Bleacher Bums Forum

Blue, I think that's maybe kind vague?  My hypothesis is that Ricketts possibly provides only two operational constraints: 
1.  Don't do an extended, multi-year full-out tank.   
2.  Limit spending.  ~$50 more than Cardinals, $100-150 more than Brewers-Reds-Pirates. 

I hypothesize that the don't-tank constraint may have limited Hoyer post-Darvish.  But that it's irrelevant now, given the Cubs current status.  No new boss will want to commit to a total-tank now anyway. 

My guess is that really the budget cap is really the only meaningful operating contraint Hoyer or his replacement will face.  A meaningful operating constraint, yes.  Still, the ≥$114 budget advantage Hoyer had over the Reds-Brewers-Pirates this year is significantly larger than the budget advantage the Yankees, Mets, or Dodgers had over the Cubs this year.   And with a $59 advantage over the Cardinals, that's not trivial either.  Only the Yankeees and Mets had more advantage than that over Hoyer's Cubs this season. 

Other than the budget, I don't imagine Ricketts is really constraining Hoyer's allocation of his budget.  I suspect Hoyer has been given full latitude as to how he allocates. 
1.  Short-term vs long-term deals, Hoyer's call.  Doubt Ricketts mandates that.. 
2.  Big deals vs spread-it-around, Hoyer's call.  Doubt Ricketts is requiring spread-it-around.
3.  No signing of relievers worthy of 3-year deals, Hoyer's call. 

If Hoyer gets replaced, I assume the next boss will have latitude to spend as he sees fit.  Shouldn't take an exceptional guy to get us consistently around the top of the division, given the magnitude of the budget advantage Hoyer has had to work with. 

Another way of putting it is when the ceiling for the off season seems to be going out and signing a guy who is going into his age 31 season and has 1 fWAR season above 4 that isn’t great.  Max Fried is fine.  He’s a more expensive version of Justin Steele.  They are both good.  Shota, Fried, Steele, Taillion is a good rotation.  It isn’t a great rotation.  It isn’t paired with a great offense.  The Cubs slogan should have been The next good, but not great team.

Blue:
1.  Agree, the slogan should be "The Next Good Cubs Team"! 
-That really does kinda capture it!!   
-Both Ricketts and Hoyer have at times used wording suggesting the target is to consistently compete for the division, and consistently compete to get into the playoffs. 
-Agree, targeting guys like Stroman, Taillon, Imanaga, Hendricks, Fried, each has been variably good.  But "great" isn't really the term.

2.  Computer modeling:  Ricketts didn't write the program.  Hoyer may not have the best modeling, and a smarter new boss might have better algorithms?  Jed and Theo may have thought their system was cutting edge in 2004, or 2011, but it's 2024 now.  If Jed's decision-making is all just driven by his computer model, nothing in the results suggests that Hoyer's model is driving smart decisions.  Perhaps he's running a dilapidated decision-making engine?  He's had a >$50 budget advantage over Cardinals and >$100 advantage over Brewers-Reds-Pirates.  With that budget advantage, a new boss with new and improved computer modeling may be better able to allocate that variably massive budget advantage, and achieve the goal of semi-routinely winning the division and getting into the playoffs most years.  I know, I know, lux line isn't what the Mets, Dodgers, and Yankees do; but it's a world higher than what Red, Pirates, Brewers, and Cardinals do.  It shouldn't require unrealistic "outperformance" to outperform teams with less than half your budget.   

3.  Antiawful:  Good is better than bad.  There's a wide continuum from great to awful, from 99th percentile to 1st percentile.  We've been bad; now we're average, or a hair above with 83 wins; getting to "good" seems preferable?  I think we may have a reasonable chance to achieve "good", even if it isn't "great"?  Perhaps next summer we will be pretty good?   Maybe good enough to win the division?  Maybe good enough to reach the playoffs?  Maybe good enough to win 88 or 90 games?  Maybe good enough to win a playoff game, or a playoff series? 

4.  Perhaps becoming good is a step on the path to becoming kinda great? 

5.  Blue, I know you've expressed that you're personally not too interested in a "good" team, if it isn't great.  That is absolutely your privilege.  I admit personally that I might be kinda interested in and might enjoy a "good" team, even if it wasn't great?  I might enjoy a team that won the division and won 90 games, even if it didn't 100?  And even if it wasn't the favorite entering the playoffs, and might need to get hot or get lucky or outperform a team with more wins to reach the World series?  A 162-game season with 90 wins and a division championship, that's a lot of days that I'd enjoy, and where I might hope we'll play well and win some playoff games. 
-I'm older than you, I know; but I recall enjoying Kerry Wood's rookie season.  I knew a team with Jeff Blauser at SS wasn't a great team, and with Trachsel and Tapani and Mark Clark; but it was still lots of fun to win lots of games, and to get into the playoffs. 
-This goes back too far, I'm sure, but I thought the 1989 season with Dwight Smith and Lester Lancaster and Lloyd Mcclendon and Jerome Walton and Mark Grace and Dunston and Sandberg, Mike Bielecki and a young Maddux, that was no great team.  But it was a good team, for that fleeting single season; and it was really fun for me.  I enjoyed the season-long ride, even if that drive stopped short of the World Series.  I may be setting my hopes too low, but I admit I might enjoy a good 90-win playoff season. 
-Also enjoyed the Bartman season.  Only won 88 games, so that wasn't some 100-win juggernaut.  But that was a fun season. 

A "good" team is not good enough.  The goal should be to have the strongest roster in the division and to be strongly competitive with any team in the MLs. 

Blue:
1.  Agree, the slogan should be "The Next Good Cubs Team"! 
-That really does kinda capture it!!   
-Both Ricketts and Hoyer have at times used wording suggesting the target is to consistently compete for the division, and consistently compete to get into the playoffs. 
-Agree, targeting guys like Stroman, Taillon, Imanaga, Hendricks, Fried, each has been variably good.  But "great" isn't really the term.

2.  Computer modeling:  Ricketts didn't write the program.  Hoyer may not have the best modeling, and a smarter new boss might have better algorithms?  Jed and Theo may have thought their system was cutting edge in 2004, or 2011, but it's 2024 now.  If Jed's decision-making is all just driven by his computer model, nothing in the results suggests that Hoyer's model is driving smart decisions.  Perhaps he's running a dilapidated decision-making engine?  He's had a >$50 budget advantage over Cardinals and >$100 advantage over Brewers-Reds-Pirates.  With that budget advantage, a new boss with new and improved computer modeling may be better able to allocate that variably massive budget advantage, and achieve the goal of semi-routinely winning the division and getting into the playoffs most years.  I know, I know, lux line isn't what the Mets, Dodgers, and Yankees do; but it's a world higher than what Red, Pirates, Brewers, and Cardinals do.  It shouldn't require unrealistic "outperformance" to outperform teams with less than half your budget.   

3.  Antiawful:  Good is better than bad.  There's a wide continuum from great to awful, from 99th percentile to 1st percentile.  We've been bad; now we're average, or a hair above with 83 wins; getting to "good" seems preferable?  I think we may have a reasonable chance to achieve "good", even if it isn't "great"?  Perhaps next summer we will be pretty good?   Maybe good enough to win the division?  Maybe good enough to reach the playoffs?  Maybe good enough to win 88 or 90 games?  Maybe good enough to win a playoff game, or a playoff series? 

4.  Perhaps becoming good is a step on the path to becoming kinda great? 

5.  Blue, I know you've expressed that you're personally not too interested in a "good" team, if it isn't great.  That is absolutely your privilege.  I admit personally that I might be kinda interested in and might enjoy a "good" team, even if it wasn't great?  I might enjoy a team that won the division and won 90 games, even if it didn't 100?  And even if it wasn't the favorite entering the playoffs, and might need to get hot or get lucky or outperform a team with more wins to reach the World series?  A 162-game season with 90 wins and a division championship, that's a lot of days that I'd enjoy, and where I might hope we'll play well and win some playoff games. 
-I'm older than you, I know; but I recall enjoying Kerry Wood's rookie season.  I knew a team with Jeff Blauser at SS wasn't a great team, and with Trachsel and Tapani and Mark Clark; but it was still lots of fun to win lots of games, and to get into the playoffs. 
-This goes back too far, I'm sure, but I thought the 1989 season with Dwight Smith and Lester Lancaster and Lloyd Mcclendon and Jerome Walton and Mark Grace and Dunston and Sandberg, Mike Bielecki and a young Maddux, that was no great team.  But it was a good team, for that fleeting single season; and it was really fun for me.  I enjoyed the season-long ride, even if that drive stopped short of the World Series.  I may be setting my hopes too low, but I admit I might enjoy a good 90-win playoff season. 
-Also enjoyed the Bartman season.  Only won 88 games, so that wasn't some 100-win juggernaut.  But that was a fun season. 

The computer modeling spits out the value of what every player is worth.  Hoyer and the rest of the FO pick how to spend on the money. Ricketts sets the budget.

Being good could be step to becoming great, for this team it means spending well above the CBT.

Trying to shoot for good gets you 108 years of no World Series.  I just got done watching The Comeback on Netflix and Game 7 on Amazon Prime.  In one of those somebody basically said there was never a curse for the Red Sox, they just didn’t try.

I’m old enough to remember all of those guys.  My parents took me to Spring straining in 1985.  I got pictures with Harry Carey, Keith Moreland, remembered thinking Lee Smith was a giant meeting him by the batting cages.  Getting ticked out for that my dad had Cindy Sandburg sign my 1984 Ryne Donruss.  I told some guy in the Wrigley bleachers that Jeff Pico sucked even though he had a good first appearance with the Cubs.  I have maybe multiple Dunston autographs on Iowa Cubs programs a ton of Maddox autographs on just plane white pieces of paper.  I once got cussed out by Juan Gonzalez for asking for his autograph.  All those teams were fun and a great part of my childhood.  I just don’t have the time to give to a team that isn’t trying.

All those teams

When some folks here say Cubs “not trying to win” or only trying to be “good”——talking 100% about payroll spending.

Right?

Phillies 2024 CBT payroll was $263 (Roster Resource), so they’re “trying to win.”

Cubs were $238.

So, $25 is, therefore, the difference between “trying to win” and “not trying to win”?

Don’t get that. Phillies spent $38 on Castellanos and Taijuan Walker and got -0.8 bWAR from them. Phils would have better off at $225 without those guys.

Anybody have a theory why Ricketts in 2019 and 2020 were #2 and #3 in MLB payroll—which presumably passes the “trying to win” test—but then changed philosophy to “not trying to win.”  Don’t get that. Help me out.

The change in philosophy is particularly peculiar because it’s costing Ricketts many, many millions of dollars in reduced Wrigley attendance. Attendance in 2022 was down 600,000 in 2022 season compared to 2016 season. Down 300,000 in 2024 compared to 2016.

The difference in $238 payroll (“not trying to win”) vs. $265-270 payroll (“trying to win”) is dwarfed by loss of revenues by lower attendance, lower broadcasting viewership, lost post-season revenue, etc., that is directly correlated to having a marginal playoff contending team. Do the math.

If that is the new Ricketts “not trying to win” philosophy compared to 2019/2020 spending “trying to win” philosophy, it is a MONUMENTALLY STUPID change of philosophy because it is costing them money. Lots of money.

Here’s an alternative theory: in 2021, Ricketts saw that the “great Cubs team” that was built and won a WS and reached NLCS three years in a row was eroding. Core of the team was traded for prospects. Farm system got a lot better. Ricketts read a few things and talked to a few people and learned that generally takes several seasons from the beginning of a rebuild to become great (or even excellent) again. So, payroll was no longer #2 or #3 in MLB as in 2019/2020.

So, instead of $265-270 payroll that some fans want, it was $238. Maybe take on Nick Castellanos and Taijuan Walker from Phillies and boost 2025 payroll to $276 and show that Cubs “trying to win.”

It’s just payroll that shows whether “trying to win”. Right? Not making smart baseball decisions. Just payroll.

My opinion: make better decisions. Sure, spend another $20-25 or whatever on payroll… but that’s not the difference between “trying to win” and “not trying to win.” If you win by making good decisions, you will put more fannies in the seats and make lots more money.

Maybe even CBJ will find the time to watch Cubs baseball and he’ll buy a new Cubs t-shirt and cap and make more money for Ricketts.

Megan Montemurro
Fried has qualifying offer attached to him & Cubs must weigh that in addition to $$$ cost to sign him. Because Cubs exceeded CBT threshold they'd lose 2nd & 5th-highest picks in '25 draft plus $1M from international bonus pool.

So wouldn't be surprised if they more seriously explore other options.

When some folks here say Cubs “not trying to win” or only trying to be “good”——talking 100% about payroll spending.

Right?

Phillies 2024 CBT payroll was $263 (Roster Resource), so they’re “trying to win.”

Cubs were $238.

So, $25 is, therefore, the difference between “trying to win” and “not trying to win”?

Don’t get that. Phillies spent $38 on Castellanos and Taijuan Walker and got -0.8 bWAR from them. Phils would have better off at $225 without those guys.

LOL.