Z on the 2011 Chicago Cubs: "We stinks!"

[questionmarkgrace]

For BeerHere, from the debt thread:

 

Wrong. The deal for the Cubs was influenced by Sam Zell's desire that, for tax purposes, was heavy into debt. The "winner" for Zell was NOT the team that could come up with the most cash but the most financed cash. If Cuban had "won" then he would have landed on the same list--guaranteed.

 

The Ricketts family actually just plunked tens of millions more in AZ (a good chunk of the rebuid there was actually funded by them) and are able/willing to plunk 200M into the Triangle building (if they can get commitments for Wrigley). They are NOT strapped for cash. The family sold less than 20% of their shares of Ameritrade for over $400M to purchase the club.

 

They are, however, committed to rebuilding the team the way they have built their businesses--heavy commitments for infrastructure early on to pay dividends down the road. That has worked for Ameritrade (twice--first to invest in tele-trading and they purchased the first company to use the Internet for trades less than a year after the first online trade) and with TR's businesses (the one he owns and the one he ran prior to that).

 

Similarly, the Ricketts are investing in the Cubs (farm system, Mesa and, eventually, the Wrigley complex and CUBTV). For decades (under, essentially, two owners) the infrastructure of the Cubs was ignored. Now the team has ownership that is investing in the club's future (and willing to invest much more). That isn't bad ownership. That is very good ownership.

 

That (and the Latin American "academy" and expansion) is what you can point to if you wonder what the Ricketts' commitments are to this team being better down the line.

 

Again, I really want them to take another huge step and drop the deadweight that is Hendry, but the repeated insistence that they're doing "nothing" or idiots like Rosenbloom and his "fanboy" garbage are just ignorant.

 

I'm not sure if I agree with you. Yes it seems like he is doing more, but in actuality the majority of this stuff was already in place under the tribune. We had already been scouting big in asia in 06,07, and 08. Before Ricketts owned the team. Guys like Dhee Eun Rhee and Hak Ju Lee were tribune(Sam Zell) signings. In Latin America nothing has really changed we still sign mid level guys and refuse to get into bidding wars for the top talents. We may have signed more of those guys last year, im not sure, but we also put up top dollar for guys like larry suarez with the tribune. Also dont forget, the cubs didnt decide to begin building a new latin america complex until multiple articles detailed the deplorable conditions and slave like quarters the kids were being kept in. The fight for a new spring complex has been going on for years and any owner would have been negotiating with Mesa to get a new stadium built as Ho Ho Kam was severely out dated and our contract was up. Plans for the wrigley complex and the triangle building have been in place since I think 05 or 06 when they first hit the papers.

 

I guess my point is he is doing pretty much what the tribune already had planned or were in the process of doing. Sure thats an improvement off of the tribune in the 80's and 90's but its not what most expected a new owner to do. The only decisions that I have seen him make were concerning new revenue sources, increasing ticket prices, soliciting the state for more revenue (with really bad timing), overseeing the choice for a new manager.

 

I think I speak for most when I thought a new owner would bring more to the table.

[BeerHere]

I'll go on record right now - I would love to trade Zambrano for prospects. I would have said that a week ago, at the start of the season and after every good start he's had this year. This team is doing NOTHING this year, might as well try and turn him into a couple pieces to build around going forward.

 

Commence NSBB group-think:

"But he's a good pitcher. I love his passion. Etc Etc"

 

His value is high right now. Trade him for good prospects and I'll be the first to say "see ya!"

 

Good choice, sir. The premptive "if you disagree with me, it's NSBB group think" is a classic.

Anyone that has a dissenting opinion here is automatically a fool.

 

1.You are a fool if you assume that $60M will be spent this offseason

3. If you think this team (plus some offseason acquisitions) is going to complete next year you're delusional.

Again..your point?

[Men in Blue]

You aren't really going out on a limb saying you would trade Zambrano for the right prospects. So would I, if it was possible.

 

 

http://www.thecubsbrickyard.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/jim-hendry-christmas.jpg

 

"Here you go, (insert any GM's name here). That PTBNL is fine with me. We believe if we de-value are players enough, we are certain to get robbed by someone".

Edited June 6, 2011 by Men in Blue

[Little Slide Rooter]

Hey guys, rapid turnarounds don't happen! Guess 2006-2007 didn't actually occur!

 

The funny thing is, recent good teams for the Cubs have mostly been rapid turnarounds.

 

'97-98.

'00-'01

'02-'03

'06-'07.

 

'11-12 :beg:

[Sammy Sofa]

For BeerHere, from the debt thread:

 

Wrong. The deal for the Cubs was influenced by Sam Zell's desire that, for tax purposes, was heavy into debt. The "winner" for Zell was NOT the team that could come up with the most cash but the most financed cash. If Cuban had "won" then he would have landed on the same list--guaranteed.

 

The Ricketts family actually just plunked tens of millions more in AZ (a good chunk of the rebuid there was actually funded by them) and are able/willing to plunk 200M into the Triangle building (if they can get commitments for Wrigley). They are NOT strapped for cash. The family sold less than 20% of their shares of Ameritrade for over $400M to purchase the club.

 

They are, however, committed to rebuilding the team the way they have built their businesses--heavy commitments for infrastructure early on to pay dividends down the road. That has worked for Ameritrade (twice--first to invest in tele-trading and they purchased the first company to use the Internet for trades less than a year after the first online trade) and with TR's businesses (the one he owns and the one he ran prior to that).

 

Similarly, the Ricketts are investing in the Cubs (farm system, Mesa and, eventually, the Wrigley complex and CUBTV). For decades (under, essentially, two owners) the infrastructure of the Cubs was ignored. Now the team has ownership that is investing in the club's future (and willing to invest much more). That isn't bad ownership. That is very good ownership.

 

That (and the Latin American "academy" and expansion) is what you can point to if you wonder what the Ricketts' commitments are to this team being better down the line.

 

Again, I really want them to take another huge step and drop the deadweight that is Hendry, but the repeated insistence that they're doing "nothing" or idiots like Rosenbloom and his "fanboy" garbage are just ignorant.

 

I'm not sure if I agree with you. Yes it seems like he is doing more, but in actuality the majority of this stuff was already in place under the tribune. We had already been scouting big in asia in 06,07, and 08. Before Ricketts owned the team. Guys like Dhee Eun Rhee and Hak Ju Lee were tribune(Sam Zell) signings. In Latin America nothing has really changed we still sign mid level guys and refuse to get into bidding wars for the top talents. We may have signed more of those guys last year, im not sure, but we also put up top dollar for guys like larry suarez with the tribune. Also dont forget, the cubs didnt decide to begin building a new latin america complex until multiple articles detailed the deplorable conditions and slave like quarters the kids were being kept in. The fight for a new spring complex has been going on for years and any owner would have been negotiating with Mesa to get a new stadium built as Ho Ho Kam was severely out dated and our contract was up. Plans for the wrigley complex and the triangle building have been in place since I think 05 or 06 when they first hit the papers.

 

I guess my point is he is doing pretty much what the tribune already had planned or were in the process of doing. Sure thats an improvement off of the tribune in the 80's and 90's but its not what most expected a new owner to do. The only decisions that I have seen him make were concerning new revenue sources, increasing ticket prices, soliciting the state for more revenue (with really bad timing), overseeing the choice for a new manager.

 

I think I speak for most when I thought a new owner would bring more to the table.

 

And what exactly did you hope a new owner would bring to the table in a season and a half outside of getting rid of Hendry?

 

And the Tribune was all talk. The Ricketts are actually laying the groundwork for improving this organization across the board. It's all well and good what the Tribune claimed it WANTED to do, but the Ricketts are already actually taking the steps to get these things done.

[BeerHere]

Hey guys, rapid turnarounds don't happen! Guess 2006-2007 didn't actually occur!

 

The funny thing is, recent good teams for the Cubs have mostly been rapid turnarounds.

 

'97-98.

'00-'01

'02-'03

'06-'07.

I am shocked that you think this team plus a couple FA's will be good in 2012. Pujols, maybe Felix Hernandez -- that would be great. Maybe the team finishes with 85 wins. That might be good enough to get the WC or win the division but that is not a WS winning team. You have no 3B, terrible defense, another year on Sori's legs, a declining Dempster, Colvin in RF, a rookie in CF?

Edited June 6, 2011 by BeerHere

[NCCubFan]

Hey guys, rapid turnarounds don't happen! Guess 2006-2007 didn't actually occur!

 

The funny thing is, recent good teams for the Cubs have mostly been rapid turnarounds.

 

'97-98.

'00-'01

'02-'03

'06-'07.

Going back further, same thing for '83-'84 and '88-'89. Every postseason appearance during my lifetime (except for the repeat in '08) followed a losing season.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hey guys, rapid turnarounds don't happen! Guess 2006-2007 didn't actually occur!

 

The funny thing is, recent good teams for the Cubs have mostly been rapid turnarounds.

 

'97-98.

'00-'01

'02-'03

'06-'07.

I am shocked that you think this team plus a couple FA's will be good in 2012. Pujols, maybe Felix Hernandez -- that would be great. Maybe the team finishes with 85 wins. That might be good enough to get the WC or win the division but that is not a WS winning team.

 

Why are you "shocked?" What about this season makes it so inconceivable that the Cubs could have a turnaround like they did with pretty much every season they've contended in the last three decades? Explain why this season is so much worse than, say, 2006.

[soapy]

I'll go on record right now - I would love to trade Zambrano for prospects. I would have said that a week ago, at the start of the season and after every good start he's had this year. This team is doing NOTHING this year, might as well try and turn him into a couple pieces to build around going forward.

 

Commence NSBB group-think:

"But he's a good pitcher. I love his passion. Etc Etc"

 

His value is high right now. Trade him for good prospects and I'll be the first to say "see ya!"

 

Good choice, sir. The premptive "if you disagree with me, it's NSBB group think" is a classic.

Anyone that has a dissenting opinion here is automatically a fool.

 

1.You are a fool if you assume that $60M will be spent this offseason

3. If you think this team (plus some offseason acquisitions) is going to complete next year you're delusional.

Again..your point?

 

Seems obvious. You are playing victim and claiming that anyone who disagrees with the "group think" will be automatically be called a fool. But then you are automatically claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is a fool, or delusional.

 

This isn't necessarily directed at you, BeerHere, but is it not clear that essentially everyone in this thread agrees that trading Z is an option if the right deal can be found? I've seen almost nobody in this thread advocate dumping him for pennies on the dollar. Nor have I seen anyone say that he shouldn't be traded regardless of the potential return. Maybe I missed it.

[jersey cubs fan]

And what exactly did you hope a new owner would bring to the table in a season and a half outside of getting rid of Hendry?

 

And the Tribune was all talk. The Ricketts are actually laying the groundwork for improving this organization across the board. It's all well and good what the Tribune claimed it WANTED to do, but the Ricketts are already actually taking the steps to get these things done.

 

I think the second half of the Tribune ownership did some real things. The biggest mistakes they made was not hiring the right baseball people. But in the early 90's they went out and got a hot shot young exec in Andy MacPhail to run things and make a commitment to building through the minor league system. They also spent more and more every year on payroll, giving unprecedented resources to the team. They also laid the groundwork for the first real upgrades to Wrigley Field and got them done.

[BeerHere]

Hey guys, rapid turnarounds don't happen! Guess 2006-2007 didn't actually occur!

 

The funny thing is, recent good teams for the Cubs have mostly been rapid turnarounds.

 

'97-98.

'00-'01

'02-'03

'06-'07.

I am shocked that you think this team plus a couple FA's will be good in 2012. Pujols, maybe Felix Hernandez -- that would be great. Maybe the team finishes with 85 wins. That might be good enough to get the WC or win the division but that is not a WS winning team.

 

Why are you "shocked?" What about this season makes it so inconceivable that the Cubs could have a turnaround like they did with pretty much every season they've contended in the last three decades? Explain why this season is so much worse than, say, 2006.

Debating which season was worst is pointless. Do you honestly think this same team, plus a couple FA's will compete for the WS in 2012? Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it, but the organization needs deep changes.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Explain why this season is so much worse than, say, 2006.

 

The lack of a hitter the quality of mid-2000s Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez.

 

What do I win?

[Men in Blue]

There is no question the Cubs can contend next year. Throughout the history of Baseball, you will see teams that were picked for 5th/6th place based on the prior seeason, only to see that team either win the division or win the world series. For instance, the 89 Reds won 75 games, finished 5th and went on to win it all next year.

 

Now, if Jim Hendry is still here, well, we are in trouble.

[SouthSideRyan]

Hey guys, rapid turnarounds don't happen! Guess 2006-2007 didn't actually occur!

 

The funny thing is, recent good teams for the Cubs have mostly been rapid turnarounds.

 

'97-98.

'00-'01

'02-'03

'06-'07.

Going back further, same thing for '83-'84 and '88-'89. Every postseason appearance during my lifetime (except for the repeat in '08) followed a losing season.

 

'44-'45 as well. So everyone's lifetime but Fred's.

[BeerHere]

Hey guys, rapid turnarounds don't happen! Guess 2006-2007 didn't actually occur!

 

The funny thing is, recent good teams for the Cubs have mostly been rapid turnarounds.

 

'97-98.

'00-'01

'02-'03

'06-'07.

Going back further, same thing for '83-'84 and '88-'89. Every postseason appearance during my lifetime (except for the repeat in '08) followed a losing season.

 

'44-'45 as well. So everyone's lifetime but Fred's.

I'll concede the point that turnarounds can happen quickly. Having said that of the Cub teams you mentioned, the following year were indeed good but none made the WS. Being good and making the playoffs shouldn't be the goal. Only one of those teams even won a series. Maybe my expectations are unrealistic but the Cubs should be competing with the best teams in baseball, not just the division.

[NCCubFan]

It shouldn't be the ultimate goal, but it would be a step in the right direction.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'll concede the point that turnarounds can happen quickly. Having said that the teams the following year were indeed good but none made the WS. Being good and making the playoffs shouldn't be the goal. Only one of those teams even won a series. Maybe my expectations are unrealistic but the Cubs should be competing with the best teams in baseball, not just the division.

 

But you can't get into the World Series without making the playoffs. And you don't have to be the best playoff team to make the World Series. I agree it's going to take a while to turn this into a perennial contender, which they should be no question. But they could turn back into an 88 win team next season without a hell of a lot of work, and that's all you need to have a shot.

[SouthSideRyan]

Maybe my expectations are unrealistic but the Cubs should be competing with the best teams in baseball, not just the division.

 

Nobody here thinks otherwise. If you win your division/wild card, you are more than capable of winning a world series.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'll concede the point that turnarounds can happen quickly. Having said that of the Cub teams you mentioned, the following year were indeed good but none made the WS. Being good and making the playoffs shouldn't be the goal. Only one of those teams even won a series. Maybe my expectations are unrealistic but the Cubs should be competing with the best teams in baseball, not just the division.

 

Seems like a wasteful use of resources to try to be better on paper than the Yankees when you only need to be better than the Cardinals and Brewers.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'll concede the point that turnarounds can happen quickly. Having said that of the Cub teams you mentioned, the following year were indeed good but none made the WS. Being good and making the playoffs shouldn't be the goal. Only one of those teams even won a series. Maybe my expectations are unrealistic but the Cubs should be competing with the best teams in baseball, not just the division.

 

Seems like a wasteful use of resources to try to be better on paper than the Yankees when you only need to be better than the Cardinals and Brewers.

 

By being better on paper than the Yankees, you leave a lot less up to variance for a lesser Brewers or Cardinals team beating you out.

[Guest]

I love Big Z.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'll concede the point that turnarounds can happen quickly. Having said that of the Cub teams you mentioned, the following year were indeed good but none made the WS. Being good and making the playoffs shouldn't be the goal. Only one of those teams even won a series. Maybe my expectations are unrealistic but the Cubs should be competing with the best teams in baseball, not just the division.

 

Seems like a wasteful use of resources to try to be better on paper than the Yankees when you only need to be better than the Cardinals and Brewers.

 

By being better on paper than the Yankees, you leave a lot less up to variance for a lesser Brewers or Cardinals team beating you out.

 

Yeah, the Cubs should be in a position where they dominate this division, not just occasionally flirt with the leaderboard.

[BeerHere]

I love Big Z.

So do I but I would trade him in a heartbeat for a package of 2 good prospects.

[BeerHere]

I'll concede the point that turnarounds can happen quickly. Having said that of the Cub teams you mentioned, the following year were indeed good but none made the WS. Being good and making the playoffs shouldn't be the goal. Only one of those teams even won a series. Maybe my expectations are unrealistic but the Cubs should be competing with the best teams in baseball, not just the division.

 

Seems like a wasteful use of resources to try to be better on paper than the Yankees when you only need to be better than the Cardinals and Brewers.

 

By being better on paper than the Yankees, you leave a lot less up to variance for a lesser Brewers or Cardinals team beating you out.

 

Yeah, the Cubs should be in a position where they dominate this division, not just occasionally flirt with the leaderboard.

 

If I made that comment someone would have responded saying that this isn't golf and eight others would agree.

[NOLA]

but to railroad him out of town for nothing or a bad contract would be ludicris

 

http://allindstrom.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/baseball-luda-200x200.jpg

 

I'd need to see Ludacris's splits before I'd consider that trade.

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you for that. I almost pissed my pants.