Small Market Cubs?????

[daddies3angels]

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tt7HjIernphaSrv4wMWdUYg&output=html

Catcher - 600K Castillo

1B - 1.6 mil Rizzo

2B- 1.5 mil MAX Barney

3B- 1.5 mil MAX Valbuena

SS- 6 mil Castro

LF- 500K Lake

CF- 500K Bogu

RF- 3.5 mil Nate

Everday lineup projected payroll 15.7 mil

Backup C- ??? 1 mil MAX

UTI IF Murphy- 900K

UTI IF Watckins - 500K

4th OF- ??? 1 mil MAX

5th OF-???? 1 mil MAX

5 mil for bench

SP 1 - 2 mil Wood

SP 2- 5 mil Shark

SP 3- 13 mil Jackson

SP 4- 1.5 mil Arrieta

SP 5- 500K Russin

22 mil for SP

CL - 1.5 mil Strop

SU- 1.8 mil Russell

SU- 1.5 mil Bard

RP- 5 mil Villinueava

RP- 4.5 mil Fujikwa

RP- 500K Rondon

RP- 500K Cabrera

RP- 500K Lim

15.8 mil for RP

As of roster constructed now these are the payroll of the 25 man roster for next yr. Yes there will be some moves but Cubs have already said dont expect any big FA.

21 Mil for Position players

38 mil for Pitchers


A whopping 59 mil on the roster set for next yr. Clearly Cubs are not even acting like Medium Market. They are acting like a small market team while charging Highest NL Ticket prices in baseball. Ricketts has ruin this franchise! He bought something he could not afford and now has to cut corners on the MLB team to help pay his debt. Very sad that a Big Market team like Chicago has to go through this. Baseball revenue is greater then it has ever been and teams are spending more then ever then you have the Cubs who are top 3 Market in baseball acting like bottom 3 market. I dont blame Theo for what going on cause clearly he not getting enough funds like he should be. Ricketts is the only person to blame for the last 2 + yrs. As an owner for 4+ yrs now Cubs have been over .500 for 5 days. 3 of those days were OPENING DAY!! He a very smart business man but a piss ass Baseball owner

 

[waldo7239117]

Yeah I'm not gunna get into this again....

 

[nwfisch]

Yes :clap:

 

[theberserkfury]

I think it's a safe assumption that the opening day payroll will be substantially higher than $59 million...

 

[daddies3angels]

I think it's a safe assumption that the opening day payroll will be substantially higher than $59 million...

See the problem is that this is just the 25 man roster payroll. Cubs are paying Sori 14 mil, Soler, 1.5 mil Concecpion 1.2 mil. So Cubs will say that that still counts against payroll which is bullcrap. So yes will add some guys this offseason but they will be low buys again which puts no talent around Rizzo and Castro to help them.

 

[Jntg4]

Daddies, why shouldn't the money we are paying Soriano and minor leaguers who are on major league contracts count?

Is Ricketts cheap for having to pay other players who are not even playing for us in the majors? Spending money is cheap?

And it isn't like the Cubs aren't going to make a single move right now, but I wouldn't advocate signing someone just to make the payroll figures higher either.

 

[waldo7239117]

The Cubs will be in on Tanaka and in the market for a left-handed hitting OF. They have the money for the right player.

 

[chibears55]

cubs payroll is low because they have a roster intentionally filled with young players..

their not trying to be a low market team, they set out to rid of their high contract veteran players and rebuild their system while trying to establish a core of young long term talent.. ( castro, rizzo, castillo, etc )..

in the next 2-3 years you will see the payroll go up to a reasonable amount as they start adding top FAs to fill out positional needs..

 

[Bear Pride]

cubs payroll is low because they have a roster intentionally filled with young players..

their not trying to be a low market team, they set out to rid of their high contract veteran players and rebuild their system while trying to establish a core of young long term talent.. ( castro, rizzo, castillo, etc )..

in the next 2-3 years you will see the payroll go up to a reasonable amount as they start adding top FAs to fill out positional needs..

Exactly, WTF don't people understand about a rebuilding process??? The Cubs have done exactly WTF they said they were gonna do. They've rebuilt the farm system to be one of the finest in the MLB. They've dumped all the BS contracts.

The fact that we're now looking to hire our 'real' manager of the future should tell you that the Cubs are coming to the end of the building process. Once the new manager is in place, they will have plenty of money to sign FA pitching and whatever else they want to mix with their new young stars.

We all bitched about how the Cubs went about their Business for years. Now they're finally building a winner the 'right' way, and the morons want to bitch?!?

 

[Chris J]

Because people on here( YES FISCH THIS IS YOU) will never be happy. Seriously, where did signing free agents and not building a farms system get us? Three playoff appearances in 10 years? One playoffs series win?

So why not let have the Cubs take a different approach? Money doesnt buy you championships. If someone doesnt understand that yet then you just lack baseball knowledge. The Rays built a farm system and dont spend big money... where is that gotten them... o yea thats right they are consistently in the playoffs.

Now if the Cubs follow the Rays they will be prime because they can actually afford to keep players.

If the Rays have money they would be insanely good with Garza Price Shields Longo Crawford Upton.

If you think the Cubs are doing it wrong(FISCH) then lets see your fucking brilliant plan to change things.

 

[beckdawg]

What I don't get is why so many champion the idea of spending loads of money in FA. If you have to spend in FA every year that really says something about your teams GM and his ability to draft and trade. Theoretically, you should be able to field a strong major league team with draft picks alone. Now, I'm not oblivious, that just doesn't really happen. Every team will have some missing gaps that they need to fill in. I just think if you're having to fill major players then there is a larger symptom at work here. For example, when the cubs went out and signed Soriano it didn't fix the fact that they had a lot of other issues. It just delayed the problem surfacing.

My problem is the fact that FA is a crutch and they usually aren't even a good bet. I'd much rather see a front office that drafts well and uses those picks to make quality trades rather than spending lots of money in FA. Additionally, I hate FA because it is the reason games are so expensive to go to. I guess what I'm saying is why is it a bad thing the cubs are acting like a small market team? The cardinals and rays have consistently proven you don't need much more than $100 mil to win.

Who's to say they can't take the same approach toward prospects but instead of having to let them walk they can afford to sign them long term. For example, let's say the rays had the money to re-sign some of their players. Would they not be arguably the best team in the AL? When things go bad for those teams they are down 1-2 years. When things have gone bad for high spending teams like the Mets and Cubs it is 4-5 years of rebuilding.

 

[SilenceS]

Not small market but def. mid market with large market prices. That cant be debated. As for signing players, eh, there is a case for both ways. Until the record reflects what they have done, no one is wrong.

 

[SilenceS]

What I don't get is why so many champion the idea of spending loads of money in FA. If you have to spend in FA every year that really says something about your teams GM and his ability to draft and trade. Theoretically, you should be able to field a strong major league team with draft picks alone. Now, I'm not oblivious, that just doesn't really happen. Every team will have some missing gaps that they need to fill in. I just think if you're having to fill major players then there is a larger symptom at work here. For example, when the cubs went out and signed Soriano it didn't fix the fact that they had a lot of other issues. It just delayed the problem surfacing.

My problem is the fact that FA is a crutch and they usually aren't even a good bet. I'd much rather see a front office that drafts well and uses those picks to make quality trades rather than spending lots of money in FA. Additionally, I hate FA because it is the reason games are so expensive to go to. I guess what I'm saying is why is it a bad thing the cubs are acting like a small market team? The cardinals and rays have consistently proven you don't need much more than $100 mil to win.

Who's to say they can't take the same approach toward prospects but instead of having to let them walk they can afford to sign them long term. For example, let's say the rays had the money to re-sign some of their players. Would they not be arguably the best team in the AL? When things go bad for those teams they are down 1-2 years. When things have gone bad for high spending teams like the Mets and Cubs it is 4-5 years of rebuilding.

So, Im not sure if it is you. But, don't most on here say making the playoffs is not enough? That's all the Rays do because they don't have the money to add pieces or pick up pieces that they are lacking in the off season. They just send them on their way or trade them and that's exactly why they haven't won. Cardinals are a different beast. They are the only franchise that stays high mid market and continually wins.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Does Cuban still want the team? We let the capitalists pretend they were Cubs fans, and convince us they were better than pure money burning holes in Cubans pockets.

stupid

 

[beckdawg]

So, Im not sure if it is you. But, don't most on here say making the playoffs is not enough? That's all the Rays do because they don't have the money to add pieces or pick up pieces that they are lacking in the off season. They just send them on their way or trade them and that's exactly why they haven't won. Cardinals are a different beast. They are the only franchise that stays high mid market and continually wins.

The Rays did make a world series. As for not being enough, you gotta make the playoffs to win a title so it's a start. Perhaps if they make the playoffs for 4-5 years straight and can't get over the hump I might change my opinion. But, if the Rays still had Crawford and Garza I'd have to believe they have a legit shot to win a title.

 

[patg006]

Because people on here( YES FISCH THIS IS YOU) will never be happy. Seriously, where did signing free agents and not building a farms system get us? Three playoff appearances in 10 years? One playoffs series win?

So why not let have the Cubs take a different approach? Money doesnt buy you championships. If someone doesnt understand that yet then you just lack baseball knowledge. The Rays built a farm system and dont spend big money... where is that gotten them... o yea thats right they are consistently in the playoffs.

Now if the Cubs follow the Rays they will be prime because they can actually afford to keep players.

If the Rays have money they would be insanely good with Garza Price Shields Longo Crawford Upton.

If you think the Cubs are doing it wrong(FISCH) then lets see your fucking brilliant plan to change things.

And I'M the one who gets banned for content detrimental to the boards.......yet this dumbass is allowed to post. Love the logic, which is why I'm back for a short time as I expect to get banned for rattling the :fap: squadron's cages and scaring them sideways.....someone has to fact check around here......and it ain't the mods.

Free agents and no farms got the cubs to 3 playoff appearances. But the cubs gave a shit enough to try. So with Derrek Lee and Aramis locked up back in 2005 prior to the DeRosa, Sori, Lilly signing, the cubs should have tanked for prospects? Sounds like a Chris J/Waldo special retards can only dream about. Maybe the cubs should have kept Bobby Hill, Hee Seop Choi and Sergio Mitre?

The rays had to suck for a decade to get to the playoffs.....and if the board's "expert" writer knew what the fuck he was talking about, he'd know Delmon Young got traded for Matt Garza in a 2008 deal that also landed Jason Bartlett in Tampa while Young and 2 no namers went to the Twins, not that the Rays somehow had Garza and developed him into the player he is now.....

BJ Upton would make the Rays insanely good? Do your homework you idiot. Funny, I'd figure you'd be :fap: so hard to the Myers/Shields deal......

The cubs better not follow the rays. From 1996-06 Josh Hamilton (who quit then returned after rehab years later), Rocco Baldelli (retired at 27 with a mitochondrial disorder) and Longoria were the only three worth noting. Drew Brazelton? Jeff Niemann? Paul Wilder? Jason Stantenridge? Wade Townsend? Where are all these invaluable 1st round picks now? You still live in 'fairy tale land' where prospects never fail......

The cubs are doing it wrong, but there's nothing I can do but speculate. I think they should be all in on Tanaka, Eric Chavez (again), Mike Morse, Bryan McCann, Justin Frasor, and Kyle McClellan.

Of course, I expect Phil Hughes on a bullshit deal where we see how terribly average he is and Corey Hart on the basis that he can hit LHP, but will be cheap due to his status of being out the last year.

Reality hasn't changed, and neither has the opinion that Theo and his administration can do no wrong.....

 

[SilenceS]

The Rays did make a world series. As for not being enough, you gotta make the playoffs to win a title so it's a start. Perhaps if they make the playoffs for 4-5 years straight and can't get over the hump I might change my opinion. But, if the Rays still had Crawford and Garza I'd have to believe they have a legit shot to win a title.

But, they cant is the point. They have made the playoffs 4 out of 6 years since 2008. They cant finish it because they cant acquire or pay for the pieces they need. Eventually, the well is going to run dry. You are not going to be able to sustain a farm for 10 plus years and just keep plugging them in. If they kept some of there players, sure they probably would have had a better shot at winning. But, they cant and don't. Moneyball goes so far. A's are another example. High mid market to large markets sustain success. The Cubs are in that category and thus, if done right, should not fail.

 

[beckdawg]

But, they cant is the point. They have made the playoffs 4 out of 6 years since 2008. They cant finish it because they cant acquire or pay for the pieces they need. Eventually, the well is going to run dry. You are not going to be able to sustain a farm for 10 plus years and just keep plugging them in. If they kept some of there players, sure they probably would have had a better shot at winning. But, they cant and don't. Moneyball goes so far. A's are another example. High mid market to large markets sustain success. The Cubs are in that category and thus, if done right, should not fail.

I was referring to my assertion that the cubs could follow their plan and re-sign their guys not the rays specifically. If the cubs were to follow that sort of plan and get stuck maybe I would change my opinion on bringing in an impact player. But like you suggested with the cardinals, I really feel if you develop players like that and then can afford to keep them longer term that you have a legit shot to win most years.

 

[CSF77]

Nice to see you back even for a little while Pat.

On the premise of the thread:

Peeps need to fact check more vs bitch about it.

http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2013/4/30/4285684/cubs-wgn-television-rights-fees

A couple of days ago, Yahoo's Jeff Passan summed up the current state of local baseball TV rights deals and looked at what some teams have either done recently with new deals, or might be looking for in the near future.

This, though, ought to give the Cubs pause regarding some of the big-dollar TV-rights contracts that have recently been signed, quoting an executive who has been in on some of those negotiations:

"It's not just local. It's national," the executive said. "The amount of rights being paid are getting passed to consumers. I'm worried there is going to be a bubble. It seems like there's a lot of money going out. We don't want to be dependent on the bulk of our revenue coming through local rights-fee deals."
This is the dilemma for the Cubs. They need more revenue. Teams have been raking in the big bucks over the last couple of years. But will that rights-fee bubble burst before the Cubs can get in on it?

Here's Passan's take on the Cubs' current rights-fee situation:

Already one of the game's financial giants – they made a major league-high $32.1 million last season, according to Forbes' annual valuations – they're about to get the double boost of a stadium renovation and new TV contract.

Updating Wrigley Field is the bigger-impact move, as only a portion of the Cubs' TV deal expires following the 2O14 season. It's the iconic part, of course – WGN, the last of the superstations broadcasting baseball – and the one baseball business is almost certainly going to leave behind.

WGN will televise 67 Cubs games this season. One analyst believes that package is worth at least $8O million a year to Fox or Comcast – and that could be on the low end. Another possibility: Comcast, which owns the rest of the Cubs' broadcast rights through 2O19, rips up that contract and renegotiates a megadeal somewhere in the $2OO million-a-year range in hopes that it will be the network that finally gets to broadcast the Cubs the season in which they win the World Series.

Or the Cubs could sign a short-term deal for its outstanding games, spend the next five years drawing up plans for its own RSN ...
$80 million a year for 67 games would be about $1.2 million per game, far more than the (approximately) $400,000 per game that WGN now pays, but less than the $1.6 million per game that the Dodgers are getting from their new deal. That doesn't sound too far off, though maybe $1 million a game would be a little closer to reality. Remember the "bubble" -- the economy is still not hitting on all cylinders and with many people migrating away from cable and satellite, do RSNs really have this kind of money? Does WGN? Would it be worth it to WGN to sign up with an $80-million-a-year contract?

Passan says baseball is going to "leave the superstation business behind" and he's probably right. But then there's the "iconic" part of it; WGN has broadcast Cubs games for longer than any other local station in baseball history. It's been a synergistic relationship that far predates Tribune Company's ownership of the team; I've written here before about the fact that WGN's superstation coverage of the Cubs is one of the reasons for the team's national fanbase. You can keep that fanbase if you win, but right now, the Cubs aren't in that position. I believe that Cubs baseball on WGN and WGN America gives the channel an identity it wouldn't otherwise have.

Passan further writes that Wrigley renovations are the "bigger-impact move", but in the short term, especially with those renovations not yet approved nor started, a long-term contract renewal signed by WGN for somewhere close to that $80-million-a-year figure is probably the best for both the station and the team. It will help them be competitive in the short run -- even half of that $80 million added to the baseball budget would be a huge boost -- and help keep the fanbase engaged in the long run.

 

[CSF77]

So right now they are making 400k per game on WGN vs 1.6 mil per game the Dodgers are getting.

Do the math and that is a big reason why they are not running a big market payroll.

Add to it they are starting a major park over haul and those fees/payments etc are being paid by ownership.

They are still in debt from the purchase.

Then add taxes.

They turned 32 mil profit in 2012 but that 32 mil came from reducing payroll not on the park generating more.