Yes Ladies and Gentlemen

[dew1679666265]

I honestly don't recall anyone who insisted this team would contend, like N&G said of course the possibility of contending was discussed but to me that is normal spring training talk. I think most people were of the opinion that this team could at least win more games than the 2011 club which isn't out of the realm of possibility yet.

 

This is about where I was in the offseason. I advocated some combo of Pujols/Cespedes/Darvish in an effort to add impact talent (or potential impact talent in Cespedes/Darvish) to a roster bereft of it. My thought was that we could possibly fight for right around .500 this season (75-81 wins probably) with the outside possibility of contention if the Central were really bad. Then we'd be set up to start seriously contending in 2013 since we'd only need minor tweaks rather than what we have now, which is still a need to add impact talent to the roster.

 

I could be remembering wrong, but I don't recall anybody strongly advocating the idea of the Cubs definitely contending in 2012. There were scenarios given where it could be a possibility, but certainly nobody proposed it as a certainty or even a necessary goal.

[dew1679666265]

I hate saying this, but I'd rather go 62-100, than 81-81.

 

The problem is, if we go 62-100, it means we've had some disappointing seasons out of guys like Castro/Shark/Rizzo/BJax/Garza. Having the #1 pick and extra money in the draft would be nice, but if this team loses 100+ games, then it means we're a long way away from putting together a contender on the field. It means we'd have to either commit to a 3+ year rebuilding plan or spend like crazy (and probably not intelligently) in free agency for quick fixes. If this team can rebound in the second half and get anywhere in the vicinity of .500, it means some key guys will have played very well and, thus, we're a lot closer to fielding a competitive team than we would be in a 100-loss scenario.

 

That said, I don't think this team ends up losing 100+. I still think we finish in the low to mid 90s (so high 60s to low 70s in wins).

[Sammy Sofa]

I honestly don't recall anyone who insisted this team would contend, like N&G said of course the possibility of contending was discussed but to me that is normal spring training talk. I think most people were of the opinion that this team could at least win more games than the 2011 club which isn't out of the realm of possibility yet.

 

This is about where I was in the offseason. I advocated some combo of Pujols/Cespedes/Darvish in an effort to add impact talent (or potential impact talent in Cespedes/Darvish) to a roster bereft of it. My thought was that we could possibly fight for right around .500 this season (75-81 wins probably) with the outside possibility of contention if the Central were really bad. Then we'd be set up to start seriously contending in 2013 since we'd only need minor tweaks rather than what we have now, which is still a need to add impact talent to the roster.

 

I could be remembering wrong, but I don't recall anybody strongly advocating the idea of the Cubs definitely contending in 2012. There were scenarios given where it could be a possibility, but certainly nobody proposed it as a certainty or even a necessary goal.

 

Of course not. It was pretty much all hinged on either talking about proposed signings or ideas as to who would break out/rebound, etc.. I can't think of a single person here who thought it was likely or certain, but there was plenty of discussion as to a number of ways people thought it COULD happen. The closest you got to meatballs declaring it a 100+-loss team were the people confident that they could win, like, around 10 games more than last season. Hardly two sides of the same coin.

[Sammy Sofa]

Let me try to take this thread in a slightly more productive direction with a question;

 

Has this season's results to date changed anyone's opinion of the value in trying to buy low on guys with either good results in their past or good pedigrees?

 

It seems like only David DeJesus and Shawn Camp are the only hits so far.

 

Too early to tell. Maybe you could declare Volstad a bust.

[dew1679666265]

Let me try to take this thread in a slightly more productive direction with a question;

 

Has this season's results to date changed anyone's opinion of the value in trying to buy low on guys with either good results in their past or good pedigrees?

 

It seems like only David DeJesus and Shawn Camp are the only hits so far.

 

I still think it's a good idea to try guys like that since some will work out. However, this season shows that you shouldn't try to build a full team of buy low guys.

[javy knows my name]

Let me try to take this thread in a slightly more productive direction with a question;

 

Has this season's results to date changed anyone's opinion of the value in trying to buy low on guys with either good results in their past or good pedigrees?

 

It seems like only David DeJesus and Shawn Camp are the only hits so far.

 

Stewart? Wood?

[Sammy Sofa]

Let me try to take this thread in a slightly more productive direction with a question;

 

Has this season's results to date changed anyone's opinion of the value in trying to buy low on guys with either good results in their past or good pedigrees?

 

It seems like only David DeJesus and Shawn Camp are the only hits so far.

 

I still think it's a good idea to try guys like that since some will work out. However, this season shows that you shouldn't try to build a full team of buy low guys.

 

Yeah, buy low guys are typically going to be complimentary/surprise/happy accident pieces at best.

[Backtobanks]

 

I also think it's hilarious that people won't even admit that they could be wrong about this team losing a 100 games. It's clear that they won't give in until the 100th game is actually lost..then I can hear the excuses. I am guessing if lose our 99th with 3 weeks left some will still try to defend their stance.

we have the worst record in baseball. we are on pace now to lose 110.

there is no signs of anything or anyone getting better. Soriano is on a tear,and we are still losing. LaHair is hitting better than most though he could, we are still losing.

Dempster, Garza and Samardjiza have thrown great and we are still losing.

We will probably lose dempster and garza, and they will be replaced by much worse pitchers..but we figured that would happen at some point.

We might lose Soriano,dejesus heck even castro is possible. IF rizzo and jackson come up and produce to the point that everyone hopes, this team won't be as good as it now.

I just don't see where this team doesn't lose a 100. Seriously if the changes are made that most figure I think they may be lucky to stay on our current pace.

 

Amen! The overwhelming majority of posters thought that this team would win more games than last year (71). I think it's pretty obvious that this team isn't going anywhere near 71 wins especially if they trade Soriano, Dempster, and Garza. As others have pointed out, a 100+ loss season postpones rebuilding into a contender by another 1-2 years.

[Sammy Sofa]

gibberish

 

Amen!

 

Signs you done fucked up.

[CubColtPacer]

Let me try to take this thread in a slightly more productive direction with a question;

 

Has this season's results to date changed anyone's opinion of the value in trying to buy low on guys with either good results in their past or good pedigrees?

 

It seems like only David DeJesus and Shawn Camp are the only hits so far.

 

Stewart? Wood?

 

Stewart needs to improve his peripherals if he's going to be a hit. Right now both his results and peripherals are subpar. They're close enough that he could turn it around with some improved play, but it's going to take a little more than simply finishing normalizing his luck.

 

Wood's peripherals are all over the place right now because of the small sample size, but he's been pretty terrible. For every peripheral that shows possible improvement there are 1-2 others that are worse.

[javy knows my name]

gibberish

 

Amen!

 

Signs you done [expletive] up.

 

Slow clap.

[Sosa21MVP]

Let me try to take this thread in a slightly more productive direction with a question;

 

Has this season's results to date changed anyone's opinion of the value in trying to buy low on guys with either good results in their past or good pedigrees?

 

It seems like only David DeJesus and Shawn Camp are the only hits so far.

 

I still think it's a good idea to try guys like that since some will work out. However, this season shows that you shouldn't try to build a full team of buy low guys.

 

That is what I think too. Nothing wrong with taking some low risk/low $$$ gambles on those types of players but you don't build a roster around guys like that and I don't expect Theo to continue to build a roster around those players in the future.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Let me try to take this thread in a slightly more productive direction with a question;

 

Has this season's results to date changed anyone's opinion of the value in trying to buy low on guys with either good results in their past or good pedigrees?

 

It seems like only David DeJesus and Shawn Camp are the only hits so far.

 

Stewart? Wood?

 

Seems like 2, very different categories. I is the veterans coming off a poor season. Especially with DeJesus, coming of an injury and a stint with the A's, it was more likely that he could have a rebound. Camp was just a minor league invitee that we got somewhat lucky with. You can file him with Mather, Corpas, and a great deal of the Iowa roster and some who started the year there. No harm in picking these spare parts up assuming they're not blocking someone else.

 

The other category is those that were signed off pedigree, the former top prospects, some of who have had some degree of big league success in the past (Stewart, Maholm, Volstad), others not so much (Cardenas, Bowden). In these cases, it's very unlikely that you'll end up with Big Papi, but rather a serviceable player or else a not do serviceable one. You really can't fault Theo buying low in these guys, although in Volstads case, I wouldn't exactly call the way we acquired him buying low. As far as I'm concerned, if giving them minor league deals, plucking them off waivers, or trading spare parts and fringe

prospects for them I have no problem with picking up as many of these types as are available. Dare I say...fliers. For each one that does pan out, it's one less spot that you have to fill when the next step in the rebuild comes.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Let me try to take this thread in a slightly more productive direction with a question;

 

Has this season's results to date changed anyone's opinion of the value in trying to buy low on guys with either good results in their past or good pedigrees?

 

It seems like only David DeJesus and Shawn Camp are the only hits so far.

 

Stewart? Wood?

 

0.5 WAR combined.

[KingCubsFan]

Let me try to take this thread in a slightly more productive direction with a question;

 

Has this season's results to date changed anyone's opinion of the value in trying to buy low on guys with either good results in their past or good pedigrees?

 

It seems like only David DeJesus and Shawn Camp are the only hits so far.

 

Stewart? Wood?

LaHair?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

LaHair?

 

A) Already in place, so not bought.

B) Coming off his best minor league season by far, so not low.

 

So probably doesn't belong in a discussion of buy-low reclamation projects.

[davell]

I would put him there. Same with Shark. Especially LaHair though. I don't think very many GM's, especially of major market teams, would have given him a shot.

[KingCubsFan]

LaHair?

 

A) Already in place, so not bought.

B) Coming off his best minor league season by far, so not low.

 

So probably doesn't belong in a discussion of buy-low reclamation projects.

True, but, broadly speaking, the point of buy-low reclamation projects is to turn something into a valuable asset. By giving him a chance to play, LaHair has turned into an asset that the organization previously didn't have.

[Guest]

The Cubs are 20 up and 40 down (.333); on pace to win 54 games. In the next 100 games they will have to play better than .600 to break even and better than .400 not to lose 100 games. They can crack 63 wins but it's going to be close. If they choose to have a fire sale in July they almost surely will lose 100 and maybe more. If San Diego manages to lose more games I will be pissed.

[Little Slide Rooter]

LaHair?

 

A) Already in place, so not bought.

B) Coming off his best minor league season by far, so not low.

 

So probably doesn't belong in a discussion of buy-low reclamation projects.

True, but, broadly speaking, the point of buy-low reclamation projects is to turn something into a valuable asset. By giving him a chance to play, LaHair has turned into an asset that the organization previously didn't have.

 

With the guys in the discussion, they were signed as reclamation projects in the hopes that since they were still young, a change of scenery and coaching could give them a chance to come near their original ceilings, in each case were high ones. With LaHair, I'm not sure but I think he was signed as a roster filler for Iowa and a possible spare part down the road. He was already old enough that there wasn't much likelyhood of him becoming much more than that.

[SouthSideRyan]

Well, yes, it "matters." It's an even more uphill battle to improve a team that loses at least 100 games as opposed to 90, but my point was more dismissing how unlikely it is that they even lose 100 games in the first place. Nuts and Gum 4/17/2012

 

erik316wttn wrote:

This team is going to lose 100 games this year, easy.

 

 

Oh, [expletive] that noise. (nuts and gum)

 

Talk about a meatball LOL.

 

You're aware that the Cubs have not lost 100 games this year right?

[flyseye]

Well, yes, it "matters." It's an even more uphill battle to improve a team that loses at least 100 games as opposed to 90, but my point was more dismissing how unlikely it is that they even lose 100 games in the first place. Nuts and Gum 4/17/2012

 

erik316wttn wrote:

This team is going to lose 100 games this year, easy.

 

 

Oh, [expletive] that noise. (nuts and gum)

 

Talk about a meatball LOL.

 

You're aware that the Cubs have not lost 100 games this year right?

 

Oh [expletive] that noise.

[Banedon]

Well, yes, it "matters." It's an even more uphill battle to improve a team that loses at least 100 games as opposed to 90, but my point was more dismissing how unlikely it is that they even lose 100 games in the first place. Nuts and Gum 4/17/2012

 

erik316wttn wrote:

This team is going to lose 100 games this year, easy.

 

 

Oh, [expletive] that noise. (nuts and gum)

 

Talk about a meatball LOL.

 

You're aware that the Cubs have not lost 100 games this year right?

 

Oh [expletive] that noise.

 

For good reason, SSR isn't big on assuming things will end up as you think.

[Sammy Sofa]

Let him have his thing.

[Soul]

[expletive] that noise.