Author Topic: Cubs in '11  (Read 57317 times)

Eastcoastfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1470 on: June 15, 2011, 06:21:27 pm »
Yes, why should he adopt the structure that other organizations have adopted to, you know, win more baseball games?  I think that the idea should be ridiculed just like he did.  The Cubs clearly know better than other teams.

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27253
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1471 on: June 15, 2011, 08:48:27 pm »
That's just flat out depressing.  Even the national media is saying that the damage is overwhelming.  Sigh.

Cowherd interviewed Chub Feeney today.  He explained why baseball doesn't want Mark Cuban type owners.  Yeah, someone like Cuban with the Cub resources would scare shiite out of the other owners.

StrikeZone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4025
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1472 on: June 15, 2011, 09:49:14 pm »
That's just flat out depressing.  Even the national media is saying that the damage is overwhelming.  Sigh.

Depressing isn't the right word anymore.  What's worse than depressing?

Other than "Cubs," I mean.

JR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13654
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1473 on: June 15, 2011, 10:09:00 pm »
Quote
Ricketts said he has "never bought into, 'I should have a baseball guy to watch my baseball guy and his baseball guys.' Then what do you get, a baseball guy to watch the baseball guy who's watching your baseball guys?"

Yes, why should he adopt the structure that other organizations have adopted to, you know, win more baseball games?  I think that the idea should be ridiculed just like he did.  The Cubs clearly know better than other teams.

I have to admit I still think the whole idea of hiring a "baseball" guy as president or to oversee the GM is a little overblown.  Yeah there are a few good organizations who do that (I guess the Braves, Rangers, Angels, and Marlins are the only four that come to mind?), but there are a lot of really good organizations that don't (Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Phillies, Cardinals, etc.). 

Not to say it's an easy thing to hire a smart GM, but I still don't think it takes a baseball insider to identify one.  Ownership needs to have a good idea what it's looking for in a GM, and a lot of the things Ricketts has said he thinks are important to having a winning organization are just about all the things I agree with - farm system development, scouting, understanding statistics, etc.  If he sticks to those ideas when searching for a new GM, he should be able to identify some very promising candidates with or without the aid of a Pat Gillick or John Schuerholz.  There will be plenty of promising candidates who will be knocking on the Cubs' door who are strong in all of those areas.

I guess it's still a little disappointing to read he has "100% confidence" in Jim Hendry.  Still, it will be interesting to see if he still feels that way in September when we're staring in the face of a 90+ loss season. 

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27253
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1474 on: June 15, 2011, 10:18:08 pm »
Losses smoshes.  Wait until he sees how much revenue from ticket sales and concessions has dropped off.

JR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13654
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1475 on: June 15, 2011, 10:41:23 pm »
Boring presidential candidate . . .



Boring baseball owner . . .



JR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13654
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1476 on: June 15, 2011, 10:45:10 pm »
OK here's a more bothersome Ricketts quote . . .

Quote
“We do have a lot of money coming off the books,” Ricketts said when asked about spending on player payroll. “Whether or not that goes back into a large free-agent contract will be Jim’s decision.”

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110615/sports/706159712/
« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 10:51:58 pm by JR »

StrikeZone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4025
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1477 on: June 15, 2011, 10:47:59 pm »
That quote is going to launch a ton of columns, especially with the Yankees visiting Wrigley this weekend.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1478 on: June 15, 2011, 11:04:41 pm »
“We do have a lot of money coming off the books,” Ricketts said when asked about spending on player payroll. “Whether or not that goes back into a large free-agent contract will be Jim’s decision.”

That's too bad.  If that money goes into a big FA contract, it will only delay the time this becomes a strong club for any sustained period.

Cubsin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
  • Location: O'Fallon, IL
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1479 on: June 16, 2011, 12:01:59 am »
I hate to agree with Jes, but I really don't want the Cubs to sink a big chunk of their available funds on a large free-agent contract to Pujols or Fielder this winter. I don't expect the Cubs to be serious contenders in 2012 or 2013, and I don't see either one of them earning their money after that. Spend the money on prospects, better major and minor league coaches and managers, and revenue enhancers at Wrigley.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1480 on: June 16, 2011, 01:46:38 am »
I don't think there is a chance they even talk seriously to Pujols.  they may take a run at Fielder. 

Eastcoastfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1481 on: June 16, 2011, 06:28:47 am »
I think you are right, JR, about the necessity of a baseball president.  What I didn't like was the tone of the answer, which basically ridiculed the notion of a different approach.  I would like to think that TR is open-minded about different approaches than the one his management team is taking, given what is unfolding on the field. 

Ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8430
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1482 on: June 16, 2011, 07:19:37 am »
On the one hand, it's understandable that an owner doesn't want to publicly undermine either the executive leadership of the team or the manager less than 1/2 way through a season.  And given the fact that both Quade and Hendry have praised the players' efforts, it's understandable that he doesn't want to criticize the players.

On the other hand, the Cubs are 13 games under .500.  If the Cubs continue as they have this season, it will be the third straight year in which the Cubs have gotten worse.  Meanwhile the Nationals,  who had to nearly start over as a franchise and to overcome Jim Bowden's leadership to boot, now are 4 games under .500 even though their best position player has been out for most of the year and their best pitcher is out for the entire season. 

One would hope that at some point in the relatively near future, at least once the season is over, there would be some rationale provided for why people should believe that 2012 and beyond will be better, not worse.  But I'm not counting on that happening.

At some point accountability should require someone to be held responsible.  The obvious candidate is Jim Hendry.   
« Last Edit: June 16, 2011, 07:22:38 am by Ron »

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27253
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1483 on: June 16, 2011, 07:52:31 am »
TR also seems not to understand that baseball is also a business and there may come a time that there must be a sacrifice someone to the anger and disgruntlement of the fans and supporters.  No, that's not fair, but it's life.  Even if Hendry had no hand in the current mess, if revenues nosedive, someone may have to walk the plank.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #1484 on: June 16, 2011, 08:07:36 am »
TR also seems not to understand that baseball is also a business....

That may be because to him it really is not a business.  The Cubs are his personal play toy.


Even if Hendry had no hand in the current mess, if revenues nosedive, someone may have to walk the plank.

Lower revenue would not even be the test if the Cubs were being operated strictly as a business.  The goal would not be to maximize revenue, but to maximize profit, the difference between revenues and expenses.  If revenues fall sharply, but expenses fall by even more, profits increase.  But beyond that, TR does not have to fire anyone because revenues or profits fall.  That might make sense if the Cubs were a publicly owned business, accountable to shareholders, but the Cubs are now a privately owned business, accountable only to the Ricketts family.  There is no requirement that they make any GM move to satisfy upset fans.