Yes Ladies and Gentlemen

[CyHawk_Cub]

I get what people like N&G are saying, but like I stated in a game thread the other day, I just figure since we're where we are, a crap team, then I'd prefer to maximize the spending pool for the 2013 draft/IFA (or Intl draft, if that happens). I'm not jumping up & down w/ excitement after every loss, to be clear. It sucks to lose. I just want Hoystein to at least have the option of doing what Houston did in this year's draft. It's not even about grabbing the top uber prospect, necessarily, for me. I just want them to have the flexibility to draft hard signs further down as well. And yes, I understand it's not like the NFL or NBA where drafting one guy can change the franchise. However, I want a higher budget to increase the odds of signing impact guys.

 

And I agree, just b/c the record is bad doesn't necessarily mean the future core are performing horribly. Hell, Sori is RAKING & we still suck d**k. I'd be happy as hell to see him moved & his production being replaced by Rizzo + improved play from Castro. Even if that happens, this team COULD still lose close to 100 games.

[jersey cubs fan]

You don't need to lose as many games as possible, just 1 more than the next worst team.

[Guest]

You don't need to lose as many games as possible, just 1 more than the next worst team.

 

Actually, the Padres could just as easily pass on the best player available like they have in the past (Matt Bush). It's also possible that the team will be sold before the season is out. The new ownership group may not be ready to hand out slot money if that happens.

 

I just looked over their 1st round choices since Tim Stauffer ('03) and anyone picked in the top 10 was a high schooler. They did take a JC guy with their first pick this year at #10. Signability and below slot has always somewhat been their agenda on draft day.

 

In a lost season, I don't think it really matters whether they lose 90 or 100. The goal should be to continue developing the talent that has a future with the organization and get whatever you can out of the guys who won't.

[Clem Fandango]

In a lost season, I don't think it really matters whether they lose 90 or 100. The goal should be to continue developing the talent that has a future with the organization and get whatever you can out of the guys who won't.

 

I agree with this and didn't mean my statement to come off as "I hope they all suck". Like others said, the players we want to continue to develop are developing just fine and the team is still on a piss poor pace to be one of the worst teams in baseball.

 

If they're gonna stink, and they're gonna stink on a pace to be MLB's worst, then why waste time being upset that they're not gonna win 5-10 more games and still have a shitty record and instead accept the fact that they stink, and appreciate that the silver lining is they have the opportunity to not just take the best player in the draft, but the right one also?

[dew1679666265]

I'm not sure how you can argue that all the players who matter have been as good or better as last year.

 

Garza has taken a pretty considerable step back and Castro hasn't developed offensively like pretty much anybody hoped. Soto has also been pretty awful, and while he's not a key part of the future, him hitting well would make us a little more likely to compete next year. It also would have been nice to find 1 other good, young reliever aside from Russell this season - that could still happen, but it's not likely.

 

You really can't lose 100+ games and have everything go right for every important piece of your team.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not sure how you can argue that all the players who matter have been as good or better as last year.

 

Garza has taken a pretty considerable step back and Castro hasn't developed offensively like pretty much anybody hoped. Soto has also been pretty awful, and while he's not a key part of the future, him hitting well would make us a little more likely to compete next year. It also would have been nice to find 1 other good, young reliever aside from Russell this season - that could still happen, but it's not likely.

 

You really can't lose 100+ games and have everything go right for every important piece of your team.

 

Nobody said everything went right. Somebody did say they all had to do play poorly. The fact that Castro hasn't taken another step forward hardly means he's playing poorly. And a year of plateau at this age is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

[Guest]

I'm not sure how you can argue that all the players who matter have been as good or better as last year.

 

Garza has taken a pretty considerable step back and Castro hasn't developed offensively like pretty much anybody hoped. Soto has also been pretty awful, and while he's not a key part of the future, him hitting well would make us a little more likely to compete next year. It also would have been nice to find 1 other good, young reliever aside from Russell this season - that could still happen, but it's not likely.

 

You really can't lose 100+ games and have everything go right for every important piece of your team.

 

Nobody said everything went right. Somebody did say they all had to do play poorly. The fact that Castro hasn't taken another step forward hardly means he's playing poorly. And a year of plateau at this age is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

 

And Castro has improved markedly in basestealing and defense.... so it's hardly fair to even say he has plateaued. Castro has improved a lot this season.

[Clem Fandango]

Garza has taken a pretty considerable step back

 

How so? He looks like he's doing just fine to me, if not a little better in some aspects of his game

[jersey cubs fan]

Garza has taken a pretty considerable step back

 

How so? He looks like he's doing just fine to me, if not a little better in some aspects of his game

 

What aspects of Garza's game have been better this year? He's taken a step back from last year, but 2011 was a pretty glaring outlier. He's still performing very well though.

[El Duderino]

Garza's K rate is slightly down, walk rate is the same, and he's actually giving up less hits. But the homer rate is way up, more in line with his previous years.

[Clem Fandango]

Garza has taken a pretty considerable step back

 

How so? He looks like he's doing just fine to me, if not a little better in some aspects of his game

 

What aspects of Garza's game have been better this year? He's taken a step back from last year, but 2011 was a pretty glaring outlier. He's still performing very well though.

 

Compared to last year? Obviously there's a difference in sample size, but his WHIP is lower, his H/9 is lower, his walk rate has remained the same, and his K/rate has gone down a bit to 8.4 (from 9.0). His HR rate is up to 1.2, which is on par with his career norms before last year. H'es shown a little bit of the pitcher we got last year and the pitcher we gave up a lot of prospects for the year before.

 

On top of that, his bad numbers inflated from three bad starts. Every pitcher has bad outings so that's no excuse, but every other start he's had besides the three (where he gave up 7, 5, and 6 ER) he surrendered 2 or fewer runs. He's been pretty damn good in every start outside of those three.

 

I don't know, I just don't see the concern. Those bad starts aren't 100% avoidable. Pitchers have bad outings, they're not perfect. And Garza has been a a great pitcher otherwise. I don't think his value has dropped much, if at all, because of those rough starts, nor do I think he's regressed considerably.

[Sammy Sofa]

Again, there are varying degrees of "losing lots of games." Just broadly tossing out things along of the lines of "it doesn't matter how many games they lose" is shortsighted.

 

And broadly tossing out statements like they can't lose lots of games without the Cubs better players playing poorly and damaging their futures is false.

 

I don't think anyone actually said "damaging their futures," but whatever. If they did, I don't agree with that, but I do agree with a really bad team usually being indicative of badness across the board, and I don't see the sunny outlook others do when it comes to player development thus far. Shark has been fun to watch but he's hardly a sure thing and seemingly has entered into a period where we'll need to see if he can adjust, and while Castro has improved his defense and base-running his offensive approach is kinda...stagnant. I don't think either is "damaged," but I'm hardly going to sit back and look at both as being obvious success stories in a lost year. There's still time to tell.

[Guest]

You don't need to lose as many games as possible, just 1 more than the next worst team.

 

Actually, the Padres could just as easily pass on the best player available like they have in the past (Matt Bush). It's also possible that the team will be sold before the season is out. The new ownership group may not be ready to hand out slot money if that happens.

 

I just looked over their 1st round choices since Tim Stauffer ('03) and anyone picked in the top 10 was a high schooler. They did take a JC guy with their first pick this year at #10. Signability and below slot has always somewhat been their agenda on draft day.

 

In a lost season, I don't think it really matters whether they lose 90 or 100. The goal should be to continue developing the talent that has a future with the organization and get whatever you can out of the guys who won't.

 

They took a signability guy in 2011 because it was a comp pick for not signing their first rounder (Karsten Whitson) the previous year and they wouldn't get another comp pick if they didn't sign their pick in 2011. They then turned around and drafted AND signed extremely hard signs in Joe Ross and Austin Hedges (who both got well over slot).

 

This year, they drafted a guy who was expected to go right where they drafted him (Max Fried).

[dew1679666265]

Nobody said everything went right. Somebody did say they all had to do play poorly. The fact that Castro hasn't taken another step forward hardly means he's playing poorly. And a year of plateau at this age is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

 

I wouldn't call a year of plateau meaningless even at Castro's age and I certainly wouldn't call Garza regressing to career norms (which aren't terribly impressive for a TOR pitcher) meaningless. I'm not all that concerned with Castro's plateau offensively, but it is disappointing. Garza and Soto are the biggest concerns for me, though. Had Garza continued the progress he made last year and Soto had managed a bounceback year, we'd have a much better chance at putting together a competitive team next year. However, Garza took a considerable step back and Soto has been awful, and the team is on pace to lose 110 games (which we won't lose that many, but still).

 

Had the two of them developed like we all had hoped, then the team wouldn't be as bad as it is. So the comments that we've been horrid and everybody who matters has developed fine are untrue.

[jersey cubs fan]

Nobody said everything went right. Somebody did say they all had to do play poorly. The fact that Castro hasn't taken another step forward hardly means he's playing poorly. And a year of plateau at this age is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

 

I wouldn't call a year of plateau meaningless even at Castro's age and I certainly wouldn't call Garza regressing to career norms (which aren't terribly impressive for a TOR pitcher) meaningless. I'm not all that concerned with Castro's plateau offensively, but it is disappointing. Garza and Soto are the biggest concerns for me, though. Had Garza continued the progress he made last year and Soto had managed a bounceback year, we'd have a much better chance at putting together a competitive team next year. However, Garza took a considerable step back and Soto has been awful, and the team is on pace to lose 110 games (which we won't lose that many, but still).

 

Had the two of them developed like we all had hoped, then the team wouldn't be as bad as it is. So the comments that we've been horrid and everybody who matters has developed fine are untrue.

 

Dew, you're talking about a completely different thing that what was being discussed in here.

[KingCubsFan]

It's not the best comparison, but the 2007 Rays had core players who had good years yet they still lost 96 games. Crawford, Upton, Pena, Shields and Kazmir all had good years that they were able to translate over to the following year when they won 97 games. The killers on that team were a horrendous bullpen and bottom of the rotation. So I think it's possible for a rebuilding team to have their core players perform well while still losing a ton of games.

[Guest]

Garza's K rate is slightly down, walk rate is the same, and he's actually giving up less hits. But the homer rate is way up, more in line with his previous years.

His HR rate is the biggest outlier. People said it was b/c he was throwing more off-speed pitches, and he was, but that builds up some massive stress on the joints.

[dew1679666265]

Dew, you're talking about a completely different thing that what was being discussed in here.

 

I'm confused. Weren't people talking about how we could be a horrid team (100+ losses) and all of the good players who mattered could develop perfectly fine? If so, I think that response was perfectly on topic.

[dew1679666265]

Garza has taken a pretty considerable step back

 

How so? He looks like he's doing just fine to me, if not a little better in some aspects of his game

 

His K/9 is down, HR/9 doubled, LOB% up, HR/FB way up, and ERA/FIP/xFIP all considerably higher than last year. All of those numbers are pretty close to in line with his pre-2011 numbers (save for HR/FB), and all of that is with a .249 BABIP (around 60 points lower than last year). Couple that with a complete inability to field his position and it's a real concern at this point.

 

And at this point, he's started 11 games. 3 bad starts is a pretty significant portion of his appearances this year.

[questionmarkgrace]

Again, there are varying degrees of "losing lots of games." Just broadly tossing out things along of the lines of "it doesn't matter how many games they lose" is shortsighted.

 

And broadly tossing out statements like they can't lose lots of games without the Cubs better players playing poorly and damaging their futures is false.

 

I don't think anyone actually said "damaging their futures," but whatever. If they did, I don't agree with that, but I do agree with a really bad team usually being indicative of badness across the board, and I don't see the sunny outlook others do when it comes to player development thus far. Shark has been fun to watch but he's hardly a sure thing and seemingly has entered into a period where we'll need to see if he can adjust, and while Castro has improved his defense and base-running his offensive approach is kinda...stagnant. I don't think either is "damaged," but I'm hardly going to sit back and look at both as being obvious success stories in a lost year. There's still time to tell.

 

I like what Ive seen from Shark and Castro so far but they definitely need improvement to get to that next level. But for me what really hurts is that outside of rizzo, jackson, maybe one or two other guys our best prospects are at least 4 years away. And with jackson k-ing like he has been he is no sure thing to be a productive major leaguer. The system is very bottom heavy. that really needs to be addressed with the trades of garza and dempster, if it can be.

[neely crenshaw]

The argument started that this team would lose 100. We are battling San Diego for the worst record in baseball, and seem that we will all season. In every season but 1 in the last 10, the worst record lost at least 100, many years more than 1 team did. I am not sure how that is not a reasonable conclusion for this team. I also don't know why anyone cares because does it really matter of you lose 94 or 104? It also doesn't reflect on where we are hopefully heading. This is year is about figuring out who can actually contribute and hopefully trading off any older pieces that we can. Garza is one that people think we should re-sign but it makes more sense to get a few prospects and then sign another similar pitcher - so that we have the pitcher, and the prospects.

Things could change for a few guys but that doesn't really happen in baseball. We look to get a little worse not better. As I said, when we trade dempster and probably garza, we will replace them with 2 guys not as good. dejesus and soriano could go and unfortuantely as bad as we are, they are 2 of our top offensive guys so far. So even if Rizzo and Jackson are studs, they may not be an improvement this season. Then as was posted most others are a few years off.

If we have any chance to compete soon, we need every possible young player to become a usable commodity- or else we will have to buy almost every need.

also not improving is not the same as getting worse.

castro is done slightly from last year but we are also looking at his "season" right after an awful stretch-which happen and he is still just a bit down.

Garza is inline with career averages, era is up from last year, hr's up, but his whip and baa are down over last year and career, which says to me those things could even out over his next 18-20 starts also.

[Soul]

The argument started that this team would lose 100. We are battling San Diego for the worst record in baseball, and seem that we will all season.

God who the [expletive] cares this is dumb.

[neely crenshaw]

The argument started that this team would lose 100. We are battling San Diego for the worst record in baseball, and seem that we will all season.

God who the [expletive] cares this is dumb.

 

now that is one of the better points in the argument. it really doesn't matter how many we lose. it really doesn't matter if we get the #1 pick because unlike football or basketball it's not a quick fix(except rarely) and there isn't even a sure thing that the #1 pick will be better than the #10 pick.

[CyHawk_Cub]

The argument started that this team would lose 100. We are battling San Diego for the worst record in baseball, and seem that we will all season.

God who the [expletive] cares this is dumb.

 

now that is one of the better points in the argument. it really doesn't matter how many we lose. it really doesn't matter if we get the #1 pick because unlike football or basketball it's not a quick fix(except rarely) and there isn't even a sure thing that the #1 pick will be better than the #10 pick.

 

My god...is it that hard to work out? It's not necessarily about the talent available w/ a top pick. It's about maximizing the amount of slot $$ under these new accursed draft rules. But yes, the point is well understood that barring a Harper/Strasburg type of guy, the top pick doesn't "guarantee" anything. Some of us would just like to see our FO have the flexibility to move $$ around & sign more talent overall.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

No. 1 picks never bust in the NFL?

 

No. 1 picks in MLB are really, really good bets.