Gato-everything you just mentioned ALL falls under rebuilding. Do you not see that?
Gato-everything you just mentioned ALL falls under rebuilding. Do you not see that?
The organization worked extremely, extremely hard to get the payroll flexibility they got themselves, as I'm pretty sure they have mentioned once or twice.
Last edited by SenorGato; 11-19-2012 at 05:41 PM.
There is an overall baseball operations budget we use. Its been mentioned the Dominican Academy has came from that. At no point have I, in particular, mentioned McDonalds as having anything to do with anything. I do bring up the renovation and other than you, no one else seems to dismiss it is a total impossibility as to why they've gone this direction. Is it a definite? No. Is it a possibility? Yes. One that you continuously fail to acknowledge. Short term deals, infusion of youth, everything else you just mentioned? Part of a rebuild.
As for the Rangers IFA spending: Since you use gorilla math and put all of Soler's 30 mill into the Cubs spending efforts, it should be OK to put all of Darvishes 100 mill+ to go towards the Rangers, right? Whats the difference? Or the Dodgers 42 mill on Puig, 25 mill posting fee on Ryu, subsequent salary, etc. Oaklands 36 mill devoted to Cespedes? On the topic of the Rangers though, they also spent 15 mill on Leonys Martin alone, with 15 mill on Mazzaro, Guzman, and Beras as well, all during the 2011 calendar year. I'm not bothering looking up anything else. My point was prior to Soler, other teams routinely spent more than us on IFA. The Acosta, Malave, Marcano group was our best spending effort, finishing around 5th or so. That 2011 draft class that we spent a ton on, also comes in around 5th as well, millions behind a few other teams.
Anyway, the real time period of significance for the Rangers is '07, a last place team with a mediocre at best farm system, to the eventual WS roster in 2010 with a high end farm system. You know - the years they spent rebuilding (I prefer overhauling, but I'll play with rebuild). That said, sure the 30 million on those guys who actually play in the minors could be used. We're halfway there now. If you want, feel free to do Rangers '07-'09 as well as Rangers '10-'12 with guys who actually spent time in the minors.
What have the Dodgers spent on guys who will spend on the minors before or after Puig? Zach Lee's money goes all the way to 2010, and they haven't been a huge draft spender since like the Cubs. Either way, that's a 44 million start...
I just wanted a straight answer...damn. How many teams will match or have matched the Cubs on amateur (a word that was in that first post btw and would have eliminated both Darvish and Ryu from the start) spending from '11-'13, a number that should push 60 million in commits rather easily?
Note spent is in past tense. Note that all those names were from '11 and '12, which are pretty relevant to the Cubs' current situation.My point was prior to Soler, other teams routinely spent more than us on IFA. The Acosta, Malave, Marcano group was our best spending effort, finishing around 5th or so.
Also noted: Any chance for a straight answer is probably gone. Balls.
Last edited by SenorGato; 11-19-2012 at 06:34 PM.
I'm sure all that stuff plays a tiny part, sure I can give you that. I would acknowledge it in a more significant light if something besides speculation when into how those things affect the Cubs payroll. I can look at the roster and go "oh, they have one guy making over 10 million, that explains a whole lot. Must be all that veteran purging they've been doing." See...nothing complicated, and I came up with a simple, concrete, logical reason to see payroll being down.
Short term deals and infusion of youth => big chunk of why payroll is down. Rebuild is just what you choose to title it, and for some reason building non-baseball rosters gets to be included in that.
Last edited by SenorGato; 11-19-2012 at 06:32 PM.
Gato-1. Its really annoying when you constantly edit your posts. 2. Its past tense, because the new CBA doesn't allow unlimited spending anymore obviously. As for the straight answer add-on comment at the end? You asked about the Rangers and I told you. Clearly. End. Of. That. Discussion.
Look, I'd be all for a true video game rebuild, that includes the Cubs giving Hamilton a 50 mill one year deal, us eat the entire money at the deadline, and get 3 top 50 prospects for him. Obviously, that isn't happening. If the idea is short term deals, unless something weird happens, our payroll is going to be low. Because the guys taking short term deals aren't usually bigtime players. Not saying a few can't break out(McCarthy, Liriano) but its why I hope like hell someone asks the FO during the convention how much money was saved from the baseball ops budget in 2012 and how much is likely to get saved in 2013 as well. Followed up by getting a question of confirmation that the money saved in any season will be put back into the teams budget when they need it, again said by Hoyer. It could possibly help those not in favor of this supposed plan, if they knew what our actual payroll limits are and how much possible money on top of that can be spent, by having 100ish mill payroll teams for a few years. Of course, its possible it coukd backfire too. Either way, I would love to get a much better breakdown on FO salaries, complete minor league operation costs, since we'll basically know what the draft and IFA budgets are going to be.
Unless you sat there for 20 minutes working on a reply, I doubt the edits did anything to what you had to say.
It's past tense also because the Cubs have definitively not been outspent there by anyone during this period where they have put their focus on amateur talent.
Why even field the question if you can't answer it? You kinda sorta spend a little effort into answer it and way more into putting yourself into a position where you are right about something. It's not that hard to say "no, nobody I found really comes close to what the Cubs will have spent on amateur talent in the three year period the front office has refocused on the farm unless I do something like count straight to the MLB guys like Darvish and Ryu for some reason."
So then....what was the point...This kind of whatever this is is as irritating as dealing with my edits.Look, I'd be all for a true video game rebuild, that includes the Cubs giving Hamilton a 50 mill one year deal, us eat the entire money at the deadline, and get 3 top 50 prospects for him. Obviously, that isn't happening.
Also said by Hoyer:again said by Hoyer.
On top of the Epstein stuff I posted yesterday...No blanket rules and they will spend if the right player is there without worrying. This isn't about saving money for One Day. Talent isn't waiting for your One Da/Future/Right Way.“We will have financial flexibility. We’ve been diligent to make sure we do have flexibility and we’re efficient going forward. We’ll obviously be active in the free agent market. That’s a big part of our research and work now is evaluating free agents. We have some money to spend and we’ll focus on it heavily.”
It would help everyone. You are not privy to any special information, neither is the "other side" in general, so don't do that. It's cheap, adds nothing, and only can be seen as a passive aggressive slant at what's actually being said (as is the video game thing - the only person who's ever suggest such a monstrosity is you just in that post).It could possibly help those not in favor of this supposed plan, if they knew what our actual payroll limits are and how much possible money on top of that can be spent, by having 100ish mill payroll teams for a few years.
Sitting back and waiting probably will.Of course, its possible it coukd backfire too.
Hey Gato: You brought up 60 mill for the Cubs amateur spending. Counting Soler's entire 30 into that. Your entire argument is based on the signing of one guy. And its still wrong, which is funny. Puig was 42 mill. If you add the Dodgers 3 drafts and 2 other IFA periods, they'll certainly eclipse 60. Rangers? I gave you 30 mill spent solely on IFA during one signing period and there may have been more for all I know. I'm not looking it up, because I don't need to. Again, 3 years of drafts and IFA's will likely eclipse 60 mill, but this is beyond a completely stupid argument anyway, because your entire logic is based on the fact we got Soler, nothing more, nothing less. Spending limits are set now, so you set the rules to fit a very specific 3 year period. Where 2 of the 3 are completely curbed and we happened to get one of the biggest IFA out there. And had a higher draft budget to spend, because it was predicated on one year of big spending by the previous FO and 2 seasons of us being given one of the highest draft budgets. At any rate, this is stupid to even bother with. You set up rules that guys like Darvish and Ryu can't be counted. Fine, I still showed how either or both outspent 60 mill.
We spent $20 million in 2011 on IFAs and the draft combined. Was it really only $60 million in three years with Soler?
No, its not. Its actually around 75 mill. Which is another stupid part of this argument. Gato doesn't even know the numbers.
IFA spending, dictates the whole thing. Soler being the 2nd largest "amateur" is the reason the Cubs have spent this much. Ryu and Darvish were IFA's. They should count in that type of budget analysis, especially since we were in on both. But the bottom line is its a cherrypicked 3 year period, 2 of which the Cubs budget dictated them having more money than all but a very small group of teams. Move the discussion out an extra year or two and things change dramaticslly. And most of the teams with excellrnt systems currently, including the Royals, Pirates, Rangers, Blue Jays, Red Sox and a few otgers had routinely spent more than the Cubs. Which is why they're systems are so stacked.