Would you have sacrificed a season to spend big next year?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

As far as I can tell everyone on this message board other than myself believes in going all out for a WS each and every year, regardless of how unlikley success may be in the coming season or how much longterm financial damage might be incurred in a likely doomed effort.

 

You aren't looking very far then.

[CubmanPi]

"Wait til next year" wasn't enough? People are now defending a "wait two more years" philosophy? I guess that would make the next hundred years fifty percent less painful, but winning teams require way too much luck for that idea to ever make sense. Every WS team will always have someone come out of the woodwork with a breakout/career year, or there will otherwise be some major and unforeseen way that things just seem to unfold in their favor all (post) season long. All they can do is take what's out there and hope for the best.

[sethuel1]

Yeah, and if my mom had a weiner, she'd be my dad.

Fantastic.

[oldstyle81]

"Wait til next year" wasn't enough? People are now defending a "wait two more years" philosophy? I guess that would make the next hundred years fifty percent less painful, but winning teams require way too much luck for that idea to ever make sense. Every WS team will always have someone come out of the woodwork with a breakout/career year, or there will otherwise be some major and unforeseen way that things just seem to unfold in their favor all (post) season long. All they can do is take what's out there and hope for the best.

 

because there there there might be better players next year and we could possibly win in 2008 eventhough the NL central will be crap again in 2007

[Elrhino]

Given that baseball is finally seeing the fruits of some long needed labor/CBA stability I don't see revenues going down anytime soon, therefore I don't see salaries going down. And I don't see free agent markets getting any better, because as more teams start seeing revenues come in the less likely they are that they're going to let their Venrnon Wells' hit the market. Looking at the history of salaries the last 20 years is akin to looking at the history of the stock market. There may be short term dips and spikes, but longterm has trended steadily up. The collective gasp of Soriano's announced contrct today is no worse than when Kirby broke the $3 million barrier in 1989. Someone is going to break A-Rod's contract, sooner rather than later. Puhols could probably break it today if he had the chance.

[TB_11]

Cubs fans are dying every day without ever having seen a championship.

 

The answer is no. Always, always no.

 

So you'd rather the Cubs spend a bunch of money on a mediocre FA crop and tying the team down financially for the next 3 years while not improving nearly enough to compete for a WS title?

When option B is a just-as-mediocre FA crop the following year? Yes.

 

Signing free agents is not the only way to improve a baseball team, unless that team is in a panic to win right away.

 

When the coaching of the team has shown a general inability to develop minor-league talent into major-league assets, it becomes the best way.

 

The Cubs overspent this offseason, no doubt, and they overspent on some of the wrong players. But if the choice is to overspend on free agents or go young, let's replicate the 1997 Marlins.

[Backtobanks]

"Wait til next year" wasn't enough? People are now defending a "wait two more years" philosophy? I guess that would make the next hundred years fifty percent less painful, but winning teams require way too much luck for that idea to ever make sense. Every WS team will always have someone come out of the woodwork with a breakout/career year, or there will otherwise be some major and unforeseen way that things just seem to unfold in their favor all (post) season long. All they can do is take what's out there and hope for the best.

 

because there there there might be better players next year and we could possibly win in 2008 eventhough the NL central will be crap again in 2007

 

Then again there might not be. Fill the holes now with the best players available and reload every year with prospects and/or free agents. Put the profits into the team and not into the owners pockets.

[C.C.]

"Wait til next year" wasn't enough? People are now defending a "wait two more years" philosophy? I guess that would make the next hundred years fifty percent less painful, but winning teams require way too much luck for that idea to ever make sense. Every WS team will always have someone come out of the woodwork with a breakout/career year, or there will otherwise be some major and unforeseen way that things just seem to unfold in their favor all (post) season long. All they can do is take what's out there and hope for the best.

 

because there there there might be better players next year and we could possibly win in 2008 eventhough the NL central will be crap again in 2007

 

Then again there might not be. Fill the holes now with the best players available and reload every year with prospects and/or free agents. Put the profits into the team and not into the owners pockets.

 

=D>

[nolanwood]

If the Trib had opened their pockets at the right time, Beltran would be our CF, and AJ Burnett could have been our #2 because he dominates in the NL (and was pretty good in the AL).

 

Instead we have Soriano, who MIGHT play CF, isn't as good, and is older. Not to mention his contract is longer, AND more expensive.

 

And who is our #2? Hoping Hill builds on his success is our best shot of having one.

 

My problem is NOT the spending, its how we did it.

 

I'd take my chances with Hill anyday of the week over Burnett.

[FergieJ31]

As far as I can tell everyone on this message board other than myself believes in going all out for a WS each and every year, regardless of how unlikley success may be in the coming season or how much longterm financial damage might be incurred in a likely doomed effort. Fact is, I have a hard time imagining a less favorable time to go totally win-now in strategy. We had an absolutely godawful team in 2006, the farm can't be counted on for any real help in 2007, and the FA market was weak and hideously overpriced - IMO the worst market in the history of sports. Only possible justification for not retooling in 2007 is that the personnel budget went up. In my mind that doesn't even come close to outweighing the arguments for a retooling period.

 

I'm with you 100%. I think the original question is somewhat of a strawman - of course the Cubs will try to win every year, but as far as trades and (especially) FA signings it should be recognized that future years' chances to win are affected just as much as next year's.

 

The Cubs have spent money like a drunken sailor in this off-season so far. I have no problem with them spending money with a sense of urgency to win; it's just agonizing to see how poorly they've spent it. It would have been better to wait for a more talented FA class.

[neely crenshaw]

As far as I can tell everyone on this message board other than myself believes in going all out for a WS each and every year, regardless of how unlikley success may be in the coming season or how much longterm financial damage might be incurred in a likely doomed effort.

 

You aren't looking very far then.

 

we tried long term, sound financial moves and blew it. right now, i want to win a series..period. i mean it would be great to be a contender for the next seasons but since in my 40 years of life i have had a team make the playoffs less than a half dozen times, what would the difference be if we won a title but then were bad for years...we have been bad for 100 years. explain to me how selling out the future for winning right now could be worse than what we have gone through?

[C.C.]

As far as I can tell everyone on this message board other than myself believes in going all out for a WS each and every year, regardless of how unlikley success may be in the coming season or how much longterm financial damage might be incurred in a likely doomed effort.

 

You aren't looking very far then.

 

we tried long term, sound financial moves and blew it. right now, i want to win a series..period. i mean it would be great to be a contender for the next seasons but since in my 40 years of life i have had a team make the playoffs less than a half dozen times, what would the difference be if we won a title but then were bad for years...we have been bad for 100 years. explain to me how selling out the future for winning right now could be worse than what we have gone through?

 

I would sell out the future for a WS next year. Hell, I would sell my soul for a WS next year! Just give me one damn WS in my lifetime. I can give a flying crap how they do it, just get it done!

[FergieJ31]

... Hell, I would sell my soul for a WS next year!

 

Now THAT's old style :wink:

 

(if you've never heard the stupid Old Style commericals nm this stupid post)

[Backtobanks]

As far as I can tell everyone on this message board other than myself believes in going all out for a WS each and every year, regardless of how unlikley success may be in the coming season or how much longterm financial damage might be incurred in a likely doomed effort. Fact is, I have a hard time imagining a less favorable time to go totally win-now in strategy. We had an absolutely godawful team in 2006, the farm can't be counted on for any real help in 2007, and the FA market was weak and hideously overpriced - IMO the worst market in the history of sports. Only possible justification for not retooling in 2007 is that the personnel budget went up. In my mind that doesn't even come close to outweighing the arguments for a retooling period.

 

I'm with you 100%. I think the original question is somewhat of a strawman - of course the Cubs will try to win every year, but as far as trades and (especially) FA signings it should be recognized that future years' chances to win are affected just as much as next year's.

 

The Cubs have spent money like a drunken sailor in this off-season so far. I have no problem with them spending money with a sense of urgency to win; it's just agonizing to see how poorly they've spent it. It would have been better to wait for a more talented FA class.

 

And while you're waiting for a more talented FA class, you might realize that one might not come along and you've grown old waiting. I wouldn't be surprised to see more teams signing their stars long-term to big contracts like the Blue Jays did with Wells. At least you know what you're getting for the money.

[FergieJ31]

As far as I can tell everyone on this message board other than myself believes in going all out for a WS each and every year, regardless of how unlikley success may be in the coming season or how much longterm financial damage might be incurred in a likely doomed effort. Fact is, I have a hard time imagining a less favorable time to go totally win-now in strategy. We had an absolutely godawful team in 2006, the farm can't be counted on for any real help in 2007, and the FA market was weak and hideously overpriced - IMO the worst market in the history of sports. Only possible justification for not retooling in 2007 is that the personnel budget went up. In my mind that doesn't even come close to outweighing the arguments for a retooling period.

 

I'm with you 100%. I think the original question is somewhat of a strawman - of course the Cubs will try to win every year, but as far as trades and (especially) FA signings it should be recognized that future years' chances to win are affected just as much as next year's.

 

The Cubs have spent money like a drunken sailor in this off-season so far. I have no problem with them spending money with a sense of urgency to win; it's just agonizing to see how poorly they've spent it. It would have been better to wait for a more talented FA class.

 

And while you're waiting for a more talented FA class, you might realize that one might not come along and you've grown old waiting. I wouldn't be surprised to see more teams signing their stars long-term to big contracts like the Blue Jays did with Wells. At least you know what you're getting for the money.

 

I don't disagree with you in principle but I agree more with frostwyrm that this was a particularly awful year to open the vault. Your point about Wells is well-taken; I really wish the suddenly-spending Cubs would have made a #1 priority of securing Zambrano this off-season.

 

The real problem lies in player (mis)valuations. I don't have a lot of faith that the Cubs would have spent the money more wisely if this were a stronger FA class, but at least the margin for error would be higher. There's always mediocrity out there, and the Cubs have a long history of overvaluing it. That is the real problem and it will continue to be a problem until there's a change in the GM.

[Backtobanks]

As far as I can tell everyone on this message board other than myself believes in going all out for a WS each and every year, regardless of how unlikley success may be in the coming season or how much longterm financial damage might be incurred in a likely doomed effort. Fact is, I have a hard time imagining a less favorable time to go totally win-now in strategy. We had an absolutely godawful team in 2006, the farm can't be counted on for any real help in 2007, and the FA market was weak and hideously overpriced - IMO the worst market in the history of sports. Only possible justification for not retooling in 2007 is that the personnel budget went up. In my mind that doesn't even come close to outweighing the arguments for a retooling period.

 

I'm with you 100%. I think the original question is somewhat of a strawman - of course the Cubs will try to win every year, but as far as trades and (especially) FA signings it should be recognized that future years' chances to win are affected just as much as next year's.

 

The Cubs have spent money like a drunken sailor in this off-season so far. I have no problem with them spending money with a sense of urgency to win; it's just agonizing to see how poorly they've spent it. It would have been better to wait for a more talented FA class.

 

And while you're waiting for a more talented FA class, you might realize that one might not come along and you've grown old waiting. I wouldn't be surprised to see more teams signing their stars long-term to big contracts like the Blue Jays did with Wells. At least you know what you're getting for the money.

 

I don't disagree with you in principle but I agree more with frostwyrm that this was a particularly awful year to open the vault. Your point about Wells is well-taken; I really wish the suddenly-spending Cubs would have made a #1 priority of securing Zambrano this off-season.

 

The real problem lies in player (mis)valuations. I don't have a lot of faith that the Cubs would have spent the money more wisely if this were a stronger FA class, but at least the margin for error would be higher. There's always mediocrity out there, and the Cubs have a long history of overvaluing it. That is the real problem and it will continue to be a problem until there's a change in the GM.

 

The other problem with a strong free agent class is that you would have to outbid all of the other big spenders (Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, etc.). If someone like Cabrera or Santana became a FA, do you think Steinbrenner would be outbid?

[FergieJ31]

I don't disagree with you in principle but I agree more with frostwyrm that this was a particularly awful year to open the vault. Your point about Wells is well-taken; I really wish the suddenly-spending Cubs would have made a #1 priority of securing Zambrano this off-season.

 

The real problem lies in player (mis)valuations. I don't have a lot of faith that the Cubs would have spent the money more wisely if this were a stronger FA class, but at least the margin for error would be higher. There's always mediocrity out there, and the Cubs have a long history of overvaluing it. That is the real problem and it will continue to be a problem until there's a change in the GM.

 

The other problem with a strong free agent class is that you would have to outbid all of the other big spenders (Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, etc.). If someone like Cabrera or Santana became a FA, do you think Steinbrenner would be outbid?

 

Apparently the Cubs are now a member of that list; I hate to quote Dusty (from a different context) but, well, why not us? Time and time again folks here on NSBB have pointed out the need to overspend for real talent ... real difference-makers instead of crap. And they're absolutely right.

[UK1679666180]

The goal should be to win long-term, saving for next year and spending it then does nothing as far as increasing the chances to win, I doubt any FA class is that much better year to year or that the same team even w/a better class could improve it much from what the Cubs have done.

 

With Wilken and a commit. towards building the farm system thru stronger drafts and international FAs they should be able to win long-term regardless of whom they signed this year good or bad.

[frostwyrm]

The 2007 Cubs will not be a great team. By 2009 at the latest we'll most likely have a terrible team on a bang-for-the-buck basis, if we don't already. Better hope we win in the next 2 years.

[TruffleShuffle]

The 2007 Cubs will not be a great team. By 2009 at the latest we'll most likely have a terrible team on a bang-for-the-buck basis, if we don't already. Better hope we win in the next 2 years.

 

yup you're right, if the cubs don't win the world series in the next two years, they'll be the worst team in baseball

[Sammy Sofa]

The 2007 Cubs will not be a great team. By 2009 at the latest we'll most likely have a terrible team on a bang-for-the-buck basis, if we don't already. Better hope we win in the next 2 years.

 

yup you're right, if the cubs don't win the world series in the next two years, they'll be the worst team in baseball

 

Too late.

[UK1679666180]

The 2007 Cubs will not be a great team. By 2009 at the latest we'll most likely have a terrible team on a bang-for-the-buck basis, if we don't already. Better hope we win in the next 2 years.

 

yup you're right, if the cubs don't win the world series in the next two years, they'll be the worst team in baseball

 

(Craig, this might sound like a paraphrase from one of your other posts today but...)

 

I think that'll depend on who they sign on the cheap in the near future (lightning in a bottle) and how well the top prospects do...

 

Positionwise, the two best prospects (Pie and Patterson) have the assets the Cubs need to round out the current roster if the perform as expected (hitting, speed, and defense). If they can improve the defense up the middle, add some speed, and provide offense on the cheap that'll impact this team more than DeRosa and if he doesn't perform up to expections until Patterson is ready.

 

From a pitching standpoint, you can say the same thing from either Guzman, Veal, Gallagher as well the progression of Wuertz, Ohman, and Marmol from the pen.

 

Scatter some well timed scrap heap signings and the Cubs could do well with this FA class, even if they fall short.

[C.C.]

The 2007 Cubs will not be a great team. By 2009 at the latest we'll most likely have a terrible team on a bang-for-the-buck basis, if we don't already. Better hope we win in the next 2 years.

 

Who knows. Who knew the Cards where going to win the WS or the Tigers in the WS? Or the W.Sox last year? Maybe the baseball gods will bless us with a healthy Mark Prior and a team that has career years from some of it's players. We are due for some luck.

[oldcubsfan]

As far as I can tell everyone on this message board other than myself believes in going all out for a WS each and every year, regardless of how unlikley success may be in the coming season or how much longterm financial damage might be incurred in a likely doomed effort. Fact is, I have a hard time imagining a less favorable time to go totally win-now in strategy. We had an absolutely godawful team in 2006, the farm can't be counted on for any real help in 2007, and the FA market was weak and hideously overpriced - IMO the worst market in the history of sports. Only possible justification for not retooling in 2007 is that the personnel budget went up. In my mind that doesn't even come close to outweighing the arguments for a retooling period.

 

I'm with you 100%. I think the original question is somewhat of a strawman - of course the Cubs will try to win every year, but as far as trades and (especially) FA signings it should be recognized that future years' chances to win are affected just as much as next year's.

 

The Cubs have spent money like a drunken sailor in this off-season so far. I have no problem with them spending money with a sense of urgency to win; it's just agonizing to see how poorly they've spent it. It would have been better to wait for a more talented FA class.

 

And while you're waiting for a more talented FA class, you might realize that one might not come along and you've grown old waiting. I wouldn't be surprised to see more teams signing their stars long-term to big contracts like the Blue Jays did with Wells. At least you know what you're getting for the money.

 

That is one of the main reasons this years FA class was perceived as weak, more and more teams are locking up their key players in advance. Look what happens to next years pitching if Z gets locked up. Wells is already gone and more will be also. Look at the Bonderman deal today, that eliminates him for early free agency. Next year you can spend all you want on Mark Buerhle, but the Sox won't and neither would I.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

The 2007 Cubs will not be a great team. By 2009 at the latest we'll most likely have a terrible team on a bang-for-the-buck basis, if we don't already. Better hope we win in the next 2 years.

 

Exactly.

 

Seriously I would love to see serious steps foward WITHOUT dumping money at guys and saying "look at this, we're improving and it only cost is a gazillion dollars."

 

This team is barely a .500 team right now.

 

In two years, considering all the farm really has to offer right now is Sean G., and Pie (I'm no Patterson fan), we might be in a pathetic shape.