- Joined:
- Nov 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 25,055
- Liked Posts:
- 11,499
My favorite teams
Bloomberg Businessweek ranks #Blackhawks No. 1 for 2014 Smartest Spenders in Sports of 122 franchises in NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB. Cubs dead last.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,723
- Liked Posts:
- 3,723
The cubs are spenders?
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 9,995
- Liked Posts:
- 3,630
My favorite teams
Without an actual link, could you explain what their criteria was and how they assessed the Cubs?
- Joined:
- Nov 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 25,055
- Liked Posts:
- 11,499
My favorite teams
Yes.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,723
- Liked Posts:
- 3,723
- Joined:
- Nov 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 25,055
- Liked Posts:
- 11,499
My favorite teams
patg006
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 1,413
- Liked Posts:
- 986
- Location:
- Chicago
Behind even the Oilers. Now that is truly embarrassing.
How could the Cardinals be at #2 though?
According to all the apologists and slurpers, they never spend any money.
How could the Cardinals be at #2 though?
According to all the apologists and slurpers, they never spend any money.
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 9,995
- Liked Posts:
- 3,630
My favorite teams
Payroll versus wins? How many seasons? Was it perpetual? Nope. Thanks to Fisch posting a link, as I had asked, I saw exactly what was being compared. Ah, they also give extra weight to Championships, but you don't seem to grasp the difference between a playoff appearance and winning a championship.
Water is wet.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,723
- Liked Posts:
- 3,723
Looking at that site I'm not sure why it would be surprising the cubs are low. It's a 5 year range with the success metric being playoff/championship wins offset by payroll. So, that covers these years
2013: $106,837,810
2012: $109,316,000
2011: $134,004,000
2010: $144,359,000
2009: $134,809,000
The cubs over that time frame won 83, 75, 71, 61, and 66 games. First 3 years were the impact of the tribune running up salary to sell the team. 2012 was the impact of the Ricketts drastically cutting payroll. 2013 was that to some extent but they did add some minor pieces like Jackson(sigh). If anything it shows me how inefficient the 2010-2011 teams were compared to the 2012-2013 teams. $62.21 mil in those two season yielded 19 more wins or put another way spending another $31 per season added about 10 wins. Spending for wins tends to be logarithmic but even if you said it were linear to be a 85ish win team with the efficiency of the 2010-11 teams you'd have to spend upwards of $165-175 mil. That's not to say that the 2012-13 teams were particularly efficient either. I'm just pointing out the amount you're looking at to be "competitive."
2013: $106,837,810
2012: $109,316,000
2011: $134,004,000
2010: $144,359,000
2009: $134,809,000
The cubs over that time frame won 83, 75, 71, 61, and 66 games. First 3 years were the impact of the tribune running up salary to sell the team. 2012 was the impact of the Ricketts drastically cutting payroll. 2013 was that to some extent but they did add some minor pieces like Jackson(sigh). If anything it shows me how inefficient the 2010-2011 teams were compared to the 2012-2013 teams. $62.21 mil in those two season yielded 19 more wins or put another way spending another $31 per season added about 10 wins. Spending for wins tends to be logarithmic but even if you said it were linear to be a 85ish win team with the efficiency of the 2010-11 teams you'd have to spend upwards of $165-175 mil. That's not to say that the 2012-13 teams were particularly efficient either. I'm just pointing out the amount you're looking at to be "competitive."
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 9,995
- Liked Posts:
- 3,630
My favorite teams
In order to have a ranking there has to be a common frame of reference (in this case 5 years). The criteria isn't just "payroll/wins" to which you have laid claim.
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 9,995
- Liked Posts:
- 3,630
My favorite teams
Another strawman.
patg006
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 1,413
- Liked Posts:
- 986
- Location:
- Chicago
This point that people keep making is beyond dumb.
You don't attract buyers to your company by raising the cost of running the business to what is claimed as being an unsustainable level.
Idiots like you make it sound like if the Tribune hadn't raised payroll, no one would have been interested in buying the team. The team would still have had plenty of buyers interested in it and would have sold for just as much as it did. If anything, a high payroll would lower the sale price. You don't increase the value of a franchise by increasing costs.
Holy shit are people dumb here.
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 9,995
- Liked Posts:
- 3,630
My favorite teams
I know what that word means, Inigo. What it means is that you misrepresent an argument so that you can win the fake position you created.
- Joined:
- Oct 18, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,077
- Liked Posts:
- 580
- Location:
- The open road
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 9,995
- Liked Posts:
- 3,630
My favorite teams
There was one time at banned camp.
patg006
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 1,413
- Liked Posts:
- 986
- Location:
- Chicago
I just can't get over how dumb and wrong this opinion is that so many people have.
The people who keep claiming that the Tribune ran up payroll and increased spending to make the franchise more valuable and attractive to buyers are the very same ones who cry and whine how those very same contracts were 'albatross contracts' and have handcuffed and prevented the franchise from moving forward.
Really??
If those contracts made the team more valuable and attractive to buyers they would not then be 'albatross contracts' that handcuffed the team and held back the new owners from making progress.
If the contracts indeed were 'albatross contracts' that prevented the team from moving forward and making progress, it would not make the team more valuable and attractive to buyers.
It can't be both.
The increase in payroll simply could not have increased the value of the franchise and made it more appealing to buyers and at the same time handcuffed the organization from moving forward and making progress.
Yet the slurpers, full of agenda, will tell you that it did both.
Sunbiz1
New member
- Joined:
- May 6, 2010
- Posts:
- 6,543
- Liked Posts:
- 1,718
The Tribune overspent so as to gain a favorable outcome during their chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.
Potential buyers had very little to do with the process.
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 9,995
- Liked Posts:
- 3,630
My favorite teams
Not any longer, Rory.
diavolos
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 3, 2014
- Posts:
- 199
- Liked Posts:
- 114
- Location:
- East Village of West Town, Chicago
hilarious list. god, the cubs are even worse than the lions. you know you're bad then!
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 9,995
- Liked Posts:
- 3,630
My favorite teams
No. What it means, Rory, is that I'm just kind of done with your poor attitude and trolling efforts. Find someone else willing to waste their time going back and forth with on trivial BS.
Members online NOW
- Member
- Admin
- Mod
- Donor
- HOF
- 94SupraTT
- alswank87
- bamainatlanta
- BearDown88
- Beast15
- Big Tyme D
- cameronkrazie86
- Chicago Staleys
- ChicagoBearsSinceBirth
- Collins77
- CTA_employee9
- cuttysark
- didshereallysaythat
- eddieb
- Forty-six
- hojkin
- IBleedBearsBlood
- Iwritecode
- KoreanBear
- Les Grossman
- Marley's Liberality
- mattb78
- msadows
- Noonthirtyjoe
- policeman
- RiDLer80
- ruprecht
- Thomas31
- Toast88
- Urblock
- vabearsfan15
- ViggyStargdust
- Warbird199
- wonky73
- WookieOnRitalin
- ytsejam
Staff online NOW
-
bamainatlantaYou wake him up, you keep him up
