Avoiding arbitration is clearly their top priority.

[AlohaSpicoli]

We all hear about how MacPhail and Co. haven't gone to arbitration with a player since they took over in 1994.

 

My question is why does this commitment to avoiding arbitration not seem to be equalled by the commitment to fielding a winning team?

 

As a fan, I want to win games. That's all. I don't care if they go to arbitration with a player or not. As Al Davis says, just win, Baby.

 

So in the No Arbitration era, which is into its second decade now, there has been one division championship, one wild card berth, and one winning season beyond that. And lots of losing seasons.

 

If the Tribune valued winning ball games the way they apparently value avoiding arbitration, we would have seen much more success on the field over these past years.

[sweetpeteman]

We all hear about how MacPhail and Co. haven't gone to arbitration with a player since they took over in 1994.

 

My question is why does this commitment to avoiding arbitration not seem to be equalled by the commitment to fielding a winning team?

 

As a fan, I want to win games. That's all. I don't care if they go to arbitration with a player or not. As Al Davis says, just win, Baby.

 

So in the No Arbitration era, which is into its second decade now, there has been one division championship, one wild card berth, and one winning season beyond that. And lots of losing seasons.

 

If the Tribune valued winning ball games the way they apparently value avoiding arbitration, we would have seen much more success on the field over these past years.

 

Number 1: Thats the best we've had in a while (pathetic, I know)

 

Number 2:

 

1 Div Champ

1 Wild Card

3 Winning Seasons (95, 01, 04)

[BigbadB]

We all hear about how MacPhail and Co. haven't gone to arbitration with a player since they took over in 1994.

 

My question is why does this commitment to avoiding arbitration not seem to be equalled by the commitment to fielding a winning team?

 

As a fan, I want to win games. That's all. I don't care if they go to arbitration with a player or not. As Al Davis says, just win, Baby.

 

So in the No Arbitration era, which is into its second decade now, there has been one division championship, one wild card berth, and one winning season beyond that. And lots of losing seasons.

 

If the Tribune valued winning ball games the way they apparently value avoiding arbitration, we would have seen much more success on the field over these past years.

 

Who cares about the World Series? First team to sign all their players to guaranteed contracts wins!

 

I'm with ya, dude.

[Illini Iceman]

We all hear about how MacPhail and Co. haven't gone to arbitration with a player since they took over in 1994.

 

My question is why does this commitment to avoiding arbitration not seem to be equalled by the commitment to fielding a winning team?

 

As a fan, I want to win games. That's all. I don't care if they go to arbitration with a player or not. As Al Davis says, just win, Baby.

 

So in the No Arbitration era, which is into its second decade now, there has been one division championship, one wild card berth, and one winning season beyond that. And lots of losing seasons.

 

If the Tribune valued winning ball games the way they apparently value avoiding arbitration, we would have seen much more success on the field over these past years.

 

Who cares about the World Series? First team to sign all their players to guaranteed contracts wins!

 

I'm with ya, dude.

 

You are?

 

Give me any example of how going to arbitration with a player instead of signing him before the hearing would have helped the Cubs go to the World Series.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

We all hear about how MacPhail and Co. haven't gone to arbitration with a player since they took over in 1994.

 

My question is why does this commitment to avoiding arbitration not seem to be equalled by the commitment to fielding a winning team?

 

As a fan, I want to win games. That's all. I don't care if they go to arbitration with a player or not. As Al Davis says, just win, Baby.

 

So in the No Arbitration era, which is into its second decade now, there has been one division championship, one wild card berth, and one winning season beyond that. And lots of losing seasons.

 

If the Tribune valued winning ball games the way they apparently value avoiding arbitration, we would have seen much more success on the field over these past years.

 

Who cares about the World Series? First team to sign all their players to guaranteed contracts wins!

 

I'm with ya, dude.

 

You are?

 

Give me any example of how going to arbitration with a player instead of signing him before the hearing would have helped the Cubs go to the World Series.

 

Agreed. MacPhail and Co. want to win, they're just really bad at it. The Tribune has provided the resources necessary to win, MacPhail and Co. have misused them. This seems a really unusual analogy to make.

[BigbadB]

It's sarcasm on the part of signing all of their players to guaranteed contracts. However, I happen to agree that if this ownership group had just as much desire to build a playoff caliber team as they do to avoid arbitration, this team would be more enjoyable to watch play.

[jyoung55]

So is this thread a prime example of Faulty Logic??? :-k

[bmkhawk]

So is this thread a prime example of Faulty Logic??? :-k

Yes.

[BigbadB]

So is this thread a prime example of Faulty Logic??? :-k

 

I suppose that depends on whether one is satisfied that the additions of Jacque Jones, Scott Eyre, Juan Pierre, John Mabry and Bob Howry was worthy enough of an improvement to be a playoff caliber team.

 

I suppose it also depends on whether having more than 40m to spend this offseason, lots of trade commodity, and plenty of available players on the market to improve the team and the moves that were made met your satisfaction.

 

I don't think any member of our community that isn't happy with the moves made this offseason really deserves the catch phrase "faulty logic". I don't think anyone who wishes to be optimistic about this offseason deserves it either.

 

Since 2003, this team has taken a step backwards. They did win a game or two more in 2004, but the team was more poorly run than the team that took the field in 2003. They were clearly more talented, also. But, 2004 did not feature playoffs like 2003 did, so yes, 2004 was a step backwards. 2005 was a horrible year to be a Cub fan. Not all blame should be pointed at management. Injuries did factor in.

 

As far as I was concerned, the stars were all in alignment this offseason. A big splash could have been made to improve this team. They had the resources to make a big impact improving this team. Instead, they went with a modest approach.

 

Whether an argument could be made that players could have been attained or not is not what I am going to debate. We do know that many talented players were available this offseason and maybe no other team outside of the LA Dodgers had more money to spend this offseason than the Cubs.

 

I think this offseason was filled with mistakes right out of the gate. Sending Nomar packing was not a good idea. He would have been fairly cheap to bring back and he seemed to have a chip on his shoulder to do Chicago right. I'd much rather have seen Nomar's bat in RF this coming season than Jacque Jones. Well, I'd rather have seen his bat at the plate behind Lee and Aramis anyway, but you get my point. I would have much rather seen him have a healthy season with the Cubs than with the Dodgers. That does remain to be seen, but it was a gamble worth taking. With Cedeno and Perez, SS had 3 capable players. Nomar could have moved to RF and he also would have been a nice replacement at 3b if Aramis got hurt. If he misses most of 2006 due to injury, then I deserve a heaping helping of crow. But, I think he's going to have a healthy season and many of us will regret that we didn't hang onto him. Especially when he's ouproducing Jacque Jones by a healthy margin.

 

I do think this team is better than last year. But, I don't think it's enough. The whole season is riding on the starting staff. Based on past history, not a good idea.

 

When I look at the list of players that could have been obtained this offseason, and then I see a line up that features Jacque Jones in it, it makes me ill. To see that he's probably the best option to hit 5th makes me very ill. I do like Juan Pierre. I would have much rather seen a guy like Coco Crisp, and I would have liked to seen less spent to acquire a guy in the final year of a contract, but lead off HAD to be addressed. I've been screaming for that for quite some time.

 

All in all, I'm not happy with the offseason. I don't think this team is playoff caliber.

 

I hope I'm wrong. I'll cheer for them anyway and hope I'm proven wrong. But, if I see Neifi Perez hitting 2nd in the order, I'm turning off the tv. I will not pour salt into the wound that was opened up last year when Dusty consistently gave Perez top of the order at bats. I don't trust him to not do it this year. My best remedy is to just not watch when that happens.

 

I'm tired of watching mediocre baseball from an organization that has no excuse to field mediocre teams.

 

I'm frustrated that what was once an organization with a strong farm system, with plenty of resources and a positive direction nose dived as quickly as they did.

[Jehrico]

We all hear about how MacPhail and Co. haven't gone to arbitration with a player since they took over in 1994.

 

My question is why does this commitment to avoiding arbitration not seem to be equalled by the commitment to fielding a winning team?

 

As a fan, I want to win games. That's all. I don't care if they go to arbitration with a player or not. As Al Davis says, just win, Baby.

 

So in the No Arbitration era, which is into its second decade now, there has been one division championship, one wild card berth, and one winning season beyond that. And lots of losing seasons.

 

If the Tribune valued winning ball games the way they apparently value avoiding arbitration, we would have seen much more success on the field over these past years.

 

I don't see any connection between arbitration (or the lack thereof) and the quality of teams that have been fielded since '94. They went to arbitration quite a bit before then, and didn't have any better results. By and large, whenever there is someone that they might go to arbitration with and they settle before the date, I can't say they've squandered resources in doing so. The problem isn't with their arbitration approach, their problem is overpaying for mediocre free agents (or FA eligible players). This offseason, it has been a case of that (Perez, Rusch), and of not working to pull of the big move (RF) when all of the stars were aligned (free payroll, 40 man roster space, prospects in the minors, etc...) to make a big move and seriously improve the team.

[stitchface]

the point is obviously not that going to arbitration helps the team win. the point is that the MacPhail management team is very good at avoiding arbitration but not very good at putting great teams on the field.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

the point is obviously not that going to arbitration helps the team win. the point is that the MacPhail management team is very good at avoiding arbitration but not very good at putting great teams on the field.

 

But there's no connection there. It's not like avoiding arbitration is the thing that's keeping them from creating a winner.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So is this thread a prime example of Faulty Logic??? :-k

 

I suppose that depends on whether one is satisfied that the additions of Jacque Jones, Scott Eyre, Juan Pierre, John Mabry and Bob Howry was worthy enough of an improvement to be a playoff caliber team.

 

I suppose it also depends on whether having more than 40m to spend this offseason, lots of trade commodity, and plenty of available players on the market to improve the team and the moves that were made met your satisfaction.

 

I don't think any member of our community that isn't happy with the moves made this offseason really deserves the catch phrase "faulty logic". I don't think anyone who wishes to be optimistic about this offseason deserves it either.

 

Since 2003, this team has taken a step backwards. They did win a game or two more in 2004, but the team was more poorly run than the team that took the field in 2003. They were clearly more talented, also. But, 2004 did not feature playoffs like 2003 did, so yes, 2004 was a step backwards. 2005 was a horrible year to be a Cub fan. Not all blame should be pointed at management. Injuries did factor in.

 

As far as I was concerned, the stars were all in alignment this offseason. A big splash could have been made to improve this team. They had the resources to make a big impact improving this team. Instead, they went with a modest approach.

 

Whether an argument could be made that players could have been attained or not is not what I am going to debate. We do know that many talented players were available this offseason and maybe no other team outside of the LA Dodgers had more money to spend this offseason than the Cubs.

 

I think this offseason was filled with mistakes right out of the gate. Sending Nomar packing was not a good idea. He would have been fairly cheap to bring back and he seemed to have a chip on his shoulder to do Chicago right. I'd much rather have seen Nomar's bat in RF this coming season than Jacque Jones. Well, I'd rather have seen his bat at the plate behind Lee and Aramis anyway, but you get my point. I would have much rather seen him have a healthy season with the Cubs than with the Dodgers. That does remain to be seen, but it was a gamble worth taking. With Cedeno and Perez, SS had 3 capable players. Nomar could have moved to RF and he also would have been a nice replacement at 3b if Aramis got hurt. If he misses most of 2006 due to injury, then I deserve a heaping helping of crow. But, I think he's going to have a healthy season and many of us will regret that we didn't hang onto him. Especially when he's ouproducing Jacque Jones by a healthy margin.

 

I do think this team is better than last year. But, I don't think it's enough. The whole season is riding on the starting staff. Based on past history, not a good idea.

 

When I look at the list of players that could have been obtained this offseason, and then I see a line up that features Jacque Jones in it, it makes me ill. To see that he's probably the best option to hit 5th makes me very ill. I do like Juan Pierre. I would have much rather seen a guy like Coco Crisp, and I would have liked to seen less spent to acquire a guy in the final year of a contract, but lead off HAD to be addressed. I've been screaming for that for quite some time.

 

All in all, I'm not happy with the offseason. I don't think this team is playoff caliber.

 

I hope I'm wrong. I'll cheer for them anyway and hope I'm proven wrong. But, if I see Neifi Perez hitting 2nd in the order, I'm turning off the tv. I will not pour salt into the wound that was opened up last year when Dusty consistently gave Perez top of the order at bats. I don't trust him to not do it this year. My best remedy is to just not watch when that happens.

 

I'm tired of watching mediocre baseball from an organization that has no excuse to field mediocre teams.

 

I'm frustrated that what was once an organization with a strong farm system, with plenty of resources and a positive direction nose dived as quickly as they did.

 

None of this has anything to do with avoiding arbitration. The only way the original point has any validity if the Cubs didn't improve the team in lieu of not going to arbitration, which doesn't make any sense.

[stitchface]

the point is obviously not that going to arbitration helps the team win. the point is that the MacPhail management team is very good at avoiding arbitration but not very good at putting great teams on the field.

 

But there's no connection there. It's not like avoiding arbitration is the thing that's keeping them from creating a winner.

 

yes, everybody knows that. its more like saying their energy is focused on the wrong things. a true statement.

[stitchface]

So is this thread a prime example of Faulty Logic??? :-k

 

I suppose that depends on whether one is satisfied that the additions of Jacque Jones, Scott Eyre, Juan Pierre, John Mabry and Bob Howry was worthy enough of an improvement to be a playoff caliber team.

 

I suppose it also depends on whether having more than 40m to spend this offseason, lots of trade commodity, and plenty of available players on the market to improve the team and the moves that were made met your satisfaction.

 

I don't think any member of our community that isn't happy with the moves made this offseason really deserves the catch phrase "faulty logic". I don't think anyone who wishes to be optimistic about this offseason deserves it either.

 

Since 2003, this team has taken a step backwards. They did win a game or two more in 2004, but the team was more poorly run than the team that took the field in 2003. They were clearly more talented, also. But, 2004 did not feature playoffs like 2003 did, so yes, 2004 was a step backwards. 2005 was a horrible year to be a Cub fan. Not all blame should be pointed at management. Injuries did factor in.

 

As far as I was concerned, the stars were all in alignment this offseason. A big splash could have been made to improve this team. They had the resources to make a big impact improving this team. Instead, they went with a modest approach.

 

Whether an argument could be made that players could have been attained or not is not what I am going to debate. We do know that many talented players were available this offseason and maybe no other team outside of the LA Dodgers had more money to spend this offseason than the Cubs.

 

I think this offseason was filled with mistakes right out of the gate. Sending Nomar packing was not a good idea. He would have been fairly cheap to bring back and he seemed to have a chip on his shoulder to do Chicago right. I'd much rather have seen Nomar's bat in RF this coming season than Jacque Jones. Well, I'd rather have seen his bat at the plate behind Lee and Aramis anyway, but you get my point. I would have much rather seen him have a healthy season with the Cubs than with the Dodgers. That does remain to be seen, but it was a gamble worth taking. With Cedeno and Perez, SS had 3 capable players. Nomar could have moved to RF and he also would have been a nice replacement at 3b if Aramis got hurt. If he misses most of 2006 due to injury, then I deserve a heaping helping of crow. But, I think he's going to have a healthy season and many of us will regret that we didn't hang onto him. Especially when he's ouproducing Jacque Jones by a healthy margin.

 

I do think this team is better than last year. But, I don't think it's enough. The whole season is riding on the starting staff. Based on past history, not a good idea.

 

When I look at the list of players that could have been obtained this offseason, and then I see a line up that features Jacque Jones in it, it makes me ill. To see that he's probably the best option to hit 5th makes me very ill. I do like Juan Pierre. I would have much rather seen a guy like Coco Crisp, and I would have liked to seen less spent to acquire a guy in the final year of a contract, but lead off HAD to be addressed. I've been screaming for that for quite some time.

 

All in all, I'm not happy with the offseason. I don't think this team is playoff caliber.

 

I hope I'm wrong. I'll cheer for them anyway and hope I'm proven wrong. But, if I see Neifi Perez hitting 2nd in the order, I'm turning off the tv. I will not pour salt into the wound that was opened up last year when Dusty consistently gave Perez top of the order at bats. I don't trust him to not do it this year. My best remedy is to just not watch when that happens.

 

I'm tired of watching mediocre baseball from an organization that has no excuse to field mediocre teams.

 

I'm frustrated that what was once an organization with a strong farm system, with plenty of resources and a positive direction nose dived as quickly as they did.

 

None of this has anything to do with avoiding arbitration. The only way the original point has any validity if the Cubs didn't improve the team in lieu of not going to arbitration, which doesn't make any sense.

 

or if you interpret the statement the way the author likely intended it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

or if you interpret the statement the way the author likely intended it.

 

This is what he said:

 

My question is why does this commitment to avoiding arbitration not seem to be equalled by the commitment to fielding a winning team?

 

First of all, avoiding arbitration is much much much easier than fielding a winning team. How many players go to arbitration? Maybe about 10 of the 115 eligible this year? How many consistently winning teams are there? 1 out of every 4, maybe?

 

Secondly, there's no proof of a lack of a commitment to building a winner. Lack of correct philosophy maybe, but that's a different argument.

[stitchface]

or if you interpret the statement the way the author likely intended it.

 

This is what he said:

 

My question is why does this commitment to avoiding arbitration not seem to be equalled by the commitment to fielding a winning team?

 

First of all, avoiding arbitration is much much much easier than fielding a winning team. How many players go to arbitration? Maybe about 10 of the 115 eligible this year? How many consistently winning teams are there? 1 out of every 4, maybe?

 

Secondly, there's no proof of a lack of a commitment to building a winner. Lack of correct philosophy maybe, but that's a different argument.

 

and now you arguing the point, at least in your second point (the first point is irrelevant). I agree with you - hendry is trying. he just isn't good.

[BigbadB]

I interpreted what they author was attempting to say as "I wish this team had as much determination for building a winning team as they appear to give in avoiding arbitration."

 

In other words, they are passionate to avoid arbitration. They don't appear to be as passionate to build a winning team when they give out 5m contracts to utility infielders when there are gaping holes in the offense.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I interpreted what they author was attempting to say as "I wish this team had as much determination for building a winning team as they appear to give in avoiding arbitration."

 

In other words, they are passionate to avoid arbitration. They don't appear to be as passionate to build a winning team when they give out 5m contracts to utility infielders when there are gaping holes in the offense.

 

They aren't "passionate to avoid arbitration". 90% of players don't go to arbitration regardless of the team, so it's not hard to be perfect. And like I said before, their poor moves don't reflect a lack of passion or effort, it's just misguided passion or effort.

[BigbadB]

I interpreted what they author was attempting to say as "I wish this team had as much determination for building a winning team as they appear to give in avoiding arbitration."

 

In other words, they are passionate to avoid arbitration. They don't appear to be as passionate to build a winning team when they give out 5m contracts to utility infielders when there are gaping holes in the offense.

 

They aren't "passionate to avoid arbitration". 90% of players don't go to arbitration regardless of the team, so it's not hard to be perfect. And like I said before, their poor moves don't reflect a lack of passion or effort, it's just misguided passion or effort.

 

Well, I won't argue that point. I will agree that they appear to be misguided.

[AlohaSpicoli]

If the Cubs sign Zambrano, there will be a sense by some (from MacPhail on down) that this season was a success. And there hasn't been a single pitch thrown yet, so there is no basis to believe that.

 

My point, simply, was that I don't get emotionally invested in this team to avoid arbitration with players. I get emotionally invested to win games, win division titles, and win pennants even.

 

I want what the White Sox have. And since MacPhail and all of his minions have not, can not, and in all probablility will not give that to me, despite all of the advantages they enjoy in terms of resources, then why should I or anyone else be comforted by this no-arbitration thing of theirs?

Edited February 5, 2006 by AlohaSpicoli

[bmkhawk]

If the Cubs sign Zambrano, there will be a sense by some (from MacPhail on down) that this season was a success.

 

Do you have any documentation that this is the case? If not, your statement is just as baseless as the notion that a season can be a success before a single pitch has been thrown.

[UK1679666180]

If the Cubs sign Zambrano, there will be a sense by some (from MacPhail on down) that this season was a success. And there hasn't been a single pitch thrown yet, so there is no basis to believe that.

 

My point, simply, was that I don't get emotionally invested in this team to avoid arbitration with players. I get emotionally invested to win games, win division titles, and win pennants even.

 

I want what the White Sox have. And since MacPhail and all of his minions have not, can not, and will all probablility, will not give that to me, despite all of the advantages they enjoy in terms of resources, then why should I or anyone else be comforted by this no-arbitration thing of theirs?

 

It would be a success in regards to avoiding arby with the players again, but not in the overall success of the team. I'm sure all of the Cubs management felt like '05 was a complete failure, regardless if they inked everyone before arbitration.

 

You shouldn't be comforted of the fact that they've avoided arbitration, I think MacPhail just doesn't like the arby process and prefers avoiding it (as most agents do). 3rd parties in MLB, I assume are often frowned upon, especially with those whose last name has a long history in MLB.

[AlohaSpicoli]

Which do you want??

 

Which do they want??

 

Are they the same??

 

BTW, they drew 3 million + fans last year. Don't go thinking they weren't pleased with that.

[UK1679666180]

They want to win, I want them to win.

 

Sure, they're pleased the Cubs' fans generate plenty of revenue for them.

 

They're deeply disappointed they haven't lived to their end of the bargain so far and brought something to Cubs' fans that hasn't happened for a couple of generations.

 

To suggest that they don't care about winning or that they prefer the revenue over the results on the field is crap. Maybe various Trib execs and shareholders care more about profit, but from MacPhail on down, they want to win just as much as the most devoted Cubs' fans want them to win it all.

Edited February 6, 2006 by UK