Cubs Offseason 2014: So, what did your team do this offseason? Isn't that cute.

[Eli]

You can't see a team with plenty of cash, low payroll (even with another $20mm per year guy), no more than 18 months away from clearing another $13mm in annual payroll (Jackson), and with a manager who brought the guy up signing Shields?

I still don't think they have "plenty" of cash that they're willing to spend on payroll.

So you don't believe the reports that if Moncada was available after July the Cubs would make a push to sign him? He's going to cost a fortune, and now the Cubs are out on him.

What's your point?

That the Cubs have money for payroll.

Seemed pretty clear.

I think they have money to spend on a 19-year-old who's projected as a superstar. I don't think you can assume they'd now just automatically take that same money and spend it on a 33-year-old pitcher.

[Chuck to Chuck]

You can't see a team with plenty of cash, low payroll (even with another $20mm per year guy), no more than 18 months away from clearing another $13mm in annual payroll (Jackson), and with a manager who brought the guy up signing Shields?

I still don't think they have "plenty" of cash that they're willing to spend on payroll.

So you don't believe the reports that if Moncada was available after July the Cubs would make a push to sign him? He's going to cost a fortune, and now the Cubs are out on him.

What's your point?

That the Cubs have money for payroll.

Seemed pretty clear.

I think they have money to spend on a 19-year-old who's projected as a superstar. I don't think you can assume they'd now just automatically take that same money and spend it on a 33-year-old pitcher.

Cubs payroll averaged $137.7mm from 2009-2011. Their revenues will be higher from 2015-2018 than they were from 2009-2011.  2015 Payroll is at $111,454,524 right now.  That's missing a few million for Baez, Olt, and Bryant.  Even if it's short $5mm and they add Shields at $20mm per, that brings payroll up to about $127 million. That's $10mm BELOW what it was 5+ years ago.  And $13mm of that falls off in 2 years.

They can afford it.

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

There are quite a few reasons not to sign Shields. Affordability is not one of them.

[Eli]

Cubs payroll averaged $137.7mm from 2009-2011. Their revenues will be higher from 2015-2018 than they were from 2009-2011.  2015 Payroll is at $111,454,524 right now.  That's missing a few million for Baez, Olt, and Bryant.  Even if it's short $5mm and they add Shields at $20mm per, that brings payroll up to about $127 million. That's $10mm BELOW what it was 5+ years ago.  And $13mm of that falls off in 2 years.

They can afford it.

*I* know they can afford it. But that and Ricketts choosing to actually spend money are totally different.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Cubs payroll averaged $137.7mm from 2009-2011. Their revenues will be higher from 2015-2018 than they were from 2009-2011.  2015 Payroll is at $111,454,524 right now.  That's missing a few million for Baez, Olt, and Bryant.  Even if it's short $5mm and they add Shields at $20mm per, that brings payroll up to about $127 million. That's $10mm BELOW what it was 5+ years ago.  And $13mm of that falls off in 2 years.

They can afford it.

*I* know they can afford it. But that and Ricketts choosing to actually spend money are totally different.

I still don't think they have "plenty" of cash that they're willing to spend on payroll.

If that's what you meant, fine. But it didn't sound like that's what you meant.  I suppose the operative was "willing to spend" vs. "don't think they have".

[InternetApex]

You can't see a team with plenty of cash, low payroll (even with another $20mm per year guy), no more than 18 months away from clearing another $13mm in annual payroll (Jackson), and with a manager who brought the guy up signing Shields?

I still don't think they have "plenty" of cash that they're willing to spend on payroll.

So you don't believe the reports that if Moncada was available after July the Cubs would make a push to sign him? He's going to cost a fortune, and now the Cubs are out on him.

What's your point?

That the Cubs have money for payroll.

Seemed pretty clear.

When he said the price was high on Moncada and the Cubs were out on him, that seemed clear they have money for payroll? I don't know that I follow you or him or Slezak on that.

[R-V]

Cubs payroll averaged $137.7mm from 2009-2011. Their revenues will be higher from 2015-2018 than they were from 2009-2011.  2015 Payroll is at $111,454,524 right now.  That's missing a few million for Baez, Olt, and Bryant.  Even if it's short $5mm and they add Shields at $20mm per, that brings payroll up to about $127 million. That's $10mm BELOW what it was 5+ years ago.  And $13mm of that falls off in 2 years.

They can afford it.

*I* know they can afford it. But that and Ricketts choosing to actually spend money are totally different.

I still don't think they have "plenty" of cash that they're willing to spend on payroll.

If that's what you meant, fine. But it didn't sound like that's what you meant.  I suppose the operative was "willing to spend" vs. "don't think they have".

"They can afford it" may also not be true. The Rickettseseses took on a lot of debt to buy the team - some might even say it was a LOAD of debt - and they're also paying for a small renovation project at Wrigley. The 2009-2011 teams didn't have those cash outflows to worry about.

[BH]

You can't see a team with plenty of cash, low payroll (even with another $20mm per year guy), no more than 18 months away from clearing another $13mm in annual payroll (Jackson), and with a manager who brought the guy up signing Shields?

I still don't think they have "plenty" of cash that they're willing to spend on payroll.

So you don't believe the reports that if Moncada was available after July the Cubs would make a push to sign him? He's going to cost a fortune, and now the Cubs are out on him.

What's your point?

That the Cubs have money for payroll.

Seemed pretty clear.

When he said the price was high on Moncada and the Cubs were out on him, that seemed clear they have money for payroll? I don't know that I follow you or him or Slezak on that.

They are out on Moncada because of a stupid rule the MLB has, not because they don't have the money for him.

[Eli]

If that's what you meant, fine. But it didn't sound like that's what you meant.  I suppose the operative was "willing to spend" vs. "don't think they have".

Basically.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

They are out on Moncada because of a stupid rule the MLB has the international bonus pool limit that the Cubs made a willful and calculated decision to exceed, not because they don't have the money for him.

Oopstink'd?

[Chuck to Chuck]

Cubs payroll averaged $137.7mm from 2009-2011. Their revenues will be higher from 2015-2018 than they were from 2009-2011.  2015 Payroll is at $111,454,524 right now.  That's missing a few million for Baez, Olt, and Bryant.  Even if it's short $5mm and they add Shields at $20mm per, that brings payroll up to about $127 million. That's $10mm BELOW what it was 5+ years ago.  And $13mm of that falls off in 2 years.

They can afford it.

*I* know they can afford it. But that and Ricketts choosing to actually spend money are totally different.

I still don't think they have "plenty" of cash that they're willing to spend on payroll.

If that's what you meant, fine. But it didn't sound like that's what you meant.  I suppose the operative was "willing to spend" vs. "don't think they have".

"They can afford it" may also not be true. The Rickettseseses took on a lot of debt to buy the team - some might even say it was a LOAD of debt - and they're also paying for a small renovation project at Wrigley. The 2009-2011 teams didn't have those cash outflows to worry about.

Over 50% of those outflows are right back to their pockets. The Ricketts Family Trust was the primary debt provider. $249 million of the $425mm in initial debt was owed to the family.

[Eli]

Cubs payroll averaged $137.7mm from 2009-2011. Their revenues will be higher from 2015-2018 than they were from 2009-2011.  2015 Payroll is at $111,454,524 right now.  That's missing a few million for Baez, Olt, and Bryant.  Even if it's short $5mm and they add Shields at $20mm per, that brings payroll up to about $127 million. That's $10mm BELOW what it was 5+ years ago.  And $13mm of that falls off in 2 years.

They can afford it.

*I* know they can afford it. But that and Ricketts choosing to actually spend money are totally different.

I still don't think they have "plenty" of cash that they're willing to spend on payroll.

If that's what you meant, fine. But it didn't sound like that's what you meant.  I suppose the operative was "willing to spend" vs. "don't think they have".

"They can afford it" may also not be true. The Rickettseseses took on a lot of debt to buy the team - some might even say it was a LOAD of debt - and they're also paying for a small renovation project at Wrigley. The 2009-2011 teams didn't have those cash outflows to worry about.

Over 50% of those outflows are right back to their pockets. The Ricketts Family Trust was the primary debt provider. $249 million of the $425mm in initial debt was owed to the family.

I can't tell if you're saying the Ricketts should have been spending more money all along, or just that they should be spending more money going forward, or what. I think the primary point is that regardless of how much money they have available, it hasn't been going into payroll the past few years.

[SKO]

Cubs payroll averaged $137.7mm from 2009-2011. Their revenues will be higher from 2015-2018 than they were from 2009-2011.  2015 Payroll is at $111,454,524 right now.  That's missing a few million for Baez, Olt, and Bryant.  Even if it's short $5mm and they add Shields at $20mm per, that brings payroll up to about $127 million. That's $10mm BELOW what it was 5+ years ago.  And $13mm of that falls off in 2 years.

They can afford it.

*I* know they can afford it. But that and Ricketts choosing to actually spend money are totally different.

I still don't think they have "plenty" of cash that they're willing to spend on payroll.

If that's what you meant, fine. But it didn't sound like that's what you meant.  I suppose the operative was "willing to spend" vs. "don't think they have".

"They can afford it" may also not be true. The Rickettseseses took on a lot of debt to buy the team - some might even say it was a LOAD of debt - and they're also paying for a small renovation project at Wrigley. The 2009-2011 teams didn't have those cash outflows to worry about.

Over 50% of those outflows are right back to their pockets. The Ricketts Family Trust was the primary debt provider. $249 million of the $425mm in initial debt was owed to the family.

I can't tell if you're saying the Ricketts should have been spending more money all along, or just that they should be spending more money going forward, or what. I think the primary point is that regardless of how much money they have available, it hasn't been going into payroll the past few years.

True but I think this always comes back to "who were they going to spend it on." They pursued Anibal and then settled for Edwin because they felt those guys could still be effective middle rotation starters by the time they were competitive again, but otherwise they weren't going to try to spend their way into competitiveness. But now that they appear ready to compete, they will spend to put themselves over the top. Lester was part one of that, if Shields has dropped down into the 4/70 range, it's entirely conceivable the Cubs think they can fit that into their picture over the next couple of years before they have to re-sign their young hitters.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Cubs payroll averaged $137.7mm from 2009-2011. Their revenues will be higher from 2015-2018 than they were from 2009-2011.  2015 Payroll is at $111,454,524 right now.  That's missing a few million for Baez, Olt, and Bryant.  Even if it's short $5mm and they add Shields at $20mm per, that brings payroll up to about $127 million. That's $10mm BELOW what it was 5+ years ago.  And $13mm of that falls off in 2 years.

They can afford it.

*I* know they can afford it. But that and Ricketts choosing to actually spend money are totally different.

I still don't think they have "plenty" of cash that they're willing to spend on payroll.

If that's what you meant, fine. But it didn't sound like that's what you meant.  I suppose the operative was "willing to spend" vs. "don't think they have".

"They can afford it" may also not be true. The Rickettseseses took on a lot of debt to buy the team - some might even say it was a LOAD of debt - and they're also paying for a small renovation project at Wrigley. The 2009-2011 teams didn't have those cash outflows to worry about.

Over 50% of those outflows are right back to their pockets. The Ricketts Family Trust was the primary debt provider. $249 million of the $425mm in initial debt was owed to the family.

I can't tell if you're saying the Ricketts should have been spending more money all along, or just that they should be spending more money going forward, or what. I think the primary point is that regardless of how much money they have available, it hasn't been going into payroll the past few years.

My point is that their debt problems are nowhere near as high as believed because they owe themselves a lot of money. That they "took on a lot of debt to buy the team" is overstated and misunderstood.

The baseball financial and baseball operations have been done exactly as I would have done it since the day Theo got here. Cut payroll drastically, draft well. Sign big free agents when talent was ready.

an Albert Pujols level contract is certainly affordable if payroll is kept flat.

But if evil bankers tell the Ricketts that they need to see more earnings before interest and taxes, payroll could easily be cut. If payroll goes down, minor league development is paramount to keep the team competitive on the field. Unfortunately, Jim Hendry's track record in player development is spotty at best.

[R-V]

Cubs payroll averaged $137.7mm from 2009-2011. Their revenues will be higher from 2015-2018 than they were from 2009-2011.  2015 Payroll is at $111,454,524 right now.  That's missing a few million for Baez, Olt, and Bryant.  Even if it's short $5mm and they add Shields at $20mm per, that brings payroll up to about $127 million. That's $10mm BELOW what it was 5+ years ago.  And $13mm of that falls off in 2 years.

They can afford it.

*I* know they can afford it. But that and Ricketts choosing to actually spend money are totally different.

I still don't think they have "plenty" of cash that they're willing to spend on payroll.

If that's what you meant, fine. But it didn't sound like that's what you meant.  I suppose the operative was "willing to spend" vs. "don't think they have".

"They can afford it" may also not be true. The Rickettseseses took on a lot of debt to buy the team - some might even say it was a LOAD of debt - and they're also paying for a small renovation project at Wrigley. The 2009-2011 teams didn't have those cash outflows to worry about.

Over 50% of those outflows are right back to their pockets. The Ricketts Family Trust was the primary debt provider. $249 million of the $425mm in initial debt was owed to the family.

By my rough estimate, that means they still owe $176 M to the banks. I'm not a banker but I'm sure the annual payments on that are significant. Add in what they are spending on the ballpark renovations and the point stands that they have more spending obligations to worry about than just player salaries and Tom's Land's End bills.

[thehawk]

Cubs payroll averaged $137.7mm from 2009-2011. Their revenues will be higher from 2015-2018 than they were from 2009-2011.  2015 Payroll is at $111,454,524 right now.  That's missing a few million for Baez, Olt, and Bryant.  Even if it's short $5mm and they add Shields at $20mm per, that brings payroll up to about $127 million. That's $10mm BELOW what it was 5+ years ago.  And $13mm of that falls off in 2 years.

They can afford it.

*I* know they can afford it. But that and Ricketts choosing to actually spend money are totally different.

I still don't think they have "plenty" of cash that they're willing to spend on payroll.

If that's what you meant, fine. But it didn't sound like that's what you meant.  I suppose the operative was "willing to spend" vs. "don't think they have".

"They can afford it" may also not be true. The Rickettseseses took on a lot of debt to buy the team - some might even say it was a LOAD of debt - and they're also paying for a small renovation project at Wrigley. The 2009-2011 teams didn't have those cash outflows to worry about.

Over 50% of those outflows are right back to their pockets. The Ricketts Family Trust was the primary debt provider. $249 million of the $425mm in initial debt was owed to the family.

By my rough estimate, that means they still owe $176 M to the banks. I'm not a banker but I'm sure the annual payments on that are significant. Add in what they are spending on the ballpark renovations and the point stands that they have more spending obligations to worry about than just player salaries and Tom's Land's End bills.

IANAB either, but my guess is that the interest rate 5% or less.  If so, its about 8.5 million per year, which is half a starting pitcher, so nothing too excessive.  Meanwhile the bulk of the renovations will be paying big dollars back quickly (particularly those scoreboards, but the hotel, and triangle concert venue will be money makers as well ).  Add in probably about $400 million of asset appreciation, and I wouldn't worry about the Ricketts writing checks anytime soon.