I don't care if his contract ages as poorly as Jason Heyward's did, you cannot let him walk and be a serious organization.
*** Official 2025 Chicago Cubs Thread***
- Thread starter Cyforce
- Start date
I don't care if his contract ages as poorly as Jason Heyward's did, you cannot let him walk and be a serious organization.
Yup - lost interest over the last month or so and now barely check in to see what the score was that day. I’ll check in a bit more as things get closer to the playoffs to see if they figured things out.
This is 100% what the Cubs SHOULD do but won’t happen with the cheap ass ownership.
I don’t believe the Cubs have every give a single player $25+ mil per year - they aren’t going to do it twice next year.
In defense of not…they didn’t get a ton out of Soriano or Heyward. Certainly not what was hoped. I guess the counter argument is pay a bunch of guys more and maybe the odds of hitting on a good one are better.
I don’t hate the idea of having Schwarber the way this is presented though. Makes a lot more sense than I was thinking it did.
They won’t all pan out but the Cubs aren’t even trying. They refuse to spend like a real big market team.
I don't know what to think of this upcoming Rockies series at Coors field. Is it an opportunity for the Cubs bats to come alive. Or maybe the bats pop a bit, but not enough to keep up with Rockies bats. The HR's given up by Cub pitchers in SF gives me pause.
Interesting info. Would love to see further break-out on revenue. It amazes me the revenue differences between teams in the same towns:
- NY - Yankees $728M vs. Mets $444M
- Chi - Cubs $584M vs. White Sox $277M
- LA - Dodgers $752 vs. Angels $410
I don't understand the payroll tax calculation. Seems like it should be closer to the median spend, around 47%. My guess is that will be a hot button for players with their 2027 contract.
What bothers me is the Cubs % spent of revenue when you look at the teams listed directly below them. Those 4 have been awful for a while and that is not company the Cubs should want to be in. Then you look up and look at how much more the in-division teams are spending that have had more consistent success/playoff appearances in recent years. Brewers 4.4% more, Reds 6.2% more, Cardinals 6.5% more. All smaller markets and all significantly less total revenue too. This crap about the Ricketts just breaking even on the Cubs doesn't seem to hold up when you look at these numbers.
If you are “just breaking even” with almost $600 million in revenue and only giving the players $213 million - you run a REALLY crappy business.
That's why when they use that line it's a slap in the face to fans that know this is not the truth. I know they redeveloped a lot of the area around Wrigley and that costs money, but that's more of an investment on the private side by the Ricketts and not an operational cost of the Cubs.
The only possibility to explain such a low payroll level vs. revenue is if the Ricketts family incurred a ton of debt to purchase the Cubs and then followed that up with debt to upgrade Wrigley field.
Otherwise, I would agree. It's shameful they aren't willing to have a payroll in the 45-50% range of revenue.
