POSIT: epstein has the best executive position in sports

[bukie]

Partial credit for the possibility that the front office knew they'd be able to get Rizzo, I guess. But that still leaves about half-a-lineup's worth of players that we made no visible attempt to upgrade.

 

They made moves to address 3B and RF, kept a cornerstone at SS, kept moderately productive pre-FAs at C and 2B, and have prospects ready to take over midseason at 1B and CF. I guess they could have sold Soriano and tried to fill LF a different way, but outside that, they either kept productive guys or made moves at every other spot.

 

Wait, "keeping Castro" was a thing they did?

Keeping him at short deserves at least a little credit, since there's a growing push to move him to 2nd or 3rd.

 

It could be argued that the Cubs acquired the best 3B of the offseason, too, depending on how much one values defensive metrics. RF is definitely improved, the staff is well improved over last year, particularly in depth, and 1B and CF are ready to go as soon as they're not wasting a year of eligibility.

 

Really, the only potential failures of the staff were not getting Cespedes and offloading Soriano, and sacrificing the bullpen to upgrade other positions. Well, and to whom they gave bench spots.

[Guest]

Partial credit for the possibility that the front office knew they'd be able to get Rizzo, I guess. But that still leaves about half-a-lineup's worth of players that we made no visible attempt to upgrade.

 

They made moves to address 3B and RF, kept a cornerstone at SS, kept moderately productive pre-FAs at C and 2B, and have prospects ready to take over midseason at 1B and CF. I guess they could have sold Soriano and tried to fill LF a different way, but outside that, they either kept productive guys or made moves at every other spot.

 

Wait, "keeping Castro" was a thing they did?

 

I think he was just addressing each position.

[treebird]

Partial credit for the possibility that the front office knew they'd be able to get Rizzo, I guess. But that still leaves about half-a-lineup's worth of players that we made no visible attempt to upgrade.

 

They made moves to address 3B and RF, kept a cornerstone at SS, kept moderately productive pre-FAs at C and 2B, and have prospects ready to take over midseason at 1B and CF. I guess they could have sold Soriano and tried to fill LF a different way, but outside that, they either kept productive guys or made moves at every other spot.

 

Wait, "keeping Castro" was a thing they did?

Keeping him at short deserves at least a little credit, since there's a growing push to move him to 2nd or 3rd.

 

i'm not giving him any credit for that at all, you need to get a dog and get off theo's nuts with that one

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The verb isn't really important, the point was that they didn't ignore a bunch of black holes. They still need impact players and it's not a finished product, but the obvious sentiment was that they ignored/didn't try to fix a bad offense, which isn't the case.

 

They added David DeJesus, Reed Johnson, Ian Stewart and Joe Mather to the offense. I'm torn between labeling it "didn't try to fix the offense for 2012" or "actively tried to make a bad offense for 2012."

 

That's the kind of offseason you hire Dave Littlefield to put together. Heck, like LaHair, he was already in the organization.

 

Also, his wikipedia article is awesome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Littlefield

[bukie]

i'm not giving him any credit for that at all, you need to get a dog and get off theo's nuts with that one

 

I....(thankfully?) don't get the reference?

[Guest]

The verb isn't really important, the point was that they didn't ignore a bunch of black holes. They still need impact players and it's not a finished product, but the obvious sentiment was that they ignored/didn't try to fix a bad offense, which isn't the case.

 

They added David DeJesus, Reed Johnson, Ian Stewart and Joe Mather to the offense. I'm torn between labeling it "didn't try to fix the offense for 2012" or "actively tried to make a bad offense for 2012."

 

That's the kind of offseason you hire Dave Littlefield to put together. Heck, like LaHair, he was already in the organization.

 

Also, his wikipedia article is awesome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Littlefield

 

 

Soooo you're not really feelin Ian?

[Guest]

i'm not giving him any credit for that at all, you need to get a dog and get off theo's nuts with that one

 

I....(thankfully?) don't get the reference?

 

Check the Bulls thread, look for Theo attempting to make a Stacey King reference, and some people getting it, and some people not.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Soooo you're not really feelin Ian?

 

 

I've been exposed :( I didn't even make it to his first at-bat.

[bukie]

The verb isn't really important, the point was that they didn't ignore a bunch of black holes. They still need impact players and it's not a finished product, but the obvious sentiment was that they ignored/didn't try to fix a bad offense, which isn't the case.

 

They added David DeJesus, Reed Johnson, Ian Stewart and Joe Mather to the offense. I'm torn between labeling it "didn't try to fix the offense for 2012" or "actively tried to make a bad offense for 2012."

 

That's the kind of offseason you hire Dave Littlefield to put together. Heck, like LaHair, he was already in the organization.

 

Also, his wikipedia article is awesome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Littlefield

Reed Johnson was on the roster last year.

 

DeJesus is at least a moderate upgrade over Colvin/Campana in RF.

 

Ian Stewart is a reclamation project that could go either way. Decent defensively, to the point where even if he's replacement level offensively, he's worth more there than Baker.

 

Joe Mather...okay, they let spring training results determine the 25th man. Sue them.

[jersey cubs fan]

We'll have to disagree obviously. I totally understand wanting to take a year to evaluate guys like Shark, Volstad, Dolis, Castro, Barney, Stewart, LaHair, Sappelt, Campana, Brett, Rizzo, Vitters, McNutt, Rhee, etc......Then placing emphasis on what's actually needed. If we spend next offseason, signing guys to short term deals and not trading for anyone either, I'll change my tune. Until then, giving the guy an evaluation process seems perfectly feasible and shouldn't be looked at as anything other than that. Does NOT mean we're going to suck outloud until 2015 or so.

 

Yeah, it's very understandable. We all understand what he's trying to do. What he's not trying to do is make this team good as quickly as he can.

[Guest]

The verb isn't really important, the point was that they didn't ignore a bunch of black holes. They still need impact players and it's not a finished product, but the obvious sentiment was that they ignored/didn't try to fix a bad offense, which isn't the case.

 

They added David DeJesus, Reed Johnson, Ian Stewart and Joe Mather to the offense. I'm torn between labeling it "didn't try to fix the offense for 2012" or "actively tried to make a bad offense for 2012."

 

That's the kind of offseason you hire Dave Littlefield to put together. Heck, like LaHair, he was already in the organization.

 

Also, his wikipedia article is awesome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Littlefield

 

They added DeJesus and Stewart to the offense(which is a greater compliment than you'll give credit for, buy low moves are always easy to lampoon), and will add Jackson and Rizzo to the offense for a significant portion of the year. By the all star break they're likely planning to have a lineup like DeJesus/Jackson/Castro/Rizzo/Soto/Stewart/Soriano/Barney. That's 6 guys who could easily be 3 WAR guys. Giving them the season to help sort out which guys will reach that potential(and doing the same thing with a legion of similarly talented SP) to better identify holes is a far cry from this refrain of willfully forfeiting 1-2 seasons, especially when it would have taken an exceptional sequence(with a lot of risks) to make the team a playoff team in 2012.

[jersey cubs fan]

Ian Stewart is a reclamation project that could go either way. Decent defensively, to the point where even if he's replacement level offensively, he's worth more there than Baker.

 

Positively glowing endorsement. He's worth more than a guy who has been a backup his whole career. Yay?

[davearm2]

I knew I shouldn't have posted that, THAT way.

 

Because it was the complete opposite of reality?

 

No, not at all. Should have added, to get us there in a sustainable way longterm. We can debate all day about whether or not it's possible we could sign a Pujols, Fielder, etc, and get good and stay there, but we don't truly know if we could or not. Letting it sit for a year, finding where our true holes appear to be, is what Theo chose to do. He has a little more experience at this than you or I do, so I'm taking the approach he knows what he's doing and he's doing it as quickly as he can. If you want to think he's procrastinating and trying to field a Margaret Phelps team, be my guest.

 

Nonsense. He's not doing it as quickly as possible. He knows he has a ridiculously long leash nobody else has and he's willing to let that leash extend as long as possible. There are absolutely zero signs of any sense of urgency or any interest in any sort of "quickly as he can" aspect to the plan. It will be as long and as drawn out as possible, like McClellan preparing the Army of the Potomac. Thankfully there aren't any lives on the line and he can still end up with great success despite taking his sweet old time. But there is nothing close to true about the statement that he is doing it as quickly as he can.

I think most here are in agreement that the Cubs' misery has not been a byproduct of poor free agent spending. It has been primarily a byproduct of poor drafting and developing.

 

If you can't see that Theo is trying to rectify that situation "as quickly as he can", then you're simply not paying attention.

[bukie]

Ian Stewart is a reclamation project that could go either way. Decent defensively, to the point where even if he's replacement level offensively, he's worth more there than Baker.

 

Positively glowing endorsement. He's worth more than a guy who has been a backup his whole career. Yay?

I'm trying to stick to realistic, here. I said that worst case scenario, he's a better option than Baker. Best case scenario, he's a better option than Ramirez would have been.

[davearm2]

We'll have to disagree obviously. I totally understand wanting to take a year to evaluate guys like Shark, Volstad, Dolis, Castro, Barney, Stewart, LaHair, Sappelt, Campana, Brett, Rizzo, Vitters, McNutt, Rhee, etc......Then placing emphasis on what's actually needed. If we spend next offseason, signing guys to short term deals and not trading for anyone either, I'll change my tune. Until then, giving the guy an evaluation process seems perfectly feasible and shouldn't be looked at as anything other than that. Does NOT mean we're going to suck outloud until 2015 or so.

 

Yeah, it's very understandable. We all understand what he's trying to do. What he's not trying to do is make this team good as quickly as he can.

He actually is. He's just not doing it the way you would.

[jersey cubs fan]

Ian Stewart is a reclamation project that could go either way. Decent defensively, to the point where even if he's replacement level offensively, he's worth more there than Baker.

 

Positively glowing endorsement. He's worth more than a guy who has been a backup his whole career. Yay?

I'm trying to stick to realistic, here. I said that worst case scenario, he's a better option than Baker. Best case scenario, he's a better option than Ramirez would have been.

 

That's about as best case as the worst case scenario could be. Worst case is he blows again.

[jersey cubs fan]

None of what has been said here is able to refute the notion that the man has a ridiculously long leash and he's very clearly going to use all of it.

[davell]

I want 6 out of 8 yeats for us to be in the playoffs. Just as Theo said, at one point this offseason. We should be able to do that, with smart moves and our resources. Possible if we had made big moves immediately? Yeah. But more likely if he does it this way. And I don't see that as tanking for 3 or 4 years for it to happen.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

They added DeJesus and Stewart to the offense(which is a greater compliment than you'll give credit for, buy low moves are always easy to lampoon), and will add Jackson and Rizzo to the offense for a significant portion of the year. By the all star break they're likely planning to have a lineup like DeJesus/Jackson/Castro/Rizzo/Soto/Stewart/Soriano/Barney. That's 6 guys who could easily be 3 WAR guys. Giving them the season to help sort out which guys will reach that potential(and doing the same thing with a legion of similarly talented SP) to better identify holes is a far cry from this refrain of willfully forfeiting 1-2 seasons, especially when it would have taken an exceptional sequence(with a lot of risks) to make the team a playoff team in 2012.

 

It's easy to lampoon buy low moves because they are so often just catching falling knives. It's easy to just retcon bad players into "buy low opportunities."

 

Volstad was a great buy low opportunity. He's in his prime age, he had solid peripherals and a pedigree. Stewart has terrible peripherals and a nagging injury that's been known to ruin batting seasons. DeJesus is 32.

 

I don't think "3-WAR potential" is all that much of a compliment. Every stiff in AAA should be able to put up a 2-2.5 win season if the breaks go their way, as Darwin Barney proved last year.

 

We had three clear openings in the lineup. We filled them with a career AAAA roster fill coming off a Julio Zuleta season at Iowa, a 32-year-old buy low candidate, and a bad-wristed, high-K 3b who couldn't hack it in Colorado.

 

We can rationalize it to ourselves all we want, but this is not what we were all hoping for when Theo Epstein came to the Cubs.

[davell]

None of what has been said here is able to refute the notion that the man has a ridiculously long leash and he's very clearly going to use all of it.

well then, since Theo has a 5 year deal, I guess we'll suck for the next 4 automatically then, by your thinking. Because he's certainly not getting fired between now and then. It's not going to take this group that length of time to get us from a crawl to a sprint.

[bukie]

They added DeJesus and Stewart to the offense(which is a greater compliment than you'll give credit for, buy low moves are always easy to lampoon), and will add Jackson and Rizzo to the offense for a significant portion of the year. By the all star break they're likely planning to have a lineup like DeJesus/Jackson/Castro/Rizzo/Soto/Stewart/Soriano/Barney. That's 6 guys who could easily be 3 WAR guys. Giving them the season to help sort out which guys will reach that potential(and doing the same thing with a legion of similarly talented SP) to better identify holes is a far cry from this refrain of willfully forfeiting 1-2 seasons, especially when it would have taken an exceptional sequence(with a lot of risks) to make the team a playoff team in 2012.

 

It's easy to lampoon buy low moves because they are so often just catching falling knives. It's easy to just retcon bad players into "buy low opportunities."

 

Volstad was a great buy low opportunity. He's in his prime age, he had solid peripherals and a pedigree. Stewart has terrible peripherals and a nagging injury that's been known to ruin batting seasons. DeJesus is 32.

 

I don't think "3-WAR potential" is all that much of a compliment. Every stiff in AAA should be able to put up a 2-2.5 win season if the breaks go their way, as Darwin Barney proved last year.

 

We had three clear openings in the lineup. We filled them with a career AAAA roster fill coming off a Julio Zuleta season at Iowa, a 32-year-old buy low candidate, and a bad-wristed, high-K 3b who couldn't hack it in Colorado.

 

We can rationalize it to ourselves all we want, but this is not what we were all hoping for when Theo Epstein came to the Cubs.

Which, of course, ignores Rizzo and Jackson, and the rest of the moves made to revamp the minor league system.

[jersey cubs fan]

I want 6 out of 8 yeats for us to be in the playoffs. Just as Theo said, at one point this offseason. We should be able to do that, with smart moves and our resources. Possible if we had made big moves immediately? Yeah. But more likely if he does it this way. And I don't see that as tanking for 3 or 4 years for it to happen.

 

There's no good reason to put all this doubt into their future had they actually tried this year. If you want to get 6 out of 8 anything, it's not a good idea to pass on your first opportunity.

[jersey cubs fan]

None of what has been said here is able to refute the notion that the man has a ridiculously long leash and he's very clearly going to use all of it.

well then, since Theo has a 5 year deal, I guess we'll suck for the next 4 automatically then, by your thinking. Because he's certainly not getting fired between now and then. It's not going to take this group that length of time to get us from a crawl to a sprint.

 

If they suck for 4 years he'll be gone before then.

[jersey cubs fan]

Which, of course, ignores Rizzo and Jackson, and the rest of the moves made to revamp the minor league system.

 

What the hell does Jackson have to do with anything? He was here.

Edited April 4, 2012 by jersey cubs fan

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Which, of course, ignores Rizzo and Jackson, and the rest of the moves made to revamp the minor league system.

 

It ignores the entire universe of existence outside of the conversation at hand, which was whether or not Theo Epstein decided to tank the 2012 season.

 

I'm very happy with what he's doing with the minor leagues and the overall organization. I just don't think that the tanking of 2012 was necessary to support those actions.