I think I may join in that cautious optimism. I may even pull my hats, shirts, and jerseys out the box they have been in since the dodger sweep of '08. Or maybe I'll wait on that second part. My cat needs the bedding for the winter.

As long as none of the Rickettses get divorced, this could work.

one thing we can do that Tribune may not have been able to do—or may have decided not to have done

Ouch

Here's to another hundred years of... hm.

He's certainly got the PR part of the job down--promises of reinvestment, commitment to the ballpark, subtle jabs at the Trib. He knows what to say. I wonder, though, if Hendry survives longer than should.

I wonder, though, if Hendry survives longer than should.

Well, we know he'll be back next year, they said as much today. He's got 3 years on his contract, so they may not want to buy him out of that so soon. Also Crane Kenney is sticking around (President-type level), and most people assumed he was only around when the Trib was still running things. I'd like to think that the Ricketts are taking some time to analyze the team from the inside to see what works and what doesn't, but they've had access and were the likely owners for years.

"There's not a lot of flexibility going into 2010," Tom Ricketts said. "We'll leave it up to (general manager Jim Hendry) to balance out how he would take what flexibility we do have to round out the team and get us ready. We expect payroll to be comparable, if not slightly higher, next year. But, as you also know, the dollars leaving the door is not the issue. It's the third highest payroll. The issue is getting the right performance for the number of dollars you spend."

This is what I, and lots of other Cubs fans, have been saying at this site for a while. Hendry has painted the team into a corner somewhat, but they're letting him try and work his way out of it. Not what I would done.

---

If nothing else, it's nice having an owner with a face. Doesn't mean the product will be better. But I also like the talk about their plans for Wrigley, and think that's going to be their main concern for the immediate future. Too much hands on is a bad thing, so like I said, I'm guarded but hopeful.

As long as none of the Rickettses get divorced, this could work

over/under: 3.5 years.

Over. Are you kidding? Wealthy people getting divorced? Get real.

Well, we know he'll be back next year, they said as much today. He's got 3 years on his contract, so they may not want to buy him out of that so soon. Also Crane Kenney is sticking around (President-type level), and most people assumed he was only around when the Trib was still running things. I'd like to think that the Ricketts are taking some time to analyze the team from the inside to see what works and what doesn't, but they've had access and were the likely owners for years.

The Cubs aren't SO bad that it really makes sense to blow them up and worry about what to replace them with after the fact. This team won its division 2 of the last 3 years and had the best regular-season record in the NL last season.

Certainly, in 3-5 years' time, I would hope that we'll see a much better front office and a stronger baseball organization from top to bottom. But I'm not terribly troubled by their taking the time to do that right and giving Hendry and Piniella one more year here. Although, if I was them, I'd certainly want to keep Hendry on a relatively short leash in terms of the number of years that he can hand out in free-agent contracts. I'd hate for Hendry's parting gift to Cubs fans to be another Soriano-style albatross contract going forward.

Hopefully they'll make good moves, build slowly and the fans are patient. Because Hendry has painted the Cubs into a corner and the 2011-2012 Cubs are likely to be a pretty sorry bunch no matter who's in charge. And then, it's likely to be a slow rebuilding process from that point unless the Cubs farm system is richer than I thought. The Cubs of the 'teens are at a real risk of looking like the O's of the 00s.

But so far so good. My point is that if they make good moves and the fans are patient, this will work out; if they make good moves and the fans aren't patient, they'll be under a lot of pressure; if they make mediocre moves and the fans are patient, this won't end well.

Given the occasional nastiness of the Chicago media despite a good chunk of that media being under the same ownership, I'd recommend making media relations a fairly high priority.

Although, if I was them, I'd certainly want to keep Hendry on a relatively short leash in terms of the number of years that he can hand out in free-agent contracts. I'd hate for Hendry's parting gift to Cubs fans to be another Soriano-style albatross contract going forward.

As in Chone Figgins?

There is reason for cautious optimism. Overall the Tribune Company was a bad owner: while they were often willing to put money into the franchise, it was always for shiny baubles that they thought would put butts in the seats. There has never been a coherent plan for winning, ever, and the relative success they've enjoyed in recent years is the baseball analog of the real estate bubble. There is reason to think the new ownership sees the potential for making some money AND winning, which is very real.

It's hard to imagine an ownership group walking in and cleaning house, given the Cubs' high national and local profile, and the overall sensitivity of the situation. While I think Hendry's expiration date is long past, I can't blame them for letting him continue on at least for another year. I'd hate to see him make a bad long-term situation worse by throwing a lot of money for many years at Chone Figgins or someone like that, but maybe that's not going to happen.

There is reason for cautious optimism. Overall the Tribune Company was a bad owner: while they were often willing to put money into the franchise, it was always for shiny baubles that they thought would put butts in the seats. There has never been a coherent plan for winning, ever, and the relative success they've enjoyed in recent years is the baseball analog of the real estate bubble. There is reason to think the new ownership sees the potential for making some money AND winning, which is very real.

The problem is that it's not enough just to want to win. You have to know how to do it. Nothing in these quotes gives me any indication that the new owners know how to build a winning baseball team. Of course, there's nothing to indicate that they don't, either. Any when I say "build a winning baseball team", I don't mean that they need to know who to sign, etc., but they need to hire the right people to do that. I mean, does anyone doubt that Daniel Snyder really wants to win and is willing to put money up to do it? He's just not good at it. What's the difference between Snyder and Jerry Jones? For that matter, what's the difference between Steinbrenner from 82-92 and Steinbrenner 92-forward (all dates approximate)? He didn't want to win more, or be willing to spend more, he just hired the right people (sort of, but the circumstances aren't my point here).

The words of Ricketts actually wouldn't encourage me at all if I were a Cubs fan. He says they're going to reinvest the money they make into the stadium. Sounds to me like he's had his eye on what the Red Sox have done with Fenway. There's no indication he's had his eye on what the Red Sox have done with the on-field product.

When it comes to the team, he says payroll will be comparable, maybe a little higher. While he's certainly right that the payroll is already plenty high enough to consistently contend, he doesn't offer anything beyond that which would make me feel good about the team's outlook. There seems to be more reason to think he will cut payroll, not raise it. I'm sure the Cubs made a ton of money and there's no chance of attendance dropping 15% next season if they suck, so why not start re-investing now? If you say the Tribune could not or would not reinvest, then what are you doing if you don't jack up the payroll?

And then, it's likely to be a slow rebuilding process from that point unless the Cubs farm system is richer than I thought.

There are some potentially good players there. Starlin Castro has been coming on like gangbusters; the kid doesn't even turn 20 until March and he's hit well at both high-A and AA and is hitting .419 in the AFL, with acceptable OBP. Some of the pitchers took a step forward this year, too - Jay Jackson in particular. Vitters is doing OK - the power started to come out at Peoria this year, and while he's not walking much he's not striking out an inordinate amount either. It's not especially deep, especially at the higher levels, but it's not terrible.

-- MWE

What's the difference between Snyder and Jerry Jones?

Jerry Jones had Jimmy Johnson. Since the second year after Johnson left there has basically been no difference other than the fact that the Redskins have 2 playoff victories in the last 10 years and the Cowboys 0.

The words of Ricketts actually wouldn't encourage me at all if I were a Cubs fan. He says they're going to reinvest the money they make into the stadium. Sounds to me like he's had his eye on what the Red Sox have done with Fenway. There's no indication he's had his eye on what the Red Sox have done with the on-field product.

From the excerpt:

For one thing, as you can tell from talking to us, we all have the same agenda, which may not always be happening inside a corporation. We just want to win. We want to bring a championship back here.

From the article:

Their primary goal is the same as for every franchise owner -- win the World Series.

But the Rickettses know "hope springs eternal" and Cubs fans go hand in hand, and the obstacles in their path are familiar to anyone who has followed the luckless club.

"As a fan in the '80s and '90s, we'd all look at the roster at the beginning of the season, and the word 'hope' would always come out -- 'I hope they re-sign (Greg) Maddux, I hope (Ryne) Sandberg has another great year, or (Andre) Dawson,' " Todd Ricketts said. "I remember George Bell was going to save the Cubs. ... For us, hope is just not a strategy anymore."

and

Or, as Todd succinctly put it: "If you just win, everything else takes care of itself."

From the Sun Times article:

In his first public appearance since his family officially took ownership of the Cubs earlier this week, Tom Ricketts said flatly, ``We’re going to win the World Series,’’ and said that single-minded agenda is what sets a family ownership model apart from corporate ownership that must answer to shareholders.

and

He said he had three messages to deliver to Cub fans as his family takes over:

``No. 1 is we’re going to win the World Series,’’ he said.

``We’re going to win the World Series by striving every day in every way to be the best franchise in baseball. We’re going to invest in the best facilities in baseball, world-class facilities where every player wants to play and every coach wants to coach. We’re going to hire the best personnel and we’re going to hold them to the highest standards of excellence and accountability.

``The second thing we want to say to the fans is we love Wrigley Field and we’re going to do every thing we can to improve the Wrigley Field experience for the fans that are coming today and preserve the Wrigley field experience for the future generations of fans to come.

``Thirdly, we want to tell everyone we love the city of Chicago. Wrigley Field is a ballpark in a neighborhood. And we intend to be very good neighbors. And we intend to be active in giving back to the city of Chicago and the surrounding area.’’

Oh, and one more thing:

``There is no curse. If anybody on our team thinks he’s cursed, we’ll move him to a lesser-cursed team.’’

So, you haven't read the right quotes if you question what he's saying. He's saying *everything* right so far.

To swear you will bring a World Series to the Cubs is like saying you will achieve Peace in our Time, land a Man on Mars in 20 years and cure cancer.

To which I say: I admire your cajones.

Chairman Reinsdorf allowed Ricketts to buy the Cubs because he was the worst candidate.

So, you haven't read the right quotes if you question what he's saying. He's saying *everything* right so far.

Well, no they aren't. I don't expect them to say "everything right," in an interview, of course, and in fact, I don't want to hear it, I want to SEE it. And it's not about realizing that the rate-limiting step in scoring runs is getting on base, or that pitchers don't have much control over what happens to balls in play, it's about realizing that giving a player a lot of money for a lot of years after one fluke season is not a good idea, that you can sign a free agent and not give him a no-trade clause, that mediocre relievers sometimes have good years, and good ones have bad ones, stuff like that. If they have any knowledge about why the Cubs have been failures for most of the last 27 years, they didn't reveal it, other that to make it sound like it was due to a bad attitude or something.

The last time we had a changing of the guard was when Old Slow, Solid and Unspectacular stepped down, and McDonough gave us his "we're going to win the World Series right now!" schtick. That was fine, because you know what, we wanted the Cubs boss to think that even if we thought it was unlikely. I think most of us snickered a bit when he said it, and now in hindsight we can snicker again. We may be snickering about this interview in a year or two as well.

Again, I'm more optimistic than anything right now, but it's more a matter of being out from under a proven failure than anything.

16, all of those bolded quotes are boilerplate new owner mumbo jumbo. Not impressive.

hitting .419 in the AFL, with acceptable OBP.

That made me chuckle. :-)

As in Chone Figgins?

The Cubs simply have almost no room to maneuver, now or anytime in the near future. This move isn't going to happen barring clearing a good chunk of Bradley's salary -- which just opens up a bigger hole to fill than 2B.

That's why I'm glad to see him say they aren't raising payroll. The Cubs have to take their medicine, not try to buy their way out of this one. I'd rather he wasn't giving Hendry a chance to be the guy to do it but the Trib was nice enough to paint the Cubs into a bit of a corner on that one too with Hendry's long extension.

So, unfortunately, I think we'll see an offseason similar to the last one with Hendry trading away salary to clear enough room to sign his "solution". It's not likely to work out any better.

16, all of those bolded quotes are boilerplate new owner mumbo jumbo. Not impressive.

What do you expect him to say exactly then? Those quotes are exactly what you asked for in 13. Same question for you, Andere? Do you want exact strategies? Specific people they want to hire? Players to acquire?

The last time we had a changing of the guard was when Old Slow, Solid and Unspectacular stepped down, and McDonough gave us his "we're going to win the World Series right now!" schtick. That was fine, because you know what, we wanted the Cubs boss to think that even if we thought it was unlikely. I think most of us snickered a bit when he said it, and now in hindsight we can snicker again. We may be snickering about this interview in a year or two as well.

Fair enough, but it means more coming from the owner and not some marketing guy.

What do you expect him to say exactly then?

I don't expect him to say anything differently. But I also don't expect people to become optimistic based on him saying generic happy stuff.

But the fact is, when he got into any specifics, he didn't talk about reinvesting in the team. He said the stadium. And he said payroll would maybe go up a little, but it didn't really need to. So where does he get off saying the Trib wouldn't reinvest but he will, without raising payroll much if at all?

I heard a radio interview he did after this press conference, and he got into more details about investing money in the minor leagues and international scouting, so that's one area. And I like his point that just spending money isn't a sign of anything - the Trib had no problem spending money these last 5 - 10 years or so. It's spending the money in the right spots, and not throwing $150mil down the drain on guys like Soriano. Talking about having better facilities is another area - there's a number of players that hate playing at Wrigley and do nothing but complain when they're here (Lance Berkman is one of the more recent vocal ones), which can help draw more talent. One specific project is the triangle building next to the stadium; the Trib has talked about building something there (which would mean they'd be able to improve the clubhouse and workout facilities in the stadium) for over a decade, and nothing's happened. In the radio interview, he mentioned that's probably one of the first things they're going to work on.

And for the record, I said cautiously optimistic and no one else here is jumping up and down. Like he said, there's a BIG difference between a corporately owned team and one owned by individuals. So I feel that's a good step. I probably would have felt that no matter what he said, unless it was clear this was an investment for them and they were hoping to turn a profit. He sounds like someone who really just wants to own a team and wants that team to do well. He could have talked about cutting back because of the economy, or the product on the field doesn't justify the payroll, etc. but he focused on ways to make the Cubs better. Like I said before, it's one thing for guys like Crane Kenney or John McDonough to say that; at the end of the day they only have so much say and pull to make that happen. But coming directly from an owner that can do what he says (like Andere said, there's not guarantee he will) it's slightly encouraging.

Same question for you, Andere? Do you want exact strategies? Specific people they want to hire? Players to acquire? .

No, of course not. I expect exactly what we got: teddy bears and unicorns. That's not a bad thing. If they plan to be tough and aggressive in removing the rotten parts of the organization, I sure as hell don't expect them to say it, I expect them to do it.

The one statement they said that I would like to take comfort in was the "hope is not a strategy" statement. I'm not at all sure what it means, but I'd like to think it means they saw that the Himes/Lynch/MacPhail/Hendry way of doing things was to throw money into a magic box and hope that out would come winning teams, if they said the right incantations and the stars were aligned. Other than old fashioned scouting sheets, there was no coherent plan and no analytical savvy whatsoever. You don't have to look beyond the Cubs' own division to find certain teams that do more with less, year after year, and maybe the Ricketts see that. I hope they see that!

Jerry Jones had Jimmy Johnson. Since the second year after Johnson left there has basically been no difference other than the fact that the Redskins have 2 playoff victories in the last 10 years and the Cowboys 0.

That's kind of my point. No matter how much Snyder wants to win, he doesn't know how. He tries to meddle and screws things up. Jones let Johnson do his thing, and they won. Does anyone think that Peter Angelos doesn't want to win?

Winning isn't just wanting to win and spending the money. It's hiring the right people and letting them put the pieces in place.

Winning isn't just wanting to win and spending the money.

Tell that to all the Yankee haters.

DB

This is what I, and lots of other Cubs fans, have been saying at this site for a while. Hendry has painted the team into a corner somewhat, but they're letting him try and work his way out of it. Not what I would done.

Well, that's the thing... Hendry painted the team into an impossible corner with the contracts - and there's just no reasonable way out of several of them.

Neither Hendry nor the Cubs are awful - Hendry has his moments of competence. If you bring in a new GM now - you're bringing in a dead GM walking, more than likely. He's not going to have any more luck undoing the Soriano debacle than Hendry.

Giving Hendry another year is probably the best option. The Cubs can probably still squeeze another year of contention about their aging core - and Hendry's already bloated roll of players on the wrong side of 30 with a lot of big money still owed likely prevents him from handing out any more.

This would be a very tough team in a tough situation for a new GM to step into - we're probably best served letting the Hendry era runs its won for at least another year, maybe two.

Tell that to all the Yankee haters.

On BTF? I'm not sure I know of any posters here who think that the Yankees win solely because they spend money. It's because they spend money smartly, and can buy their way out of the mistakes that they do make. Also, as has been stated over and over (and over and over...) again, the Yankees are in a class by themselves with the money that they spend.

Anyway, this is about the Cubs and if they spend a lot of money without being smart about it, they'll be like... well, I guess the won't be any different than they've been.

The last time we had a changing of the guard was when Old Slow, Solid and Unspectacular stepped down, and McDonough gave us his "we're going to win the World Series right now!" schtick. That was fine, because you know what, we wanted the Cubs boss to think that even if we thought it was unlikely. I think most of us snickered a bit when he said it, and now in hindsight we can snicker again. We may be snickering about this interview in a year or two as well.

We did snicker a bit when he said it...and then a year-and-a-half later we watched in slack-jawed horror as the team that had the best record in the NL in 2008, and was one of the odds-on favorites to win the World Series that year, imploded in three grisly days in October. Can we look back in hindsight and laugh at McDonough's winter of 2006-2007 bravado? Yes. But he and the rest of the Tribsters did come damn close to going from 2006 NL Worst Record to 2007 Bad Division Champions to 2008 Bought-and-Paid For World Series Champions.

Maybe the Ricketts' will actually pull it off. Stranger things have happened.

this will be an interesting winter, im curious to see what happens, and optimistic about the new owners.

The 2008 Cubs had a slew of fine players all have good years. That doesn't happen often.

I will also mention that even in an improving environment highly levered companies are not being lent money or allowed to restructure debt to take on more debt with an extended payment timeframe. Even with good annual EBITDA.

Meaning the Cubs can likely rearrange but not absorb.

Winning isn't just wanting to win and spending the money.

Tell that to all the Yankee haters.

The important difference between Snyder/Angelos and Steinbrenner, is that Steinbrenner actually learned a few things over time.

Steinbrenner was always a meddler (when healthy), but actually learned more and more about baseball as he went along.

Snyder is like the loudmouthed fan who is convinced he knows better than someone/anyone else, and is mentally/emotionally incapable of questioning that "fact".

I will also mention that even in an improving environment highly levered companies are not being lent money or allowed to restructure debt to take on more debt with an extended payment timeframe. Even with good annual EBITDA.

Meaning the Cubs can likely rearrange but not absorb.

One of the specific questions Boers and Bernstein asked Ricketts was related to cash flow and the interest/debt payments. Ricketts said the payments were completely managable and cash flow wasn't an issue and they were looking into way to increase immediate cash flow (ie more sponsorships). I don't know the specifics of the purchase structure, so it will be interesting what sort of investments they'll be able to make in the short term in the stadium and how money actual cash they have on hand.

Well,'cash flow' is handy phrase that unless defined in the conversation can mean different things. You know that. I know that. I doubt the radio guys knew what follow up questions to ask.

Hey, if they can roust up some cash laying around that is sustainable as opposed to one time infusions more power to them. But marketing dollars are hard to come by right now since the first thing to go in a downturn are marketing DEPARTMENTS.

Moses, I have worked to be helpful throughout this process because these days M&A;, financing, and the like is my line of interest being in PE. I hope its taken in that spirit versus a Brewer fan working to be negative.

It wasn't the most detailed answer, and it was clear Ricketts wasn't going to get into specifics even if the right follow up question was asked. As you probably recall, we were on the same side in an earler discussion here speculating whether or not the new guys would open up the purse strings (we both said a firm "No"). I believe it's already been said ticket prices are going up, and odds are most of the games will be sold out, so I don't anticipate any financial difficulties from that perspective. I think it's a good point that expecting a windfall of sponsorship isn't prudent, even if it may appear on first glance that Wrigley is ripe for the exploiting.

And yes, you have been helpful and I've taken your comments in that light. Besides, regardless of the Cubs' payroll next year they'll finish ahead of the Brewers yet again :).

Snyder is like the loudmouthed fan who is convinced he knows better than someone/anyone else, and is mentally/emotionally incapable of questioning that "fact".

While the comparisons between Snyder and Jones are too good to pass up, Jones is a lot different than Snyder in one crucial aspect: Jones knows a little bit about football. He was a co-captain and offensive lineman for Arkansas in their salad days, winning a shared national title with them in 1964. That doesn't make him an NFL GM, but he's vastly more qualified than Snyder is. Did Snyder even play football?

and really im just glad the damn sale is finally over, now it isnt hanging over the teams head all year

How can the new era begin after only three out of the eight years of the Alfonso Soriano contract?

While the comparisons between Snyder and Jones are too good to pass up, Jones is a lot different than Snyder in one crucial aspect: Jones knows a little bit about football. He was a co-captain and offensive lineman for Arkansas in their salad days, winning a shared national title with them in 1964. That doesn't make him an NFL GM, but he's vastly more qualified than Snyder is. Did Snyder even play football?

How many NFL GMs played college football? How many head coaches? That's not really a necessary qualification. And for everyone bringing up this comparison, did you all miss this point:

Jerry Jones had Jimmy Johnson. Since the second year after Johnson left there has basically been no difference other than the fact that the Redskins have 2 playoff victories in the last 10 years and the Cowboys 0.

Since Jerry has been running the team and acting as a sorta-GM, they haven't won a playoff game (they won the SB the year after Jimmy left, but that was still Jimmy's team). So it's perfectly fair to question how he runs his team, at least in comparison to Snyder.