POSIT: epstein has the best executive position in sports

[dew1679666265]

I've been wondering this and can't quite come up with a good answer to it. The talk out of the new Cubs management is that we need to acquire assets and that's the primary focus at this point. I agree with that line of thought, but I keep seeing people argue that it was a good idea to pass on FA this year because we can just trade for a big bat/arm next year. So a team that desperately needs to build as many assets as possible should pass on guys like Darvish and Cespedes (or Pujols if you want to spend big) so that we're in a position where, in order to have a chance to compete, we have to give up very valuable minor league assets to acquire one major league asset who we then have to give a huge contract to, at least similar to two of the guys we passed on (Darvish and Cespedes).

 

To me, as well, adding impact or potential impact talent this offseason wasn't completely about winning 95-100 games this year - there was really no way to make this team anything more than a fringe playoff contender. What it was about, however, was to make incremental strides toward being a really good team next year while retaining as many assets as possible. Now, it looks like if we're going to compete in 2013 then we're going to have to give up valuable assets to do so - and that's even if there are really good young players available at our positions of need. If not, then we either overpay for the 2013 version of Alfonso Soriano or we forfeit another year in hopes that the market (either trade or FA) will break our way in 2014. That's my real concern with the current strategy. I think it'll ultimately work because the guys leading the way are really smart, but I question whether it was the optimal route to take.

[gocubs2118]

Why does everyone think we passed on Cespedes? We offered him a 6 year deal, like everyone else besides the A's. Did anyone think it would of been a good idea to offer him a 4 year deal? I sure as heck didn't. To say we passed on him is just wrong. He took a deal that was better for him but didn't make much sense for us. Who knows what our bid was on Darvish but we know that they made a bid. Just because we didn't get the player, doesn't mean Theo and Jed didn't try to get them.

[XZero771679666304]

Why does everyone think we passed on Cespedes? We offered him a 6 year deal, like everyone else besides the A's. Did anyone think it would of been a good idea to offer him a 4 year deal? I sure as heck didn't. To say we passed on him is just wrong. He took a deal that was better for him but didn't make much sense for us. Who knows what our bid was on Darvish but we know that they made a bid. Just because we didn't get the player, doesn't mean Theo and Jed didn't try to get them.

 

Yeah, the Cubs didn't "pass" on Cespedes or Darvish. They lost a blind bid for Darvish and made a competitive offer for Cespedes. Theo/Jed passed on Fielder and Pujols, but you can't say the same for the aforementioned pair.

[gocubs2118]

Why does everyone think we passed on Cespedes? We offered him a 6 year deal, like everyone else besides the A's. Did anyone think it would of been a good idea to offer him a 4 year deal? I sure as heck didn't. To say we passed on him is just wrong. He took a deal that was better for him but didn't make much sense for us. Who knows what our bid was on Darvish but we know that they made a bid. Just because we didn't get the player, doesn't mean Theo and Jed didn't try to get them.

 

Yeah, the Cubs didn't "pass" on Cespedes or Darvish. They lost a blind bid for Darvish and made a competitive offer for Cespedes. Theo/Jed passed on Fielder and Pujols, but you can't say the same for the aforementioned pair.

 

Even if we did "pass" on Fielder and Pujols, it didn't make any sense for us to give Fielder a 9 year deal and Pujols a 10 year deal.

[XZero771679666304]

Why does everyone think we passed on Cespedes? We offered him a 6 year deal, like everyone else besides the A's. Did anyone think it would of been a good idea to offer him a 4 year deal? I sure as heck didn't. To say we passed on him is just wrong. He took a deal that was better for him but didn't make much sense for us. Who knows what our bid was on Darvish but we know that they made a bid. Just because we didn't get the player, doesn't mean Theo and Jed didn't try to get them.

 

Yeah, the Cubs didn't "pass" on Cespedes or Darvish. They lost a blind bid for Darvish and made a competitive offer for Cespedes. Theo/Jed passed on Fielder and Pujols, but you can't say the same for the aforementioned pair.

 

Even if we did "pass" on Fielder and Pujols, it didn't make any sense for us to give Fielder a 9 year deal and Pujols a 10 year deal.

 

I wasn't suggesting otherwise, just making a distinction.

[dew1679666265]

Why does everyone think we passed on Cespedes? We offered him a 6 year deal, like everyone else besides the A's. Did anyone think it would of been a good idea to offer him a 4 year deal? I sure as heck didn't.

 

Why not? Sure you'd prefer to get a guy like Cespedes on a 6 year deal, but is it better not to have a talented player at all rather than not to have him perfectly on your terms? Cespedes came out and said if the Cubs had offered him the same deal the As did, then he'd be a Cub but we wouldn't go to four years. Clearly that was Theo/Jed's decision and I disagree with it.

 

Outfielder Yoenis Cespedes was willing to sign with the Cubs and had reason to believe that he might wind up in Chicago, writes Gordon Wittenmyer of the Chicago Sun-Times. Ultimately, the Cubs offered six years for $36MM while the Athletics offered that same number for four years. The Cuban star also said that he was seeking either a four-year deal or one that was for eight years or more. Through a translator, Cespedes said that he probably would have wound up in Chicago had the Cubs offered him the same deal before the A's did.

 

Even if it took all of this year for Cespedes to acclimate to the states and the majors, if he develops as expected I'd still rather have 3 years of him than 0. Especially since he's got a lot of upside (something most of the players in our organization don't have) and he plays a position of need.

 

To say we passed on him is just wrong. He took a deal that was better for him but didn't make much sense for us. Who knows what our bid was on Darvish but we know that they made a bid. Just because we didn't get the player, doesn't mean Theo and Jed didn't try to get them.

 

The Darvish issue was likely much less in their power, especially if they had no idea the Rangers would bid as highly as they did. My comment was less a criticism of Cubs management not getting him and directed more at the people on the board saying they didn't want the Cubs to get him anyway at the price he garnered.

Edited April 6, 2012 by dew

[Backtobanks]

Why does everyone think we passed on Cespedes? We offered him a 6 year deal, like everyone else besides the A's. Did anyone think it would of been a good idea to offer him a 4 year deal? I sure as heck didn't. To say we passed on him is just wrong. He took a deal that was better for him but didn't make much sense for us. Who knows what our bid was on Darvish but we know that they made a bid. Just because we didn't get the player, doesn't mean Theo and Jed didn't try to get them.

 

We "passed" on both of those players because we have the resources to outbid any other team. Since Theo/Jed didn't think they were worth the extra money, they passed on them. We passed on Pujols and Prince for the same reason - their value wasn't worth they money that it would take to get them.

[dew1679666265]

Even if we did "pass" on Fielder and Pujols, it didn't make any sense for us to give Fielder a 9 year deal and Pujols a 10 year deal.

 

There's plenty of reasons why it made plenty of sense for the Cubs to give Pujols a 10 year deal. There were also reasons not to give him the deal, but it's incorrect to say it made no sense to give it to him. I feel like the reasons to give him the deal outweighed the reasons not to.

[Backtobanks]

I've been wondering this and can't quite come up with a good answer to it. The talk out of the new Cubs management is that we need to acquire assets and that's the primary focus at this point. I agree with that line of thought, but I keep seeing people argue that it was a good idea to pass on FA this year because we can just trade for a big bat/arm next year. So a team that desperately needs to build as many assets as possible should pass on guys like Darvish and Cespedes (or Pujols if you want to spend big) so that we're in a position where, in order to have a chance to compete, we have to give up very valuable minor league assets to acquire one major league asset who we then have to give a huge contract to, at least similar to two of the guys we passed on (Darvish and Cespedes).

 

To me, as well, adding impact or potential impact talent this offseason wasn't completely about winning 95-100 games this year - there was really no way to make this team anything more than a fringe playoff contender. What it was about, however, was to make incremental strides toward being a really good team next year while retaining as many assets as possible. Now, it looks like if we're going to compete in 2013 then we're going to have to give up valuable assets to do so - and that's even if there are really good young players available at our positions of need. If not, then we either overpay for the 2013 version of Alfonso Soriano or we forfeit another year in hopes that the market (either trade or FA) will break our way in 2014. That's my real concern with the current strategy. I think it'll ultimately work because the guys leading the way are really smart, but I question whether it was the optimal route to take.

 

I'm glad to see some posters that are having the same concerns that I've been having. Assuming Brett and Rizzo become solid players, we still have a ton of holes to fill for 2013 and beyond. It looks like other teams have realized that extending their own players is preferable to looking at who is available in free agency and/or trades.

[dew1679666265]

We "passed" on both of those players because we have the resources to outbid any other team. Since Theo/Jed didn't think they were worth the extra money, they passed on them. We passed on Pujols and Prince for the same reason - their value wasn't worth they money that it would take to get them.

 

To be fair, saying we passed on Darvish is incorrect - unless Theo/Jed knew the Rangers would outbid everybody else by a very wide margin (if the reports are accurate). I really wanted Darvish and wish we had gotten him, but we don't know that it was lack of effort on the Cubs' part that led to him being a Ranger. And on Prince, it was a very good decision not to give him that contract.

[davearm2]

Why does everyone think we passed on Cespedes? We offered him a 6 year deal, like everyone else besides the A's. Did anyone think it would of been a good idea to offer him a 4 year deal? I sure as heck didn't. To say we passed on him is just wrong. He took a deal that was better for him but didn't make much sense for us. Who knows what our bid was on Darvish but we know that they made a bid. Just because we didn't get the player, doesn't mean Theo and Jed didn't try to get them.

 

We "passed" on both of those players because we have the resources to outbid any other team. Since Theo/Jed didn't think they were worth the extra money, they passed on them. We passed on Pujols and Prince for the same reason - their value wasn't worth they money that it would take to get them.

I guess it's a pet peeve, but it really bugs me when folks pretend like this is eBay, and everyone's bid is transparent.

 

It's stating the obvious, but there is all kinds of bluffing and gamesmanship involved, and every involved party has an incentive NOT to reveal what bids are on the table.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Transparent or not, GMs are judged on the results.

 

No one freaked out about the Epstein signing thinking "Man, we're not going to get any good players, but we're going to make reasonable efforts before failing!"

[Backtobanks]

We "passed" on both of those players because we have the resources to outbid any other team. Since Theo/Jed didn't think they were worth the extra money, they passed on them. We passed on Pujols and Prince for the same reason - their value wasn't worth they money that it would take to get them.

 

To be fair, saying we passed on Darvish is incorrect - unless Theo/Jed knew the Rangers would outbid everybody else by a very wide margin (if the reports are accurate). I really wanted Darvish and wish we had gotten him, but we don't know that it was lack of effort on the Cubs' part that led to him being a Ranger. And on Prince, it was a very good decision not to give him that contract.

 

I didn't say we should sign Prince, Darvish, Cespedes, or Pujols. My point was that Theo/Jed made a decision as to how much each of those players wre worth to the Cubs and "passed" when the terms got too high.

 

Why does everyone think we passed on Cespedes? We offered him a 6 year deal, like everyone else besides the A's. Did anyone think it would of been a good idea to offer him a 4 year deal? I sure as heck didn't. To say we passed on him is just wrong. He took a deal that was better for him but didn't make much sense for us. Who knows what our bid was on Darvish but we know that they made a bid. Just because we didn't get the player, doesn't mean Theo and Jed didn't try to get them.

 

We "passed" on both of those players because we have the resources to outbid any other team. Since Theo/Jed didn't think they were worth the extra money, they passed on them. We passed on Pujols and Prince for the same reason - their value wasn't worth they money that it would take to get them.

I guess it's a pet peeve, but it really bugs me when folks pretend like this is eBay, and everyone's bid is transparent.

 

It's stating the obvious, but there is all kinds of bluffing and gamesmanship involved, and every involved party has an incentive NOT to reveal what bids are on the table.

 

The rumors had the winning bid in the $45-$50 million range before the winning bid of $51.7 million was revealed. If we were reading those rumors as to what the winning bid would be, I would assume Theo/Jed had some idea of how much they would need to bid if they really wanted to win the bid.

[Tracer Bullet]

Transparent or not, GMs are judged on the results.

 

No one freaked out about the Epstein signing thinking "Man, we're not going to get any good players, but we're going to make reasonable efforts before failing!"

 

If anyone freaked out about landing Theo bc they thought the cubs would win a WS this year, they were hopelessly unrealistic.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Transparent or not, GMs are judged on the results.

 

No one freaked out about the Epstein signing thinking "Man, we're not going to get any good players, but we're going to make reasonable efforts before failing!"

 

If anyone freaked out about landing Theo bc they thought the cubs would win a WS this year, they were hopelessly unrealistic.

 

They could have won the World Series in 2012. There was a significant, non-zero chance of it.

[XZero771679666304]

Transparent or not, GMs are judged on the results.

 

No one freaked out about the Epstein signing thinking "Man, we're not going to get any good players, but we're going to make reasonable efforts before failing!"

 

If anyone freaked out about landing Theo bc they thought the cubs would win a WS this year, they were hopelessly unrealistic.

 

They could have won the World Series in 2012. There was a significant, non-zero chance of it.

 

 

There's a non-zero chance of it this year. But if we're dealing in probability, we were facing an uphill battle even if Ramirez and Pena were re-signed and Darvish and Cespedes were signed. Hell, plug Pujols in place of Pena and it still would have been tough sledding.

 

The team had a bunch of holes and three clearly better teams in the division. 1-2 additions weren't making the 2012 Cubs strong contenders. I'm disappointed that the season is lost, but I can't fault Theo & Jed for doing what they have.

 

If you're advocating doing just enough to make the team a borderline contender, that sounds a whole lot like the methodology that made it the hot mess Theo & Jed inherited.

 

If you keep ARam and Pena and add Cespedes and "go for it" in 2012, you almost certainly keep Cashner, Marshall and Zambrano. You also don't make whatever trades are to be made this summer. BJax likely spends the whole year in the minors. You're left with an aging Ramirez on a multi-year contract and a hole with no long term solution at 1B. And for what? A marginal at best shot at the postseason?

 

We don't know that those deals would not have been made, but a team committed to 2012 probably doesn't deal away assets that are more likely to help them immediately (Cashner & Marshall), so I am skeptical about claims that they could have gone for 2012 and still improved long term interests as they have. That is a luxury teams that don't have a slew of holes enjoy.

 

Regardless, I'll be much more willing to make a judgement about Theo and Jed at this time next year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If you're advocating doing just enough to make the team a borderline contender, that sounds a whole lot like the methodology that made it the hot mess Theo & Jed inherited.

 

Unless the other half of the plan is "draft and develop absolutely nothing for a decade," then it's nothing like the Hendry era.

 

 

If you keep ARam and Pena and add Cespedes and "go for it" in 2012, you almost certainly keep Cashner, Marshall and Zambrano.

 

It doesn't have to be a binary "go for it" or "dump everything and forget about the year." You can still make all three of those trades while trying to put a competitive team on the field in 2012. The frustrating thing is that this team is pretty close to being acceptable. If they'd put half the attention into the offense that they put into the rotation, it'd be a nice sleeper team for the playoffs.

 

Regardless, I'll be much more willing to make a judgement about Theo and Jed at this time next year.

 

I'm not making a judgment about the entirety of Theo and Jed. I'm simply saying that tanking the 2012 season was an unnecessary mistake. I really like what they are doing for the long-term future, I just don't think it was necessary to throw away an entire season or more to do it.

 

I believe it was a pretty smart guy who once said:

 

""Every opportunity to win is sacred. It's sacred to us inside the organization and it should be sacred to the fans as well. They deserve our best efforts to do what we can to improve the club, and put the club in position to succeed in any given season."

[XZero771679666304]

It doesn't have to be a binary "go for it" or "dump everything and forget about the year." You can still make all three of those trades while trying to put a competitive team on the field in 2012. The frustrating thing is that this team is pretty close to being acceptable. If they'd put half the attention into the offense that they put into the rotation, it'd be a nice sleeper team for the playoffs.

 

....................

 

I believe it was a pretty smart guy who once said:

 

""Every opportunity to win is sacred. It's sacred to us inside the organization and it should be sacred to the fans as well. They deserve our best efforts to do what we can to improve the club, and put the club in position to succeed in any given season."

 

I think you're overestimating how close to contention the team was. I don't think you can deal Cashner and Marshall away and feel like you're taking a legitimate shot.

 

I think the team was Pujols/Fielder + Cespedes + Darvish and maybe Wilson from being on the level of the competition.

 

Sure, the rotation this year looks much better, but it is mostly middle-bor guys and could still go either way. Prior to Carpenter's injury, both the Cards and Brewers had legit top of the rotations, 1-3. The Cubs had Matt Garza. We had one star position player, a handful of old question marks and a bunch of holes. Even with Pujols and Fielder gone, the competition still has guys like Holliday, Braun, Votto, Bruce, Weeks, Beltran, Berkman, Phillips, Hart, Stubbs, etc.

 

And our closer may or may not be broken and Wood is fragile (which is why you don't deal Cashner and Marshall if you want to go for it in 2012).

 

It was going to take a near-perfect series of events for the Cubs to be strong competitors in 2012.

 

As for the "Every opportunity to win is sacred" quote, you should have recognized it as a platitude when you heard it.

[Guest]

I didn't think this was worth it's own thread, so this is the first one that looked like a fit.

 

Is Proprietary Information Disappearing?

 

Very interesting article on what information teams keep on their own players, and how that may make them a better judge of what talent is worth keeping and what talent is worth letting go in free agency.

[VicCub]

The Cubs are doing the right thing. WIN RIGHT NOW!!! had been the approach of every regime since at least the late 1970s until Theo arrived. I am thrilled that the Cubs are acquiring young assets while evaluating those already at or near the big league level. Nobody has a better track record of doing this than our guy Theo so let's let him do his thing and get out of the way.

[jersey cubs fan]

The Cubs are doing the right thing. WIN RIGHT NOW!!! had been the approach of every regime since at least the late 1970s until Theo arrived. .

 

That isn't even close to true. It's ridiculous to even suggest that is the case.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

The Cubs are doing the right thing. WIN RIGHT NOW!!! had been the approach of every regime since at least the late 1970s until Theo arrived. .

 

That isn't even close to true. It's ridiculous to even suggest that is the case.

 

Agreed. That's not true.

 

Perhaps "Do things the right way, be patient and get sustained success" is new, though.

[KingCubsFan]

The Cubs are doing the right thing. WIN RIGHT NOW!!! had been the approach of every regime since at least the late 1970s until Theo arrived. .

 

That isn't even close to true. It's ridiculous to even suggest that is the case.

 

Agreed. That's not true.

 

Perhaps "Do things the right way, be patient and get sustained success" is new, though.

Pretty sure that was MacPhail's plan when he started. He was just bad at it.

[El Duderino]

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120508&content_id=30740110&notebook_id=30740112&vkey=notebook_chc&c_id=chc

 

Lord Theo speaks.

[VicCub]

Nah, while there have been occasional moments where Cubs GMs circa 79-11 have thought they had a plan for the future, that idea quickly went out the door in favor of trying to win immediately. You can point out a future oriented deal here or there, but by year 3 of any Cub GM, it is clear that they had no future plan, only to win now. Hendry did the best job of trying to build, but after the Marlins series in 03 there were no more tomorrows.

 

Jim Frey traded for potential top young arms Nipper and Schiraldi. When they didn't pan out he traded top prospects for a closer. That pretty much sums up the strategy of Cubs GMs from the late seventies til Theo. Dip your toe in the 'plan for the future' water and then crap your pants and pray for today. The new approach is refreshing to say the least.