Dempster Traded to Texas for 3B Villanueva & RHP Hendricks

[Bryants Disco Ball]

I can't bring myself to root against dempster...

Yeah, I'm right there with you. Oh wait, Randall Delgado K'd 10 in 6 innings a couple nights ago in AAA. So, maybe not. In fact, I was hoping Pujols took him deep multiple times tonight.

 

10 K's in six innings? Please. I'll take two home runs a game instead....plus still get a top pitching prospect from Atlanta :)

[StarlinOnYou]

I am definitely rooting against Dempster and love the fact he's getting shelled right now.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

It's getting worse. He was given seven runs of support, but not enough.

[Guest]

Final line: 4 2/3 IP, 9 H, 8 R, 8 ER, 3 BB, 6 K.

 

Interesting, just noticed that the ESPN box score reset his stats for the year (separate NL and AL) while Gameday lists his cumulative stats.

[CUBZ99]

Ownership told Hendry that his job while he was here was to spend a lot of money and try to buy a winning team.

 

And he failed miserably at that job.

 

The only thing that Hendry failed miserably at was winning a WS. If you judge his success by playoff appearances, he was in the top 1/3 of GMs from the NL during his tenure with the Cubs.

 

Too many peaks and valleys. Hendry could spend money, but he was awful at organization building. Top tier GMs build clubs that sustain success (Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Cardinals), not winning in fits and starts bridged by periods of being awful.

 

Hendry's tenure mas marked by too much living in the moment, too few contingency plans and too little long term planning. And, to be fair, a solid dose of bad luck. At the end of the day, it's hard to regard Hendry as anything other than a mediocre GM.

 

That is not accurate at all. Hendry's teams had more playoff appearances during his tenure than all but 4 teams in the NL. That is not mediocre. Hendry was definitely an all in type gambler, but it was nice to know that every year he was going for it. With the payroll and resources the Cubs have, there is no excuse for fielding a team as bad as this year's team. I realize what Theo and Jed are trying to do, but they were not honest when they talked about a "dual fronts" approach to rebuilding. The team had more than enough resources to field a respectable team, but instead went cheap and got what they paid for. Every person who knew even a little bit about baseball knew that they weren't trying to win this year.

I just hope next year, the front office makes an attempt at improving the major league club.

[mookie]

Go Jon Daniels, you dumbass.

[Schwarber Fan]

Soto with 2 hits tonight... I'm convinced Mario Mendoza would hit at Arlington

[weis21]

My mom always used to try to get me to read as a child (why?). But she won me over with "the spy on third base". Much love, MC.

 

As an aside: I'm now listening to "I wish" by R Kelly.

 

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

Edit: Meant to quote SneakyPower. Stupid phone. Just disregard this post because it probably makes no sense. I'm sure all level-headed and rational persons have done that already. So, carry on.

 

Additional Edit: Looks like I need a new signature. So sad. I created that when his stock was sky high and the Cubs looked unstoppable...

Edited August 3, 2012 by weis21

[davell]

The dual fronts thing is something they never defined. Signing guys like DeJesus and Maholm IS putting a team out there that conceivably could catch fire and contend. The likelihood is obviously slim as all hell, but there's been plenty of WTF type teams contending when they shouldn't have. Again, I want to know what someone wanting us to compete, while rebuilding as well, would have done? And then explain the rebuild part of things out to me, with something more succinct, than "draft better".

[XZero771679666304]

 

That is not accurate at all. Hendry's teams had more playoff appearances during his tenure than all but 4 teams in the NL. That is not mediocre. Hendry was definitely an all in type gambler, but it was nice to know that every year he was going for it. With the payroll and resources the Cubs have, there is no excuse for fielding a team as bad as this year's team. I realize what Theo and Jed are trying to do, but they were not honest when they talked about a "dual fronts" approach to rebuilding. The team had more than enough resources to field a respectable team, but instead went cheap and got what they paid for. Every person who knew even a little bit about baseball knew that they weren't trying to win this year.

I just hope next year, the front office makes an attempt at improving the major league club.

 

Yes, it is. When they weren't making the playoffs, they were bad, often terrible. When his gambles failed, they did so spectacularly because the system wasn't producing anything to mitigate them. Strong franchises, the ones that are in or on the cusp of the playoffs every year, spend and build from within. Look at the Red Sox, Yankees, Braves, Cardinals, etc. People like to joke about all the money the "empire" teams spend, but look at the rosters of their championship teams and you'll find lots of homegrown talent.

 

Hendry built teams almost entirely comprised of assets obtained from outside the organization because holes couldn't be filled from within. He built volatile, year-to-year teams. If he had sacrificed one or two of the years in which the Cubs were terrible anyway to do what Theo and Jed are doing, he'd probably still have his job.

 

 

And most people knew that fielding a competitive team this year was going to be a stretch even if the Cubs went "all in" to the FA market. Some people are so short sighted that they think the "dual fronts" approach had to apply from day one to not be a lie. I don't think those people were being honest with themselves regarding the state of the team after last season. The dual fronts spiel was about their overall philosophy, but there was little that could be done to make the 2012 team a contender, but there was a lot to be done to build the foundation.

 

If they had tried to contend this year, they almost certainly wouldn't have traded Marshall or Cashner or done any of the things that they have to improve the system. The net result of that would still have been only an outside shot at contention and the same situation next year. That may have made this season more watchable, but it's a piss poor way to overhaul a franchise in need of it, and it's exactly what Hendry would have done.

 

Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Yes rebuilding sucks, but the club will be much better off for having endured this year.

[XZero771679666304]

The dual fronts thing is something they never defined. Signing guys like DeJesus and Maholm IS putting a team out there that conceivably could catch fire and contend. The likelihood is obviously slim as all hell, but there's been plenty of WTF type teams contending when they shouldn't have. Again, I want to know what someone wanting us to compete, while rebuilding as well, would have done? And then explain the rebuild part of things out to me, with something more succinct, than "draft better".

 

The new CBA really complicated things as well, making contending this year while making any meaningful improvements to the farm system nearly impossible. They flushed an outside shot at contention in favor of a real opportunity to improve the system, which isn't fun, but makes the most sense.

 

The only real move they didn't make that irks me is not making a more serious play for Darvish, because he's so young.

[Guest]

Ownership told Hendry that his job while he was here was to spend a lot of money and try to buy a winning team.

 

And he failed miserably at that job.

 

The only thing that Hendry failed miserably at was winning a WS. If you judge his success by playoff appearances, he was in the top 1/3 of GMs from the NL during his tenure with the Cubs.

 

Too many peaks and valleys. Hendry could spend money, but he was awful at organization building. Top tier GMs build clubs that sustain success (Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Cardinals), not winning in fits and starts bridged by periods of being awful.

 

Hendry's tenure mas marked by too much living in the moment, too few contingency plans and too little long term planning. And, to be fair, a solid dose of bad luck. At the end of the day, it's hard to regard Hendry as anything other than a mediocre GM.

 

That is not accurate at all. Hendry's teams had more playoff appearances during his tenure than all but 4 teams in the NL. That is not mediocre. Hendry was definitely an all in type gambler, but it was nice to know that every year he was going for it. With the payroll and resources the Cubs have, there is no excuse for fielding a team as bad as this year's team.

 

you use the cubs' financial advantage as an insult to theo, but you ignore it when it hurts your only defense of jim hendry.

 

making the playoffs once for every 3 years you suck is not an accomplishment. the cubs had no kind of sustained success with jim hendry. the fact that he squandered so many years when we had more resources than most teams is a failure.

 

when the cubs get good with this current front office, they will stay good and be competitive every season.

[CUBZ99]

The dual fronts thing is something they never defined. Signing guys like DeJesus and Maholm IS putting a team out there that conceivably could catch fire and contend. The likelihood is obviously slim as all hell, but there's been plenty of WTF type teams contending when they shouldn't have. Again, I want to know what someone wanting us to compete, while rebuilding as well, would have done? And then explain the rebuild part of things out to me, with something more succinct, than "draft better".

 

There is no excuse for a team with the resources of the Cubs to purposefully try to be terrible to improve their team. Theo even acknowledges that with the new CBA the only advantage is teams that scout better(or as you term "draft better").

[mookie]

The dual fronts thing is something they never defined. Signing guys like DeJesus and Maholm IS putting a team out there that conceivably could catch fire and contend. The likelihood is obviously slim as all hell, but there's been plenty of WTF type teams contending when they shouldn't have. Again, I want to know what someone wanting us to compete, while rebuilding as well, would have done? And then explain the rebuild part of things out to me, with something more succinct, than "draft better".

 

There is no excuse for a team with the resources of the Cubs to purposefully try to be terrible to improve their team. Theo even acknowledges that with the new CBA the only advantage is teams that scout better(or as you term "draft better").

 

How are they purposefully trying to be terrible?

[Backtobanks]

I don't really get why we're rehashing these same Hendry arguments.

 

backtobanks, if all your posts continue to be thinly veiled variations of "make sure you hate Theo just as much as you did Hendry!", no one is going to take you seriously. It's honestly closer to trolling than actual discussion at this point, it's one-note and it is tired.

 

I don't hate Theo, I'm just anxiously awaiting results that we can see at Wrigley. As for mentioning Hendry, go through all of the deadline trade threads and see how many posters brought up Hendry. What's really one-note and tiring is that many posters can't discuss a topic for two pages without bringing up Hendry. He's gone, let's move on and discuss the moves that are being made (or need to be made) by this FO.

 

you are the one who always gets hendry back into the same conversation.

 

Obviously you didn't look at the hundreds of pages on trading, Garza, Dempster, Soto, etc. and notice who brought up his name.

 

be honest backtobanks, it kills you to see theo make good moves. it's just oozing out of you.

 

I certainly want Theo making good moves, but the problem is that we won't know if the moves he made are good until 2015 and beyond.

[Guest]

 

I certainly want Theo making good moves, but the problem is that we won't know if the moves he made are good until 2015 and beyond.

 

That's just not even close to true.

[Guest]

Let me get back to you in 2015 about that Anthony Rizzo trade.

[Backtobanks]

Let me get back to you in 2015 about that Anthony Rizzo trade.

 

Obviously I'm talking about all of the 19-21 year olds that are in A ball or below.

[Tracer Bullet]

Let me get back to you in 2015 about that Anthony Rizzo trade.

 

Obviously I'm talking about all of the 19-21 year olds that are in A ball or below.

 

Like whom, exactly?

[davell]

The dual fronts thing is something they never defined. Signing guys like DeJesus and Maholm IS putting a team out there that conceivably could catch fire and contend. The likelihood is obviously slim as all hell, but there's been plenty of WTF type teams contending when they shouldn't have. Again, I want to know what someone wanting us to compete, while rebuilding as well, would have done? And then explain the rebuild part of things out to me, with something more succinct, than "draft better".

 

There is no excuse for a team with the resources of the Cubs to purposefully try to be terrible to improve their team. Theo even acknowledges that with the new CBA the only advantage is teams that scout better(or as you term "draft better").

So answer the question then. What would YOU have done last offseason? As for scouting better, do you think it's likely you'll find impact guys in the bottom half of the draft? Because that's whats needed, not league average projectable guys.

[glavine93]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-dempster-thanks-fans-with-fullpage-ad-20120803,0,1607009.story

 

the bad part of me thinks "DAMAGE CONTROL," but mostly i think this was nice of him.

[UMFan83]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-dempster-thanks-fans-with-fullpage-ad-20120803,0,1607009.story

 

the bad part of me thinks "DAMAGE CONTROL," but mostly i think this was nice of him.

 

Nah, I understand the thought process, but Dempster generally loved Chicago and the Cubs, I don't think any of that was fake. Good for him to do that.

[Exile on Waveland]

And most people knew that fielding a competitive team this year was going to be a stretch even if the Cubs went "all in" to the FA market. Some people are so short sighted that they think the "dual fronts" approach had to apply from day one to not be a lie. I don't think those people were being honest with themselves regarding the state of the team after last season. The dual fronts spiel was about their overall philosophy, but there was little that could be done to make the 2012 team a contender, but there was a lot to be done to build the foundation.

 

This is pretty much a red herring. Signing quality players to mulit-year deals is a form of building for the future; and would not have prevented the dual fronts. Even if this team could not have competed in 2012, signing a player or two last offseason, coupled with a player or two this offseason, certainly could have led to a contender next season. For example, signing one major free agent each offseason:

 

C-Castillo/Clevenger

1B-Rizzo

2B-Barney

3B-?

SS-Castro

LF-Soriano

CF-Upton

RF-DeJesus

 

1-Darvish

2-Garza

3-Samardzija

4-Wood

5-Maholm/Liriano/etc

 

I think that team would be pretty close to competing for the division and without mortgaging the future. Instead, the front office punted this year and has all but punted next year. That was their decision, and it made a lie of the "preciousness" of each season.

[Guest]

And most people knew that fielding a competitive team this year was going to be a stretch even if the Cubs went "all in" to the FA market. Some people are so short sighted that they think the "dual fronts" approach had to apply from day one to not be a lie. I don't think those people were being honest with themselves regarding the state of the team after last season. The dual fronts spiel was about their overall philosophy, but there was little that could be done to make the 2012 team a contender, but there was a lot to be done to build the foundation.

 

This is pretty much a red herring. Signing quality players to mulit-year deals is a form of building for the future; and would not have prevented the dual fronts. Even if this team could not have competed in 2012, signing a player or two last offseason, coupled with a player or two this offseason, certainly could have led to a contender next season. For example, signing one major free agent each offseason:

 

C-Castillo/Clevenger

1B-Rizzo

2B-Barney

3B-?

SS-Castro

LF-Soriano

CF-Upton

RF-DeJesus

 

1-Darvish

2-Garza

3-Samardzija

4-Wood

5-Maholm/Liriano/etc

 

I think that team would be pretty close to competing for the division and without mortgaging the future. Instead, the front office punted this year and has all but punted next year. That was their decision, and it made a lie of the "preciousness" of each season.

 

You just said they can sign free agents along the way, even if the team can't contend in a given year. What makes you so sure they won't add a free agent or two this offseason who can be a long term piece despite the overwhelming likelihood that the team won't be very good?

[Guest]

The dual fronts thing is something they never defined. Signing guys like DeJesus and Maholm IS putting a team out there that conceivably could catch fire and contend. The likelihood is obviously slim as all hell, but there's been plenty of WTF type teams contending when they shouldn't have. Again, I want to know what someone wanting us to compete, while rebuilding as well, would have done? And then explain the rebuild part of things out to me, with something more succinct, than "draft better".

 

There is no excuse for a team with the resources of the Cubs to purposefully try to be terrible to improve their team. Theo even acknowledges that with the new CBA the only advantage is teams that scout better(or as you term "draft better").

So answer the question then. What would YOU have done last offseason? As for scouting better, do you think it's likely you'll find impact guys in the bottom half of the draft? Because that's whats needed, not league average projectable guys.

 

Theo did what really needed to be done. He evaluated the mess he was inheriting, and determined that based on who was available in free agency last offseason and how those players would have cohabitated with what was already in-house, and determined it was better to clean house and start fresh. I'm sure he won't be taking pride in his first season record with the Cubs, but I imagine by doing it the way he did, his chance of sustained success for a long period of time will far outweigh basically doing the same thing Jim Hendry was already doing.

 

By doing it his own way, he's setting up success with the players he finds value in rather than gambling that the guys he added in free agency blend in well with the guys Jim Hendry found value in.

 

Between 1981 and 1997, the New York Yankees only won 2 divisions championships. Now they are predicted to win their division nearly every year mainly because their success rate is through the roof. I believe that is what Theo has in mind for the future of this franchise. But, that's not something you just build overnight. That's not something two big name free agents can come in and do for a team that has been meddling in the bottom half of the standings the last few years.