aged, mediocre talent makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why this has you up in arms so much. If spending 80 million on BJ Upton is the deciding factor for you on whether or not you are coming out to the park, well that's your prerogative, but what they are doing right now is exactly what they said they would do. It might not work, but it's logical.
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: 3,710
Threads: 119
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
[quote name='BT' timestamp='1354828183' post='200033']
[quote name='1060Ivy' timestamp='1354826235' post='200029']
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354801833' post='200005']
Everything that the organization has done is the complete opposite of shortsighted. If their goal is to just win 70-80 games by signing mediocre high price FAs then that's a different story, and harkens back to the. 1980-1990s Cubs.
[/quote]
The shortsighted comment is in regards to TV revenue opportunity which is seen as the most significant revenue stream in sports.
Cubs are putting together one of the least talented teams on the field, tanking seasons, just as TV revenues are expected to explode. Without the full shackles of the Tribune media umbrella directing Cubs to undervalue TV contract, Cubs may miss the boat as ratings will suffer due to 100 loss season(s) and value of contract decreases. Other teams will gain or enhance their revenue advantage over the Cubs making it even more difficult for the Cubs to attract free agents or retain existing talent.
[/quote]
You aren't honestly suggesting that Jeff Keppinger is going to influence cable deals are you? By the time these deals are due, guys like Keppinger, Blanton and Haren are going to be non-issues. The sell off of guys who are not going to help us makes perfect sense. Not signing middle aged, mediocre talent makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why this has you up in arms so much. If spending 80 million on BJ Upton is the deciding factor for you on whether or not you are coming out to the park, well that's your prerogative, but what they are doing right now is exactly what they said they would do. It might not work, but it's logical.
[/quote]
That's exactly what I'm pointing out. Keppinger would add at least another $700 - $850 MM to future cable deals alone!
Cubs need to continue putting pieces into place so they can be competitive and bring back viewers and fans. Thought I read that Cubs TV ratings have been trending down since 2008. Recall that ratings were down 11% from previous year in July and at that time the White Sox were getting better TV ratings than the Cubs - probably a blip as Sox made a strong run last year.
The free agency path will be expensive and mistakes will be made but Cubs have the cash to selectively spend on free agents while developing prospects. It will take multiple seasons until the Cubs return to being mediocre even if they begin spending on marquee free agents but it will most likely take several season longer without beginning to spend.
Regarding the Yankees, the changes to the luxury tax are as much an issue for the Yankees cutting payroll as under performance. Cubs are a dozen mediocre free agent signings from being concerned with the luxury tax. It should be interesting to see teams react to the Dodgers spending and performance.
Posts: 14,118
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
What Coldneck and BT said. The FAs from this offseason won't dictate the $ amount of our next TV contract. The Cubs fanbase is still a national one, still top 4-5. Cable channels don't look at 2-3 year comps, otherwise a team like the Padres or DBags would never have received tremendous new deals for low ratings (which they have), which haven't suffered through even with bad teams. I believe the Sox ratings were only briefly above those of the Cubs, but for the full season, we still trounced them. The long-term trend is still in our favor.
Posts: 80
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
0
Phillies get their cheap CF; wonder if they're going to make a run at Hamilton now.
The Cubs payroll is going to be $75 million this year. There's no reason they can't spend up to $100 million and bring in some average stopgaps on 3- or 4-year deals to make the team somewhat watchable while the minor league system develops. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
Strictly my opinion, but Dallas Green had the team on the right track. He got some fairly decent veterans while developing the farm at the same time. I'd take that again in a heartbeat over the current course. The 80s weren't that bad.
Posts: 5,185
Threads: 174
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
[quote name='MickKelleherWasMyHero' timestamp='1354839196' post='200044']
Phillies get their cheap CF; wonder if they're going to make a run at Hamilton now.
The Cubs payroll is going to be $75 million this year. There's no reason they can't spend up to $100 million and bring in some average stopgaps on 3- or 4-year deals to make the team somewhat watchable while the minor league system develops. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
Strictly my opinion, but Dallas Green had the team on the right track. He got some fairly decent veterans while developing the farm at the same time. I'd take that again in a heartbeat over the current course. The 80s weren't that bad.
[/quote]
It helps when HOF players sign blank contracts.
This is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena. ![[Image: ITgoyeg.png]](http://i.imgur.com/ITgoyeg.png)
Posts: 80
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
0
Dawson wasn't the only reason the cubs were successful in 89. The core had been put in place by Green while trying to put a decent product on the field.
Posts: 3,165
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
Who could forget the dynasty of winning the Cubs had in the 80s?
One dick can poke an eye out. A hundred dicks can move mountains.
--Veryzer
Posts: 14,118
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
[quote name='VanSlawAndCottoCheese' timestamp='1354843985' post='200047']
Who could forget the dynasty of winning the Cubs had in the 80s?
[/quote]
Of course, that winning tradition is what reeled me in.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
[quote name='VanSlawAndCottoCheese' timestamp='1354843985' post='200047']
Who could forget the dynasty of winning the Cubs had in the 80s?
[/quote]
To be fair, Green was fired before he could really implement what he was trying to do. He was heads and tails more competent than anyone we had until Hendry, and Hendry's competence can be debated (and has been) ad naseum.
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: 14,118
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
I thought Green was brilliant. Too bad the Trib didn't care about winning as much as he did.
Posts: 2,806
Threads: 110
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
There isn't one FA this offseason that would get me excited or that I would want the Cubs to spend big on. The one that comes the closest is Grienke, but he's about to get the richest deal any pitcher EVER has seen. So no. Stay the course.
"I'm not sure I know what ball cheese or crotch rot is, exactly -- or if there is a difference between the two. Don't post photos, please..."
- Butcher
Posts: 45
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation:
0
[quote name='PcB' timestamp='1354848974' post='200054']
There isn't one FA this offseason that would get me excited or that I would want the Cubs to spend big on. The one that comes the closest is Grienke, but he's about to get the richest deal any pitcher EVER has seen. So no. Stay the course.
[/quote]
Depending on the price tag, I would love to see Justin Upton rebound from that shitty season in cubbie stripes.
"The big dog walks late." - PcB
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
I think that Ivy's point is that if your negotiating a big tv contract and everyone is operating on the belief that they're investing on a team that will be more watched down the road than it is now, it's still better to be selling the rights to broadcast an 85 win team than a 70 win team. And a really, really horrible team will get a crappier deal than a team that's simply not making the playoffs but that are at least mediocre and watchable.It's fine to say they can't contend till 2015 but if you decide that means you field garbage till then, garbage is what you have to peddle to television networks. Saving 10s of millions to lose hundreds of millions is a bad idea.
Posts: 14,118
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354861221' post='200064']
I think that Ivy's point is that if your negotiating a big tv contract and everyone is operating on the belief that they're investing on a team that will be more watched down the road than it is now, it's still better to be selling the rights to broadcast an 85 win team than a 70 win team. And a really, really horrible team will get a crappier deal than a team that's simply not making the playoffs but that are at least mediocre and watchable.It's fine to say they can't contend till 2015 but if you decide that means you field garbage till then, garbage is what you have to peddle to television networks. Saving 10s of millions to lose hundreds of millions is a bad idea.
[/quote]
TV deals are long-term. Cable networks don't look strictly at short-term comps to project out revenues for 10-20 year deals. It's hard enough to predict if a team can be competitive on a year-by-year basis, let alone a decade down the road. As I said, if short-term thinking drove TV deals, the Padres never would have gotten such a great new deal. I doubt they even have a fraction of our viewership and national following, and both teams haven't exactly been chasing pennants as of late. They got a great deal. I suspect ours will blow theirs out of the water.
|
