Mancini to Cubs

[wibadgers23]

2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

And aren't they still about $10m under last year's payroll? I haven't checked in since all the arb guys settled.

Yeah I think it’s somewhere in the $10m - $15m range.

[monty57]

5 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

This Cubs roster has the feel of some of their rosters during their last rebuild while they were waiting on their impact prospects to make their way to the majors - every offseason they'd go out and sign a few veteran FAs to contracts, and then they'd look to trade them at the deadline 1 to 2 years into the contract for more prospect help.  Guys like Bellinger and Mancini are perfect candidates to trade if they have a good first few months of the season.  Even Hendricks, Madrigal, Stroman, Hoerner,  Happ, Wisdom.

They didn't take the total dumpster firesale rebuild approach this time around, so their organization plan is a bit caught in between.  Until they improve their pitching staff, they're not a postseason factor, but they do have an improved roster simply by trying to bring guys in.  Plus, at the moment they just don't have the laundry list of "can't miss" (even though several of them actually didn't amount to studs) prospects knocking on the Wrigley Field door in their system.  They've got more talent compared to a few seasons ago in the minors, but by and large it's a ways off and there are more question marks with their prospects than when MLB-ready guys like Bryant, Schwarber, etc were in their system right after getting drafted.

It looks to me like the fan backlash they received after trading Bryant, Rizzo and Baez prior to them becoming free agents has turned them into "your father's Cubbies." 

I used to work with a guy who had been in the Cubs' management. He said the rumors that they spent just enough to fill out the seats and maximize revenues but not actively trying to win were absolutely true.

After they made the aforementioned trades, which I think was the right thing to do at the time, the fans were in an uproar. Not wanting to upset fans any further, they held onto Contreras rather than trading him, and now, now rather than playing their "unproven" young talent to see what they have and probably getting a better draft pick, they are signing some "name" players to give the fans something to cheer for. Instead of doing what won them a World Series, it looks like they're back to their old games of trying to maximize revenues.

As long as the fans stick around, they will make boatloads of money even with a $200M payroll. They won't be a playoff contender, but the fans will know the players' names so they'll continue to buy tickets. The team will make money, and the fans will be comfortably numb to reality.

As long as they keep this up, the team will be mired in mediocrity. I much prefer the Brewers "continually competitive" mantra, and hope the Brewers don't go down the road of making moves to appease the "casual fan" instead of making the best "baseball moves."

All in all, while this will add some wins to the Cubs this year, in the long run, it's good for the Brewers that the Cubs are taking this path.

[Jopal78]

51 minutes ago, monty57 said:

It looks to me like the fan backlash they received after trading Bryant, Rizzo and Baez prior to them becoming free agents has turned them into "your father's Cubbies." 

I used to work with a guy who had been in the Cubs' management. He said the rumors that they spent just enough to fill out the seats and maximize revenues but not actively trying to win were absolutely true.

After they made the aforementioned trades, which I think was the right thing to do at the time, the fans were in an uproar. Not wanting to upset fans any further, they held onto Contreras rather than trading him, and now, now rather than playing their "unproven" young talent to see what they have and probably getting a better draft pick, they are signing some "name" players to give the fans something to cheer for. Instead of doing what won them a World Series, it looks like they're back to their old games of trying to maximize revenues.

As long as the fans stick around, they will make boatloads of money even with a $200M payroll. They won't be a playoff contender, but the fans will know the players' names so they'll continue to buy tickets. The team will make money, and the fans will be comfortably numb to reality.

As long as they keep this up, the team will be mired in mediocrity. I much prefer the Brewers "continually competitive" mantra, and hope the Brewers don't go down the road of making moves to appease the "casual fan" instead of making the best "baseball moves."

All in all, while this will add some wins to the Cubs this year, in the long run, it's good for the Brewers that the Cubs are taking this path.

I would dispute your theory the Cubs are signing "name" players to give fans something to cheer for while maximizing revenue.

This is because your argument leaves out the key element that Wrigley Field between May 1st and August 31st they usually have 30,000 plus for every game regardless of the talent level of the home team. When they're selling out the weekends and games against marquee opponents anyways, the don't need to sign "names" to generate revenue. 

Customers turn out for games at Wrigley during the summer no matter what. Even the  people who don't go into Wrigley for the games but eat and  drink in the bars/restaurants around the stadium, at Gallagher way, and watch from the rooftops are also pumping their money into the Cub machine (no wonder the Packers with their similar built in attendance constructed an entertainment district....((revenue machine)) around their stadium). 

More likely. Jed Hoyer knows exactly who his opponents are in a relatively weak Division: Two teams that are not even trying to compete. The Brewers have difference making pitching talent, but have already started to break up that pitching talent and will likely continue to do so. The Cardinals starting pitching depth is going to rely on both old  and injured  pitchers to carry them. Meanwhile, the Cubs have put together a team without a bunch of superstars, but also without a lot of black holes either. With a little luck will be able to compete in their Division, but if they stumble, they still could have pieces to sell off with an eye on the future, Given the new anti-tanking measures, it's probably the smartest play for a rebuilding club. 

 

[sveumrules]

12 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

Customers turn out for games at Wrigley during the summer no matter what.

From 2004-11 the Cubs topped 3M in attendance every year. peaking at 3.3M.

It dropped down to 2.8M when they lost 101 games in 2012, then to 2.6M as the tank continued in 2013/14.

2015 rose to 2.9M before climbing back above 3M every year from 2016-19 before the pandemic hit.

Last year's attendance was back to 2013/14 levels at 2.6M. 

Sure, customers turn out for games at Wrigley no matter what, but just like everywhere else they turn out more when the team is winning (or at least making the appearance of trying to).

[Jopal78]

16 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

From 2004-11 the Cubs topped 3M in attendance every year. peaking at 3.3M.

It dropped down to 2.8M when they lost 101 games in 2012, then to 2.6M as the tank continued in 2013/14.

2015 rose to 2.9M before climbing back above 3M every year from 2016-19 before the pandemic hit.

Last year's attendance was back to 2013/14 levels at 2.6M. 

Sure, customers turn out for games at Wrigley no matter what, but just like everywhere else they turn out more when the team is winning (or at least making the appearance of trying to).

I think that's a cop out answer. The Brewers certainly had higher expectations and more fan enthusiasm than the Cubs in 2022, yet they drew a couple hundred thousand less fans. Using your numbers, on average Wrigley was 78% full on game days, whereas Miller Park was less than 3/4 on average. 

It's hard to accept the premise of signing "name" free agents to drive revenue when the Cubs nearly were 80% full on average. Such a premise would be akin to spending $6.50 to make 5. 

[monty57]

10 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

From 2004-11 the Cubs topped 3M in attendance every year. peaking at 3.3M.

It dropped down to 2.8M when they lost 101 games in 2012, then to 2.6M as the tank continued in 2013/14.

2015 rose to 2.9M before climbing back above 3M every year from 2016-19 before the pandemic hit.

Last year's attendance was back to 2013/14 levels at 2.6M. 

Sure, customers turn out for games at Wrigley no matter what, but just like everywhere else they turn out more when the team is winning (or at least making the appearance of trying to).

The average ticket price to a Cub game in '22 was $56.83, so 400,000 tickets equals $22,732,000 not including things like concessions that would probably about double that number.

The Cubs' owners also own a lot of the real estate around the stadium, so the loss in revenues if fans lose interest in the club would be significant.

If their goal is to win another World Series, I don't think they're going about it the right way. At the very least, they're not doing what they did to win the one World Series they won in the past 100+ years. If they're trying to ensure that their cash cow stays fed, they are doing what they need to do.

[monty57]

3 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

I think that's a cop out answer. The Brewers certainly had higher expectations and more fan enthusiasm than the Cubs in 2022, yet they drew a couple hundred thousand less fans. Using your numbers, on average Wrigley was 78% full on game days, whereas Miller Park was less than 3/4 on average. 

It's hard to accept the premise of signing "name" free agents to drive revenue when the Cubs nearly were 80% full on average. Such a premise would be akin to spending $6.50 to make 5. 

All I'm saying is that what they seem to be doing is exactly what they did for decades. Radio station hosts accused them of it for years, and I talked to a person who was in the meetings who said the radio station hosts were correct. The 80% number you're citing was one year after they traded away three folk heroes who brought them to the promised land. Where would that number go after a few years of losing baseball? I live amongst Cub fans, and they're not happy with the organization.

There is a lot of incentive to appease the masses and keep the revenues flowing. I get why they're doing it, but it will likely add a few wins "today" while costing them wins "tomorrow." Winning is not the main goal with this strategy, keeping the fans complacent is. You can stay around .500 as long as you get to see "Rhyno" and "The Hawk" and have a few beers on a sunny weekday afternoon.

As I mentioned previously, it's a strategy that gets you mired in mediocrity. The terms "June swoon" and "There's always next year" were invented by Cub fans. They are once again earning their long-standing title: "Loveable Losers."

Mind you, this is much better than what the Brewers' fans were subjected to under the Selig-Prieb regime. It will occasionally get you some winning teams, and a playoff series or two. But again, the main goal is to maintain the income stream, not to win it all.

My concern stems from the fact that the Brewers are heading to a similar fork in the road. Their Bryant, Rizzo, and Baez are named Burnes, Woodruff, and Adames. Will the Brewers cave in to the fans like the Cubs have, or will they make the best baseball moves? Will they still try to attain "continually competitive" or will they go for "mired in mediocrity?" Bear in mind that they don't have the revenue streams to build a roster with mid-priced free agents like Mancini and still make money, so the Brewers' mediocrity would be a step or two below that of the Cubs. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

23 minutes ago, monty57 said:

The Cubs' owners also own a lot of the real estate around the stadium, so the loss in revenues if fans lose interest in the club would be significant.

One thing that differs a bit with them is the fact they are still heavily leveraged with debt related to the purchase of all that real estate - and the COVID season hit right when they really needed to start seeing increased revenues from those properties during gameday.  

They've got the market size, TV contract, and other financial means to whether the storm and start acting like a large market bully in the division again, but make no mistake that they've handcuffed themselves in a big way financially due to the debt they took on after purchasing the Cubs, renovating the stadium, and buying up/developing a ton of nearby properties.

[monty57]

2 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

One thing that differs a bit with them is the fact they are still heavily leveraged with debt related to the purchase of all that real estate - and the COVID season hit right when they really needed to start seeing increased revenues from those properties during gameday.  

They've got the market size, TV contract, and other financial means to whether the storm and start acting like a large market bully in the division again, but make no mistake that they've handcuffed themselves in a big way financially due to the debt they took on after purchasing the Cubs, renovating the stadium, and buying up/developing a ton of nearby properties.

All the more reason that they cannot afford to let the cash cow starve. They need to keep the fans happy and coming to the games. As long as that happens (and we don't have Covid part II), they should have the revenues to pay the bills. 

Maybe this is a short-term strategy to get the debt paid off, and not a long-term decision like it has been for much of the Cubs' history. 

It probably means that the Cubs won't be a 100-loss doormat, but they also won't be a 90+ win team any time soon. That could take a few wins away from the Brewers, but won't stand in the way of a good Brewer team winning the division.

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, monty57 said:

All the more reason that they cannot afford to let the cash cow starve. They need to keep the fans happy and coming to the games. As long as that happens (and we don't have Covid part II), they should have the revenues to pay the bills. 

Maybe this is a short-term strategy to get the debt paid off, and not a long-term decision like it has been for much of the Cubs' history. 

It probably means that the Cubs won't be a 100-loss doormat, but they also won't be a 90+ win team any time soon. That could take a few wins away from the Brewers, but won't stand in the way of a good Brewer team winning the division.

Joe Ricketts alone is worth 3 billion dollars, and the family business Ameritrade has over 9 billion in equity.  Any “debt” to build their entertainment district around Wrigley is likely nothing more than accounting tactics, and if not it’s certainly not anything keeping them awake at night wondering where they’re going to get the money from. 

 

 

[Robocaller]

On 1/15/2023 at 5:30 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

Better? Yeah, probably. Over .500? Probably not. 

saw a story on MSN.com which predicted Chicago 2nd, Milwaukee 3rd in the Central.

[Brock Beauchamp]

39 minutes ago, Robocaller said:

saw a story on MSN.com which predicted Chicago 2nd, Milwaukee 3rd in the Central.

Man, I just don't see it.