Re: Darvish

[WilcoFan]

So if the Cubs decided they didn't like Darvish's pitch count numbers or his potential to transfer his game to MLB, and thus decided it wasn't worth taking what, in their opinion, was an unnecessary risk on a player they felt was not a long-term solution, is that still a problem?

 

In other words, is Theo/Hoyer's judgment in question already?

[Guest]

When do you start getting angry? when the payroll looks like the pirates? I didn't want either of the big name first basemen but bidding 20 mil on Darvish pretty much as me pissed. Wtf are these guys planning on doing to improve the team? Getting other teams mediocre washed up has beens and drafting well is not going to be a productive strategy for winning before their contracts are up and there will be plenty of people calling for their heads if it hasn't happened by then.

 

So basically the only thing you are pissed about is the Darvish bid, because you didn't/don't want either of the two big free agents. And you're basing your anger on a report the accuracy of which is extremely questionable.

 

 

It's also possible the money just isn't there yet. They said the baseball budget is staying the same, though, so that's unlikely.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's the general malaise. There's being smart and frugal when necessary and prudent and then there's (so far) holy crap, we're just tanking this for a while. I'm not mad at the FO; I'm mad that potentially the Ricketts ARE going cheap. The FO can only work with what they have. Edited December 20, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[Guest]

So if the Cubs decided they didn't like Darvish's pitch count numbers or his potential to transfer his game to MLB, and thus decided it wasn't worth taking what, in their opinion, was an unnecessary risk on a player they felt was not a long-term solution, is that still a problem?

 

In other words, is Theo/Hoyer's judgment in question already?

 

Theo's a [expletive] genius and I think it's odd that he's being questioned already as though he's a moron the likes of Jim Hendry, but whatever.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So if the Cubs decided they didn't like Darvish's pitch count numbers or his potential to transfer his game to MLB, and thus decided it wasn't worth taking what, in their opinion, was an unnecessary risk on a player they felt was not a long-term solution, is that still a problem?

 

In other words, is Theo/Hoyer's judgment in question already?

 

If you consider each decision they've made in isolation like this, then there's nothing wrong with it. But the whole picture is getting a little less impressive.

[Guest]

So if the Cubs decided they didn't like Darvish's pitch count numbers or his potential to transfer his game to MLB, and thus decided it wasn't worth taking what, in their opinion, was an unnecessary risk on a player they felt was not a long-term solution, is that still a problem?

 

In other words, is Theo/Hoyer's judgment in question already?

 

If you consider each decision they've made in isolation like this, then there's nothing wrong with it. But the whole picture is getting a little less impressive.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2aN4S2fGoA

 

 

Feel any better?

[Sammy Sofa]

So if the Cubs decided they didn't like Darvish's pitch count numbers or his potential to transfer his game to MLB, and thus decided it wasn't worth taking what, in their opinion, was an unnecessary risk on a player they felt was not a long-term solution, is that still a problem?

 

In other words, is Theo/Hoyer's judgment in question already?

 

Theo's a [expletive] genius and I think it's odd that he's being questioned already as though he's a moron the likes of Jim Hendry, but whatever.

 

Questioning the Cubs organization (ie-the people with money) is not the same as acting like Theo is a "moron." Calm the [expletive] down.

[WilcoFan]

It's the general malaise. There's being smart and frugal when necessary and prudent and then there's (so far) holy crap, we're just tanking this for a while. I'm not mad at the FO; I'm mad that potentially the Ricketts ARE going cheap. The FO can only work with what they have.

 

It is entirely possible that the Ricketts haven't found enough ways to monetize the team at this point, and they are in fact running a deficit. They then decided that the best way to spend money most efficiently was to allocate the money to the place where it could turn the most immediate profit-in facilities (hence the Mesa facility, as well as the purchase of the McDonald's location and a a push to improve Wrigley) and the front office (where a mind like Epstein can be had for roughly the same cost as a middle reliever).

 

If/when those investments pay off (which may not be for several years), the Cubs become the big market team everyone thinks they are. Until then, It is possible they may be operating in the red.

[Guest]

So if the Cubs decided they didn't like Darvish's pitch count numbers or his potential to transfer his game to MLB, and thus decided it wasn't worth taking what, in their opinion, was an unnecessary risk on a player they felt was not a long-term solution, is that still a problem?

 

In other words, is Theo/Hoyer's judgment in question already?

 

Theo's a [expletive] genius and I think it's odd that he's being questioned already as though he's a moron the likes of Jim Hendry, but whatever.

 

Questioning the Cubs organization (ie-the people with money) is not the same as acting like Theo is a "moron." Calm the [expletive] down.

 

I'm not talking about you.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So if the Cubs decided they didn't like Darvish's pitch count numbers or his potential to transfer his game to MLB, and thus decided it wasn't worth taking what, in their opinion, was an unnecessary risk on a player they felt was not a long-term solution, is that still a problem?

 

In other words, is Theo/Hoyer's judgment in question already?

 

Theo's a [expletive] genius and I think it's odd that he's being questioned already as though he's a moron the likes of Jim Hendry, but whatever.

 

It is Dec. 20. All but a small portion of the players who can help the team have been signed by other teams, and the few who remain are going to be pursued by several other teams with money to burn.

 

Meanwhile, the Cubs' offseason has gone as follows:

 

1) We got a player who is pretty much the same as our old LFer, but cheaper

2) Theo got a new house

3) We got a starting 3b who couldn't even stay on Colorado's roster last year

4) We bought a McDonald's.

 

That's it. I think a little concern about the direction of the team is warranted.

[Sammy Sofa]

So if the Cubs decided they didn't like Darvish's pitch count numbers or his potential to transfer his game to MLB, and thus decided it wasn't worth taking what, in their opinion, was an unnecessary risk on a player they felt was not a long-term solution, is that still a problem?

 

In other words, is Theo/Hoyer's judgment in question already?

 

If you consider each decision they've made in isolation like this, then there's nothing wrong with it. But the whole picture is getting a little less impressive.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2aN4S2fGoA

 

 

Feel any better?

 

Not really, no, because that was in the context of a large market team that wasn't afraid to act like one. Based on the (granted, very, very limited) history and trends we're seeing it appears that the Ricketts don't want the Boston world of "Moneyball" and big money; they just want the former with a smattering of the latter. I could, however, be wrong about this. I hope I am. Going after J.D. Drew when you have Youk and Pedroia and Manny and Ortiz and Beckett and Schilling is pretty shrewd. Going after DeJesus and Stewart when you have the projected 2012 Cubs is depressing because it bodes for years of pain.

[Guest]

It's the general malaise. There's being smart and frugal when necessary and prudent and then there's (so far) holy crap, we're just tanking this for a while. I'm not mad at the FO; I'm mad that potentially the Ricketts ARE going cheap. The FO can only work with what they have.

 

It is entirely possible that the Ricketts haven't found enough ways to monetize the team at this point, and they are in fact running a deficit. They then decided that the best way to spend money most efficiently was to allocate the money to the place where it could turn the most immediate profit-in facilities (hence the Mesa facility, as well as the purchase of the McDonald's location and a a push to improve Wrigley) and the front office (where a mind like Epstein can be had for roughly the same cost as a middle reliever).

 

If/when those investments pay off (which may not be for several years), the Cubs become the big market team everyone thinks they are. Until then, It is possible they may be operating in the red.

 

 

Yea. I was thinking along these lines...but it would conflict with what Ricketts said about the baseball budget remaining the same.

 

Either way, they are spending money on a lot of things and are trying to lay the foundation toward some big revenue streams in a few years. That may or may not have something to do with where the money is right now.

[CincyCubsFan]

So if the Cubs decided they didn't like Darvish's pitch count numbers or his potential to transfer his game to MLB, and thus decided it wasn't worth taking what, in their opinion, was an unnecessary risk on a player they felt was not a long-term solution, is that still a problem?

 

In other words, is Theo/Hoyer's judgment in question already?

 

If you consider each decision they've made in isolation like this, then there's nothing wrong with it. But the whole picture is getting a little less impressive.

 

It's a combination of the talent we're missing out on this year, the (questionable) talent we've acquired so far this offseason, and the (lack of) talent that's projected to be available next season.

I thought the notion of $140 million payroll teams needing to "rebuild" was ridiculous. Or at least it was when the Rogers and the Rosenblooms or the worldwere asking for it. Now that it looks like Theo's plan, it's not such a crazy idea.

[WilcoFan]

So if the Cubs decided they didn't like Darvish's pitch count numbers or his potential to transfer his game to MLB, and thus decided it wasn't worth taking what, in their opinion, was an unnecessary risk on a player they felt was not a long-term solution, is that still a problem?

 

In other words, is Theo/Hoyer's judgment in question already?

 

If you consider each decision they've made in isolation like this, then there's nothing wrong with it. But the whole picture is getting a little less impressive.

 

Two months of a single offseason is only a slightly larger sample size than an individual offseason--especially considering that there are probably, at most, four to five players that they have considered spending money on. Right now, the difference between a single player and the "whole picture" is 3-4 players maximum.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's the general malaise. There's being smart and frugal when necessary and prudent and then there's (so far) holy crap, we're just tanking this for a while. I'm not mad at the FO; I'm mad that potentially the Ricketts ARE going cheap. The FO can only work with what they have.

 

It is entirely possible that the Ricketts haven't found enough ways to monetize the team at this point, and they are in fact running a deficit. They then decided that the best way to spend money most efficiently was to allocate the money to the place where it could turn the most immediate profit-in facilities (hence the Mesa facility, as well as the purchase of the McDonald's location and a a push to improve Wrigley) and the front office (where a mind like Epstein can be had for roughly the same cost as a middle reliever).

 

If/when those investments pay off (which may not be for several years), the Cubs become the big market team everyone thinks they are. Until then, It is possible they may be operating in the red.

 

Then it's back to the good ol' days of suck for a while.

 

Yeah, I know, building for the future is fine and I want them to do that, but I'm not going to lie and act like I give a [expletive] about the minors until any of those players are actually producing for the Cubs. I'm a fan of the major league team, and spending years waiting for the farm system to develop while our offense is for the foreseeable future is a pretty barren wasteland of mediocrity outside of Castro is depressing as hell. If it all starts paying off years down the line, hey, great; it's just going to REALLY suck getting there in the meantime if the Ricketts are going cheap.

[WilcoFan]

Calm the [expletive] down.

 

Irony.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So if the Cubs decided they didn't like Darvish's pitch count numbers or his potential to transfer his game to MLB, and thus decided it wasn't worth taking what, in their opinion, was an unnecessary risk on a player they felt was not a long-term solution, is that still a problem?

 

In other words, is Theo/Hoyer's judgment in question already?

 

If you consider each decision they've made in isolation like this, then there's nothing wrong with it. But the whole picture is getting a little less impressive.

 

Two months of a single offseason is only a slightly larger sample size than an individual offseason--especially considering that there are probably, at most, four to five players that they have considered spending money on. Right now, the difference between a single player and the "whole picture" is 3-4 players maximum.

 

I think you are downplaying how many players are gone that could have helped this team, but regardless, you are right. That's why I said "A little less impressive" and not "Everything is terrible."

[WilcoFan]

Yeah, I know, building for the future is fine and I want them to do that, but I'm not going to lie and act like I give a [expletive] about the minors until any of those players are actually producing for the Cubs. I'm a fan of the major league team, and spending years waiting for the farm system to develop while our offense is for the foreseeable future is a pretty barren wasteland of mediocrity outside of Castro is depressing as hell. If it all starts paying off years down the line, hey, great; it's just going to REALLY suck getting there in the meantime if the Ricketts are going cheap.

 

"Going cheap" implies that they are not spending the money they have; it is entirely possible that they're not spending money because they don't have much to spend.

[Sammy Sofa]

Calm the [expletive] down.

 

Irony.

 

Nah. I'm really cool when I get mad. It's a simmering, sensual fury. Those expletives slip from my lips with the hiss of a steam grate on a sultry summer night down a dangerous alley in the big city.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, I know, building for the future is fine and I want them to do that, but I'm not going to lie and act like I give a [expletive] about the minors until any of those players are actually producing for the Cubs. I'm a fan of the major league team, and spending years waiting for the farm system to develop while our offense is for the foreseeable future is a pretty barren wasteland of mediocrity outside of Castro is depressing as hell. If it all starts paying off years down the line, hey, great; it's just going to REALLY suck getting there in the meantime if the Ricketts are going cheap.

 

"Going cheap" implies that they are not spending the money they have; it is entirely possible that they're not spending money because they don't have much to spend.

 

Yes, I know; that sucks. Whether they are choosing to not spend or they can't spend, the end result is still awful.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[WilcoFan]

Calm the [expletive] down.

 

Irony.

 

Nah. I'm really cool when I get mad. It's a simmering, sensual fury. Those expletives slip from my lips with the hiss of a steam grate on a sultry summer night down a dangerous alley in the big city.

 

That second sentence creeps me the [expletive] out.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yeah, I know, building for the future is fine and I want them to do that, but I'm not going to lie and act like I give a [expletive] about the minors until any of those players are actually producing for the Cubs. I'm a fan of the major league team, and spending years waiting for the farm system to develop while our offense is for the foreseeable future is a pretty barren wasteland of mediocrity outside of Castro is depressing as hell. If it all starts paying off years down the line, hey, great; it's just going to REALLY suck getting there in the meantime if the Ricketts are going cheap.

 

"Going cheap" implies that they are not spending the money they have; it is entirely possible that they're not spending money because they don't have much to spend.

 

That's not better.

[Sammy Sofa]

Calm the [expletive] down.

 

Irony.

 

Nah. I'm really cool when I get mad. It's a simmering, sensual fury. Those expletives slip from my lips with the hiss of a steam grate on a sultry summer night down a dangerous alley in the big city.

 

That second sentence creeps me the [expletive] out.

 

It's time to appreciate the classics, kid.

[pccubfan]

So if the Cubs decided they didn't like Darvish's pitch count numbers or his potential to transfer his game to MLB, and thus decided it wasn't worth taking what, in their opinion, was an unnecessary risk on a player they felt was not a long-term solution, is that still a problem?

 

In other words, is Theo/Hoyer's judgment in question already?

 

I don't think that it is in question. I think a lot of people had pre-conceived ideas of how the Cubs would improve themselves the next two offseasons before being a favorite in 2014. Those ideas included spending some big money this offseason since there was some payroll flexibility and impact players available. Add to that the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Dodgers and Mets weren't big players and the Cubs looked to be sitting pretty. Seems like this could be a sound plan. Then add to that the new CBA that will now limit the Cubs from spending big on the amatuer draft in the future and their plan sounded even more likely.

 

The Cubs have not been successful in obtaining any of the impact players yet and these same people are wondering how the Cubs are going to manage to compete in the short term.

 

Theo and Hoyer are obviously going to be given time by Ricketts to improve this team. I do think that they are going to have to take some risk and sign a couple pitchers next year to deals that are longer than anyone really wants to go, but it is going to take something like that to happen if the Cubs are going to have any chance to win by 2014.

[davell]

I wanted us to add 2 bigtime guys this year and next, also spending bigtime on IFA's. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening now. Not this year and with what's left. So, let's say we trade Garza, Marshall, and Marmol before the season starts. I think we've missed a shot at trading Soto for now, as I'm not seeing a contender in need of a C. Let's keep Byrd as well, figuring he's tradeable midseason or so, same with Soto. By my math, it's taking another 19 mill off the payroll. Puts us around 92 mill. I figure we've got close to 140 to spend, unless we want to allow for draft penalty money possibly. My idea is to sign Jackson, Chen, Soler, and go ahead and add Carlos Beltran. That puts the payroll back up around 128 mill. I'm saying 12, 5, 5, and 16 respectively. Plus, as a return, let's say we wind up with Rizzo, Henderson Alvarez, Keyvius Sampson, one of Hutchison/Syndergaard/Nicolino, and Brandon Jacobs from Boston. Odd grouping, but I guess I'm assuming trade with Toronto and SD for the other guys. Then, you've still got Byrd and Soto to trade off during the season, along with Demp and Z possibly. Yes, I doubt the team I'm concocting here contends immediately. But, for 2012, you're sending out a rotation of Jackson/Demp/Z/Chen/Alvarez. Your lineup is DeJesus/Barney/Castro/Beltan/Rizzo/Byrd/Soto/Stewart. Your closer is one of Shark/Cash/Wood. Fill in the pen with whoever. It's not great, but it may be better than what we had actually.