Counsell to Cubs

[Fear The Chorizo]

Just now, homer said:

again, paying him $5m a year doesn't matter to the Cubs if it is not impacting their roster. The only way his salary matters is if it prevents them from signing a player. 

They are paying him $8m a year, not $5M.  Honestly any mlb team can throw that much money at a manager - the fact nobody has come close to paying a manager that amount annually ever before tells me it's insane.  

It would be the equivalent of Ohtani signing a free agent deal for $90m a season for 10 years - completely out of bounds no matter how good they are.

 

[owbc]

15 minutes ago, HarveysWBs said:

No, sorry, this doesn't fly in this case.  Counsell can't have it both ways.  He can't say "I know you, I am you, we're cut from the same cloth...Brewers baseball is a torch I'll carry always, it is part of my identity" and then make a business decision to go manage the Cubs when the organization wanted him back and offered him the richest manager contract in baseball.

But what this actually is is a reminder that nobody really cares about their legacy anymore (if they ever did, maybe I'm not old enough to have seen a different sporting world).  Love this fact, hate it, or simply accept it, it is a fact, because if Craig Counsell of all people won't care about his Brewers legacy, nobody is going to (maybe Bud Selig, but nobody younger, I'd wager).  I'll admit it, I didn't believe that fact to be true, and I was wrong.  I won't be fooled again.  

I'll still love this team, and I'll root harder than ever for a World Series, as it would be the crowning moment and the missing jewel in my life as a sports fan--and I imagine that in a few years I may even be ready to fully reassess and recognize what Counsell meant for this team in its proper context again.  But I'll never trust an individual player, coach, or organization member to really care what the fanbase thinks about them ever again.  Counsell had the last inroads through my cynicism, but I've seen more than enough now to know better, and I should have learned this lesson earlier.

I think he wants his legacy to include more championships. He's tasted it twice and he wants another go as a manager. He knows what the odds are in a small market. 

It's a risky and arrogant move. It could backfire. It's way riskier than working with Stearns. He could easily clash with the Cubs' upper management and end up getting fired. Then he'll either have to manage again to get his reputation back or start apologizing to Wisconsin with his tail between his legs. And even with that he might still get booed at Sendik's. 

 

[HarveysWBs]

6 minutes ago, TPlush said:

You're twisting my words. You can overpay for a steak or a lightbulb or a garbage can. But a unique, talented, person who is compensated in the millions of dollars for their abilities, when there are only 30 positions total, what they get paid is the market rate. A rebuilding team wanted a highly experienced manager with a solid track record who's good at managing the clubhouse and understands analytics, $8 mil a year is where supply met the demand. One poster does not a genius make.
 

So you can have a market of one?  If no other manager contract gets within, say, 40% of Counsell’s yearly salary, his deal is still within the “market rate” in your estimation. How is that a “market”?  When I hear market, that implies multiple deals, otherwise we’re talking about just a transaction.

[HarveysWBs]

16 minutes ago, owbc said:

I think he wants his legacy to include more championships. He's tasted it twice and he wants another go as a manager. He knows what the odds are in a small market. 

It's a risky and arrogant move. It could backfire. It's way riskier than working with Stearns. He could easily clash with the Cubs' upper management and end up getting fired. Then he'll either have to manage again to get his reputation back or start apologizing to Wisconsin with his tail between his legs. And even with that he might still get booed at Sendik's. 

 

These are fair points.  I should have clarified that I meant he doesn’t seem to care about his legacy with the Brewers, certainly not over his individual legacy.  I grant that he made this move out of pursuit of his personal goals, but as you seem to acknowledge, he can’t entirely escape the fact that his individual legacy is inextricably linked with his time in Milwaukee (and by his own admission in the old hype video), and now his ignominious exit is part of that legacy forever, too.

[wiguy94]

39 minutes ago, HarveysWBs said:

No, sorry, this doesn't fly in this case.  Counsell can't have it both ways.  He can't say "I know you, I am you, we're cut from the same cloth...Brewers baseball is a torch I'll carry always, it is part of my identity" and then make a business decision to go manage the Cubs when the organization wanted him back and offered him the richest manager contract in baseball.

But what this actually is is a reminder that nobody really cares about their legacy anymore (if they ever did, maybe I'm not old enough to have seen a different sporting world).  Love this fact, hate it, or simply accept it, it is a fact, because if Craig Counsell of all people won't care about his Brewers legacy, nobody is going to (maybe Bud Selig, but nobody younger, I'd wager).  I'll admit it, I didn't believe that fact to be true, and I was wrong.  I won't be fooled again.  

I'll still love this team, and I'll root harder than ever for a World Series, as it would be the crowning moment and the missing jewel in my life as a sports fan--and I imagine that in a few years I may even be ready to fully reassess and recognize what Counsell meant for this team in its proper context again.  But I'll never trust an individual player, coach, or organization member to really care what the fanbase thinks about them ever again.  Counsell had the last inroads through my cynicism, but I've seen more than enough now to know better, and I should have learned this lesson earlier.

Well it appears that was always a lie as Verducci claims the Cubs job was a dream job for Counsell if he ever left the Brewers. He clearly isn't cut from the same cloth as us if that was the case.

[TPlush]

11 minutes ago, HarveysWBs said:

So you can have a market of one?  If no other manager contract gets within, say, 40% of Counsell’s yearly salary, his deal is still within the “market rate” in your estimation. How is that a “market”?  When I hear market, that implies multiple deals, otherwise we’re talking about just a transaction.

Not saying Counsell is in the tier that Ohtani is, but as a very clear example, yes, I do think there can be a "market of 1", or a very small number. There is no comp for Ohtani's deal this offseason. In the NBA, if Kerr, Popovich, or Spoelstra became a free agent, there is no comp for coaches of that caliber, it would be a very clear "market of 1". If a team becomes available in F1, it's a market of 1. And while I think Counsell's main motivation was getting paid as much as possible, I think he has a fair point that the best managers are underpaid in 2023. He's maximized the wins from the teams he's managed, we've all seen it for years and know it. Cubs fans complaining about pythagorean W-L record, etc. etc.... we know Counsell has been one of our advantages, regardless of how hard it is to wquantify. And all it takes is one or a few teams to agree with that, to create a high demand market for Counsell. There are very few managers in MLB as consistently good as Counsell, let alone available at this exact moment.

Why it's not an overpay? Seems like there were at least 3-4 teams willing to break the record of manager salary for Counsell. This is a clear indicator what the Cubs paid was not an overpay, it was the minimum amount Counsell would take to sign the contract, and other teams missed out by not offering more. It's where supply met demand in this market.

[HarveysWBs]

2 minutes ago, TPlush said:

Not saying Counsell is in the tier that Ohtani is, but as a very clear example, yes, I do think there can be a "market of 1", or a very small number. There is no comp for Ohtani's deal this offseason. In the NBA, if Kerr, Popovich, or Spoelstra became a free agent, there is no comp for coaches of that caliber, it would be a very clear "market of 1". If a team becomes available in F1, it's a market of 1. And while I think Counsell's main motivation was getting paid as much as possible, I think he has a fair point that the best managers are underpaid in 2023. He's maximized the wins from the teams he's managed, we've all seen it for years and know it. Cubs fans complaining about pythagorean W-L record, etc. etc.... we know Counsell has been one of our advantages, regardless of how hard it is to wquantify. And all it takes is one or a few teams to agree with that, to create a high demand market for Counsell. There are very few managers in MLB as consistently good as Counsell, let alone available at this exact moment.

Why it's not an overpay? Seems like there were at least 3-4 teams willing to break the record of manager salary for Counsell. This is a clear indicator what the Cubs paid was not an overpay, it was the minimum amount Counsell would take to sign the contract, and other teams missed out by not offering more. It's where supply met demand in this market.

That explanation is helpful.  I think I would simply use the term market differently.  I am quite curious if anyone would have gotten even close to what the Cubs offered.  Sounded like the Brewers had a better offer on Counsell’s desk than the Mets, and I’d be surprised if the Guardians or the analytical Astros would have exceeded 5.5 mil/year.

At any rate, we’re about to find out if Counsell really is a unicorn—after all, Kerr, Pop, and Spoels have rings as managers.  Should be interesting.

[homer]

27 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

They are paying him $8m a year, not $5M.  Honestly any mlb team can throw that much money at a manager - the fact nobody has come close to paying a manager that amount annually ever before tells me it's insane.  

It would be the equivalent of Ohtani signing a free agent deal for $90m a season for 10 years - completely out of bounds no matter how good they are.

 

yes $8m. My mistake. But the amount does not matter unless it changes how they do business. To a team like Milwaukee? Maybe it keeps them from making a particular trade. To a team like the Cubs? Business as usual. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

1 minute ago, homer said:

yes $8m. My mistake. But the amount does not matter unless it changes how they do business. To a team like Milwaukee? Maybe it keeps them from making a particular trade. To a team like the Cubs? Business as usual. 

I don't think paying a manager $8M would prevent any MLB team from improving their roster on the field if they wanted to.  That doesn't mean any manager is actually worth that kind of salary, though.  I've got friends who are Cub fans wondering what the hell they're doing paying CC like AmFam's running out of flagpoles to hang pennants, knowing if the Brewers played in one of the east or west divisions all the recent playoff appearances that resulted in quick exits under CC likely never would've happened to begin with.

I mean, the Cubs are paying Nico Hoerner and Taillon a combined $30M next season - so they're no strangers to lighting $$ on fire.  I say let them have at it.

[jw5511986]

1 hour ago, jhart05 said:

Seems pretty simple to me.  Follow the money.

Remove feelings from the equation.

It’s just a job.  Pure business decision.  Nothing more.

I would have done the same.

You can both recognize that you may have made the same choice and that it's a slap in the face of the fans of the team from the area you claim as your home. I promise they are not mutually exclusive thoughts.

[Axman59]

1 hour ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

They are paying him $8m a year, not $5M.  Honestly any mlb team can throw that much money at a manager - the fact nobody has come close to paying a manager that amount annually ever before tells me it's insane.  

It would be the equivalent of Ohtani signing a free agent deal for $90m a season for 10 years - completely out of bounds no matter how good they are.

 

Paying a manager less per season than Jesse Winker is insane?

I disagree.

[Brewcrew82]

2 hours ago, owbc said:

I think he wants his legacy to include more championships. He's tasted it twice and he wants another go as a manager. He knows what the odds are in a small market. 

It's a risky and arrogant move. It could backfire. It's way riskier than working with Stearns. He could easily clash with the Cubs' upper management and end up getting fired. Then he'll either have to manage again to get his reputation back or start apologizing to Wisconsin with his tail between his legs. And even with that he might still get booed at Sendik's. 

 

Love love love the profile pic update btw!

[Lathund]

7 hours ago, TURBO said:

So he allowed it to be public that he was meeting with the Mets and Cleveland, but felt the need to keep it private to meet with the Cubs?

I think part of it is that the Mets and Guardians had no reason to keep a Counsell interview private, but the Cubs absolutely would want it to stay private in case Counsell wasn't hired and Ross stayed on. 

[True Blue Brew Crew]

9 hours ago, rickh150 said:

Go be a Cub fan then… Attanasio obviously wanted him back and would have paid him more than any manager in the history of baseball.
Go be a Cub if you are blaming Attanasio AT ALL for this.

Woah settle down snappy. Nothing in the post you quoted took sides. Everything in my post was an assessment of how this must have went down. You can't deny that Mark A's statements yesterday were out of character and far more defensive that is typical for him. That's not an attack on MA, it's just noting a truth.

BTW, since we don't know everything that led to this, there exists an increasingly plausible scenario where even YOU would change your tune and blame Mark A plenty for this. I think the more we learn, the less Brewers fans will like what's been happening behind the scenes. I don't know how anyone could deny something significant has changed in the past 2-3 years. The remaining questions are what changed and who is to blame.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

I mean which is more likely, Stearns and Counsell became cowards and decided they no longer were up for a challenge or Mark Attanasio changed and they no longer liked the team's direction? Oversimplified perhaps, but something changed.

Sure with Stearns you can shout "hometown team" but with Counsell this WAS his hometown team. And even with Stearns, he stepped away before he even could go to his hometown team. No, I believe there's more to this than just getting his dream job.

There's so much more to this and I'm looking forward to learning more about what changed in the past 2-3 years. Something changed. Even the players have dropped hints. Not even being approached about extensions, that's another big red flag.

[MrTPlush]

Some of you guys have quite the imagination, that is all. Some of these conspiracy theories are quite out there.

[Bulldogboy]

Brewers need to rebuild right now with a good young manager who has a rep for working with young players. Do not get hung up on trying to show Counsell who is boss and beat them with Joey Votto etc... Just off load Burnes and company build through the draft and see them in the playoffs in 3-5.

[Bulldogboy]

9 hours ago, SRB said:

I think people will chill out over time about this. Counsell was a likable presence and a solid enough manager, but (1) he is not some sort of managerial savant, and most of the posts on here during games were rightfully complaining about his poor decisionmaking and roster management, and (2) he spent most of his career elsewhere and only spent a few seasons on the Brewers at the tail end of his career. I vaguely remember knowing that he was from Whitefish Bay during his time here as a player, and it became a nice story when he returned to his hometown team as a manager, but minus that "nice story" I doubt people would even care about this at all.

It's very different from a hometown player leaving during free agency, and it would be very different if this was Robin Yount or someone who was an iconic Brewer mainstay. Counsell has a nice run here as manager, but if anything we have underperformed from the level of talent on the roster despite making the playoffs regularly. I don't care that he's leaving for a rival. I will barely remember he's there just like I barely remembered that David Ross was the manager.

Agree with this. Counsell definitely underachieved given the pitching alone. He is better than most not as good as some. Now if he can get 8 mil to do what he does great. This is the same team that went to arby with a Cy young winner for 100k. Mark is a cheap guy and Counsell got tired of it. No hard feelings from me.

[Frisbee Slider]

For a manager to be worth $8 million per year, they would need to contribute multiple wins above ‘replacement level.’

Do we believe CC’s presence is worth multiple wins compared to how David Ross or another manager would have led the Cubs or Brewers?

[True Blue Brew Crew]

37 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Some of you guys have quite the imagination, that is all. Some of these conspiracy theories are quite out there.

Looking forward to the next time you pontificate on something which is your own personal speculation. Which btw is probably around 90% of the time. I'm gonna be right there to talk about your "imagination".

Btw, forum mods/owners, isn't just about every post on this forum someone's opinion? Does it make sense then for people like MrTPlush to show such disdain every time someone posts their opinion? Isn't opinion sharing kind of the entire point of this forum, this website?

[Zad Fnark]

I'm wondering if he's going down to deliberately sabotage the Cubs.

... and take their money while doing it.

😄

[LouisEly]

10 hours ago, TPlush said:

Market rate is what someone is willing to pay. Cubs were willing to pay 40 mil, Brewers (reportedly) were willing to pay 27.5 mil (assuming same contract length). Attanasio was willing to pay 32% lower than market rate.

Market rate is what people have actually paid.  It doesn't become market rate until someone actually pays it.  When Attanasio made his offer no one had paid that yet, thus it wasn't market rate, and he had no reason to believe anyone would pay that because no one ever had.  He offered what would have been the highest managerial salary ever paid at the time; that's above market rate.

[TPlush]

6 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

Market rate is what people have actually paid.  It doesn't become market rate until someone actually pays it.  When Attanasio made his offer no one had paid that yet, thus it wasn't market rate, and he had no reason to believe anyone would pay that because no one ever had.  He offered what would have been the highest managerial salary ever paid at the time; that's above market rate.

And then the Cubs paid $8 mil. Which is market rate according to your definition, and I agree :)

[MrTPlush]

13 minutes ago, True Blue Brew Crew said:

Looking forward to the next time you pontificate on something which is your own personal speculation. Which btw is probably around 90% of the time. I'm gonna be right there to talk about your "imagination".

Btw, forum mods/owners, isn't just about every post on this forum someone's opinion? Does it make sense then for people like MrTPlush to show such disdain every time someone posts their opinion? Isn't opinion sharing kind of the entire point of this forum, this website?

First off, flattering you think I was even referring to you.

I am pretty sure I can use my opinion to say that some of these conspiracy theories are quite out there. I mean we got at least one person who pondered if Counsell went to the Cubs specifically to backstab us among other sinister theories.

I didn’t even say they shouldn’t be allowed or even say anything negative towards them. Just said they are quite off the deep end of takes with little to back them up.

[Frisbee Slider]

This seems like a moment when we should agree to disagree on definition of market rates. 🙂

I wonder what the response has been from Cubs fans? Excitement, I assume.