2013

[neely crenshaw]

We don't have a true stud at any position currently. We have 2 that we hope will be that soon. You can not compete even if vitters and jackson produce their minor league stats with a team that is below average offensively at almost every position. we have 0 players hitting above .300, we have 1 player over an .800 OPS (barely), we one player with a decent OB%.

I don't see Jackson, Vitters or Stewart being above average next year. Lets hope maybe 1 is average...

You could make a good jump in win total by signing a couple of top end rotation guys, having shark step in and be a solid 3, and then find the second coming of Maholm, or hope 2 of the other guys can be average 4 and 5 starters. Then make sure the bullpen is solid. With the current defense that could keep them around while the offense is poor. I don't know if it would get you close to the playoffs but perhaps a run at being around .500

right now it's probably best to hope that they guys we think are major leaguers show that to be true. Rizzo has fallen to LaHair type stats and if you did not notice his splits vs lefties are awful (not quite Lahair but sub mendoza). I wonder how long he is considered an everyday guy by everyone.

For the record, Colvin is out performing both. At home and on the road, vs righties and lefties, his split stats are better than either totals. I don't bring this up to say we should have kept him, or complain about the trade. I bring it up because many have ripped colvin as awful and a waste of space, yet he is outperforming "our future". I hate to say it but you may have to look at the possibility that Rizzo is not a future star or middle of the order hitter.

As for 2013, we have to have castro, rizzo, vitters/stewart, jackson, and a catcher all become significantly better than they are right now and sign pitching to seriously compete. If they aren't you will have sign real major league players at most of those spots- not plug in hopefuls. That's a lot of free agents to sign.

Edited August 23, 2012 by neely crenshaw

[dew1679666265]

Where have I said that?

 

The new CBA DOES make it an either/or proposition

 

That's a pretty strong statement you made, and then you followed up by arguing and then defending the argument that if we tank 3 seasons we'll be able to win for about 5 out of 7 following that.

 

I said it's a bit harder to do and I don't think that's very outlandish to say. Teams are just smarter now. Not many teams are willing to go about the way that it appears(key word) that we are either. And very few will have the resources to fulfill it when the time comes as we most certainly do. So while a team like the Yankees and Dodgers can bandaid themselves into staying in contention during the latter parts of their best players deals, I definitely think that IF we carry out this type of plan, it'd be much easier for us to stay in contention because of a constant mix of youngsters being ready and we'd conceivably be able to both trade away guys when we have someone behind him to help replenish the system, if need be, and also the ammo to go get more valuable longterm pieces thru trade as well.

 

That's if the plan works, and that's a really big if - even with this front office. I want to see that offseason plan that has us adding $30-40 million in payroll in one offseason because we haven't really spent anything prior to that because we weren't ready to contend. It's hard to believe there won't be any really bad contracts in there, even with this front office.

 

Our lower levels, meaning Boise and Arizona both have tons of talent. Not all of which will ever be used obviously. But those teams have guys that are currently 3-5 years away from making the majors, if they ever do. But the talent and upside IS there. Higher ceilings than what we're used to seeing too. Add in next year's draft and HUGE IFA budget and it replenishes it that much more and most of those guys would be a year behind this group. And if we're bad next year, same thing for the following class obviously. Right there, you're already looking at the groundwork for having a damn good farm system for the next 6-7 seasons. Assuming these guys do their jobs, which is scouting and also what they're probably best known for. So this is how they'll earn their money for us.

 

I still have a lot of trouble believing this front office couldn't build the farm system to a very high level without tanking multiple seasons. Especially since we've had high draft picks for the past 2 drafts already.

 

And as I said earlier, the better the system is, the more risks and high upside guys you can take, while now, you're most likely trying to balance it somewhat. If this is their plan, and I think it is, while it's going to take patience, I think we'll all love the finalized product.

 

I hope we do love the final product, but if that final product is good for 5 years and that's it, it simply won't be worth it.

[davell]

I say we call the Rockies and tell them we had our fingers crossed on the Colvin deal. If that doesn't work, let's offer Rizzo for him, maybe they'll consider it!

 

 

Honestly, Rizzo just turned 23. His K rate has been much lower than anyone thought it would and he has a grand total of 56 at bats this year against lefties. He's K'ing basically 20% against them. You're jumping the gun bigtime. You see the talent there and you let it evolve. He's learning on the job and doing solidly. Personally, I think he's a future AS regular, but if he's just a solid 1B going forward, there's nothing wrong with it because we're building. We don't have to be able to annoint exactly who our 5 superstuds will be right this second.

[Sammy Sofa]

But it's TYLER COLVIN. His 1.4 WAR to Rizzo's 1.0 is just a staggering deficit that likely can never be overcome.

[Sammy Sofa]

Wait, why the hell did Colvin even come up again? Did he finally stop sucking in the second half?

[davell]

Well dew, you obviously only cut the snippet from the sentence and failed to quote the part where I said a team could get lucky. We appear to be taking the more sensical/logical approach.

 

As far as the 5 in 7 year thing, I thought I explained myself there. Injuries or whatever could easily derail a season or two, maybe it's chicken and beer in the clubhouse, I have no idea. Maybe nothing derails it and we win 90 games+ for 7 seasons straight. No idea, but the only point that matters is if this is executed, the talent to do that WILL be there and that's all we can ask for.

[sneakypower]

But I think the Theo regime is intrigued by the chance to build from the farm almost entirely and they see their opportunity to do that in Chicago with the media/fan frenzy for "young players who really want it and care" instead of "old, overpaid guys who just want to count their millions."

 

And that scares the hell out of me.

see, this is what i'm talking about

 

the preference around here was to aimlessly throw money at Ramirez, Pujols/Fielder, Wilson in some flaccid attempt to be a .500 team again

 

in all the raging over our current plight, it's somehow been glossed over that the new FO inherited like three useful assets in the entire system; it's not their fault people had absurdly unrealistic expectations

[dew1679666265]

Eh, I think the "dual fronts" issue has become a case of different people interpreting the statement in the way most palatable to them. Some people think that the statement meant they would come out checkbooks blazing and somehow stocking the farm system. I think any realistic chance of that went by the wayside with the new CBA. I think what many others do, that they will spend when it makes sense to. Spending this past offseason would not have turned this team into a solid contender, and they knew that.

 

My interpretation wasn't that they would come out "checkbooks blazing" and stock the farm system. My interpretation was that they would make moves that kept the major league roster at a respectable level while still building up the farm system in the process. What we did was completely ignore adding real major league talent outside of buy low opportunities and put all of our focus into the minors and there's the belief that this will continue for at least one more season.

 

I definitely don't think it was a blatant lie for PR purposes, nor do I think they had to start spending on the FA market immediately to fulfill that statement.

 

I agree with CCP on this part - I don't think Theo thinks it was a lie and you can probably finagle around on technicalities that say it wasn't, but I don't think the FO had any intention of attempting to put a contender or a team that could conceivably be a contender on the field this past offseason.

 

I don't think they have some notion that they can build an entire roster from within, or even close. That's not realistic. I think they want to build a core (a few very good/star position players, a couple starters and a few pen guys) from within. Assembling 80%+ of a championship team from within isn't remotely likely to happen, and while that may be a fond, "best case" hope, I don't for a second think that's the plan. I think they're looking at teams like the Yankees of the late 90's/early 00's and the Red Sox of the mid-2000s as models; teams with a core of great, home-grown players, supplemented by a few shrewd acquisitions and a handful of prime FAs.

 

I think they'd like to try. I think it's too coincidental that Theo started talking about the conversations he and others had in Boston about building like that and mentioning that if he had it to do over again, he might do it that way.

 

I don't think the plan is necessarily to be 100% home-grown, but if they completely ignore the FA market for at least 2, if not 3, seasons - other than adding trade bait - before looking to add any real major league talent externally, then I think it's reasonable that their plan is to build very largely internally.

 

I think they thought they'd be able to expedite the process by spending big in the amateur draft and that they probably underestimated just how barren our system was (especially in the pitching department), and those things may have stretched out their anticipated timetable, but I don't for a second think there's egregious deception going on.

 

I think they probably thought things would go quicker before the CBA, and maybe the new CBA gave them the opportunity they wanted to go through with this plan. As for the egregious deception, I don't think they see it as that - they see it as the necessary PR talk that most any organization would do. They're not going to come out and say that they plan to tank multiple seasons any more than any organization would say that.

[dew1679666265]

Well dew, you obviously only cut the snippet from the sentence and failed to quote the part where I said a team could get lucky. We appear to be taking the more sensical/logical approach.

 

I apologize, I didn't feel that really changed the sentiment at all. So you believe a team can only become good if they're awful for multiple seasons or have a payroll in the $250 million range, unless they get lucky?

 

I also fail to see how winning now and in the future is nonsensical or illogical, but we clearly have a huge gap between what we see as possible anyway.

 

As far as the 5 in 7 year thing, I thought I explained myself there. Injuries or whatever could easily derail a season or two, maybe it's chicken and beer in the clubhouse, I have no idea. Maybe nothing derails it and we win 90 games+ for 7 seasons straight. No idea, but the only point that matters is if this is executed, the talent to do that WILL be there and that's all we can ask for.

 

You did explain yourself, it just didn't make me agree with it any more. I'm not going to be real happy if we tank 3 seasons in order to be able to win 90+ games for 5 of 7 seasons - no matter why we didn't win for those 2 seasons.

 

The Braves reeled off 13 90+ win seasons in 14 years. The Yankees have won 90+ in 14 of the past 16 seasons. We may not replicate exactly those extremely high runs, but they are signs that we should shoot quite a bit higher than 90+ wins in 5 out of 7 seasons. Especially since we have one of the best front offices in baseball and one of the biggest markets in baseball with a new cable deal likely coming relatively soon.

[davell]

What quite a few people aren't comprehending here, partially because I'm unsure how much they even follow things on that front, iIS the differences in the new CBA and how much it actually DID change the landscape, especially for a rebuilding team.

 

I know that Theo quote was from a long time ago and I think it was AFTR the new CBA had been put into eefect, but I don't know that for sure. If it came before the new CBA was announced, then there is literally no reason to even bother questioning anything.

 

But we didn't miss out on anything this past offseason, other than Cespedes, who we made a serious attempt at, just decided we wanted a 6 year deal and not a 4. And it's even debatable as to whether or not we were given a final chance to match, as that's never came out.

 

Back to the CBA though, for those wanting us to be decent and gradually get better, while adding big name guys, do you have any idea how to do that AND build the system as well? Because you're drafting lower to begin with. You're losing draft allotment money that could give you flexibility to sign certain players others can't, so you're literal strategy is to just draft better? And considering you're wanting to sign big name FA, you're willing to throw away 1st round picks and even more draft allotment in the process, but still think it's possible to build through the farm. Here's the thing, as a Cubs fan, it's been said but never actually done because the prior administration didn't allocate the money to do it and had a small as hell FO to actually evaluate players. At this exact point, we're allocating every penny we are allowed to and by that, I mean having higher picks which means more money. An extra 2 mill in draft allotment could easily be much more important to us than signing some 31 year SP that's average and gets a 3-30ish contract.

 

As it stands, if the CBA hadn't changed, I do think we would have saw a different offseason last year. Maybe we would have caved on Cespedes or possibly someone else. And we would have allocated 15-20 mill towards the draft and gone nuts, same with IFA's. I'm sure in taking the job, they thought they could just come in and overslot the hell out of the draft for a year or two and build the system up in a way it'd never been done. But it changed and this was the next best approach, in their eyes evidently. And considering the lack of success of ANY of the big name FA from last year basically(as far as justifying their deals) and the weak as hell class of this upcoming offseason, I see no reason why anyone is bothering to bitch about a patient approach here. They've been proven right so far and I don't see what the big deal is to put an 89ish win team out there, when it costs a bunch more money, costs us bigtime in draft and IFA, and hurts our longterm chances of building a powerhouse.

[Backtobanks]

did backtobanks change his name to southsideryan

 

No he didn't, but I'm starting to see more posters finally wondering if this is going to turn around using a reasonable timeline. I've said all along that Theo is very smart and will end up making the organization much better, but I was hoping for a decent team in 2012, .500 team in 2013, contender in 2014, and WS appearance in 2015 and beyond. Many posters seem to think that a 95-win juggernaut yearly is a guarantee in a few years and I'm not convinced of that. All of this speculation is based on the vast majority of our home grown prospects becoming productive ML players and the odds of that happening aren't great.

 

 

Good lord, for someone who LIVES for the fictitional trade scenario, you really have no clue how to grasp what a farm system does. I can unequivocally say that NO, we will NOT win 90ish games with basically a homegrown team within the next 2-3 years. Guess what? The FO doesn't think that either. But they know if you've got an excess of bigtime prospects, you can go out and add around a FEW of the younger guys that stick via trade(for younger cost controlled guys, not 33 year olds, for the most part) and still have more prospects either coming or that can be traded later on as well. Add in a few FA to fill in as well and not only do you have a very good, very young team, you still have plenty of financial flexibility as well moving forward. Go ask the Angels or the Marlins if they would have done things differently this past offseason right about now......

 

I totally understand what a farm system does. Perhaps you don't understand the odds of us having "an excess of bigtime prospects". Right now we have an excess of bigtime prospect's names. Until our ML prospects and our 19-20 year old prospects prove something at their respective levels, we aren't going to be able to trade for those young, cost controlled guys. As for the "fictional trade scenario", why don't you look at how many other posters have suggested trading Vitters or Jackson for some young, cost-controlled, and productive player.

[Guest]

 

I know that Theo quote was from a long time ago and I think it was AFTR the new CBA had been put into eefect, but I don't know that for sure. If it came before the new CBA was announced, then there is literally no reason to even bother questioning anything.

 

 

I'm pretty sure it was from before the new CBA, although that obviously doesn't necessarily mean they didn't know what was coming already at that point.

 

Also, I agree with you. The new rules make it very difficult to add elite amateur talent to your system if you aren't bad.

[davell]

did backtobanks change his name to southsideryan

 

No he didn't, but I'm starting to see more posters finally wondering if this is going to turn around using a reasonable timeline. I've said all along that Theo is very smart and will end up making the organization much better, but I was hoping for a decent team in 2012, .500 team in 2013, contender in 2014, and WS appearance in 2015 and beyond. Many posters seem to think that a 95-win juggernaut yearly is a guarantee in a few years and I'm not convinced of that. All of this speculation is based on the vast majority of our home grown prospects becoming productive ML players and the odds of that happening aren't great.

 

 

Good lord, for someone who LIVES for the fictitional trade scenario, you really have no clue how to grasp what a farm system does. I can unequivocally say that NO, we will NOT win 90ish games with basically a homegrown team within the next 2-3 years. Guess what? The FO doesn't think that either. But they know if you've got an excess of bigtime prospects, you can go out and add around a FEW of the younger guys that stick via trade(for younger cost controlled guys, not 33 year olds, for the most part) and still have more prospects either coming or that can be traded later on as well. Add in a few FA to fill in as well and not only do you have a very good, very young team, you still have plenty of financial flexibility as well moving forward. Go ask the Angels or the Marlins if they would have done things differently this past offseason right about now......

 

I totally understand what a farm system does. Perhaps you don't understand the odds of us having "an excess of bigtime prospects". Right now we have an excess of bigtime prospect's names. Until our ML prospects and our 19-20 year old prospects prove something at their respective levels, we aren't going to be able to trade for those young, cost controlled guys. As for the "fictional trade scenario", why don't you look at how many other posters have suggested trading Vitters or Jackson for some young, cost-controlled, and productive player.

 

 

Yes, as I suspected, you have NO CLUE. The guys in our system now are not nearly enough to do anything with, as far as what I'm talking about. You need another year or two's worth of high impact guys before you have enough to bother attempting what I think the plan is. And guess what? It's not the current admin's fault as to why our farm system wasn't able to do that immediately for them. The last year was the only year they spent big in a time when you could and should have been doing it all the time. This takes time and as I just outlined, your idea of having a decent team on the field at all times hurts the longterm idea of having a great one at some point. As for trading Brett or Vitters? I'm actually one of the posters that's mentioned it. Unfortunately, either or both would have to really come on strong as hell the rest of the season in order to bother justifying it, because neither is worth anything close to being able to get a true young difference maker as the lead piece at this exact moment. So you rpobably work with them and hope they become a guy that can be thought of as a lead trade piece or a longterm starter, but right now, neither guy is either option.

[davell]

 

I know that Theo quote was from a long time ago and I think it was AFTR the new CBA had been put into eefect, but I don't know that for sure. If it came before the new CBA was announced, then there is literally no reason to even bother questioning anything.

 

 

I'm pretty sure it was from before the new CBA, although that obviously doesn't necessarily mean they didn't know what was coming already at that point.

 

Also, I agree with you. The new rules make it very difficult to add elite amateur talent to your system if you aren't bad.

 

I thought there were reports Theo was livid at the new CBA? I never got the picture they were aware of what was coming down anyway. And if that quote WAS actually before they new, then all bets were immediately off the table, as far as I'm concerned, no matter how the quote should or shouldn't have been taken.

[C.C.]

A little off subject but since we are probably going to have the second pick in the draft are their any studs in next years draft?

[Guest]

 

I know that Theo quote was from a long time ago and I think it was AFTR the new CBA had been put into eefect, but I don't know that for sure. If it came before the new CBA was announced, then there is literally no reason to even bother questioning anything.

 

 

I'm pretty sure it was from before the new CBA, although that obviously doesn't necessarily mean they didn't know what was coming already at that point.

 

Also, I agree with you. The new rules make it very difficult to add elite amateur talent to your system if you aren't bad.

 

I thought there were reports Theo was livid at the new CBA? I never got the picture they were aware of what was coming down anyway. And if that quote WAS actually before they new, then all bets were immediately off the table, as far as I'm concerned, no matter how the quote should or shouldn't have been taken.

 

He could've been livid at it before the press conference.

[Guest]

A little off subject but since we are probably going to have the second pick in the draft are their any studs in next years draft?

Nope.

[Guest]

A little off subject but since we are probably going to have the second pick in the draft are their any studs in next years draft?

Nope.

 

We'll probably pick high in 2014 too, though.

 

Rodon!

[Sammy Sofa]

A little off subject but since we are probably going to have the second pick in the draft are their any studs in next years draft?

 

No. There's an entire thread for the 2013 draft.

[dew1679666265]

But we didn't miss out on anything this past offseason, other than Cespedes, who we made a serious attempt at, just decided we wanted a 6 year deal and not a 4. And it's even debatable as to whether or not we were given a final chance to match, as that's never came out.

 

We missed out on Darvish too, but the whole blind bid part plays into that and murks up how much we really wanted him. I was also a big fan of Wei-Yin Chen and still think that would have been a solid move to make.

 

I'm also talking about the upcoming offseason as well and arguing that we should make intelligent moves to improve the major league roster then. Guys like Upton/Greinke/Sanchez/Drew (if he reaches FA now) could be good moves that shouldn't be disregarded simply because we want a higher draft pick.

 

Back to the CBA though, for those wanting us to be decent and gradually get better, while adding big name guys, do you have any idea how to do that AND build the system as well? Because you're drafting lower to begin with. You're losing draft allotment money that could give you flexibility to sign certain players others can't, so you're literal strategy is to just draft better? And considering you're wanting to sign big name FA, you're willing to throw away 1st round picks and even more draft allotment in the process, but still think it's possible to build through the farm. Here's the thing, as a Cubs fan, it's been said but never actually done because the prior administration didn't allocate the money to do it and had a small as hell FO to actually evaluate players. At this exact point, we're allocating every penny we are allowed to and by that, I mean having higher picks which means more money. An extra 2 mill in draft allotment could easily be much more important to us than signing some 31 year SP that's average and gets a 3-30ish contract.

 

TT answered this in the Garza thread and I don't think I could state it better:

 

I'd rather make thoughtful upgrades to the MLB roster and have the potential to get the tens of millions in revenue that come from playoff appearances than intentionally hold back the MLB roster in order to have the flexibility to add a marginally better draft pick or two. Money helps bring in better talent in the draft, but it's still too much guesswork for me to intentionally tank the end product for such a small benefit.

 

As for the average 31 year old SP signing a 3/30 contract, please point me to where I said we should do that. I've even argued against the Buerhle types that would match your description. I've also argued that we shouldn't give up first round picks in signing players, unless the player is really worth it. I don't think there's anybody this upcoming offseason I would advocate doing that with, off the top of my head.

 

I've never argued we should go all out to win now - I've argued we should pursue players that fit a win now and later philosophy, while at the same time doing a better job than other organizations of scouting the draft and IFA in order to outdraft them. This front office's biggest strength is their ability to evaluate amateur talent better than others.

 

As it stands, if the CBA hadn't changed, I do think we would have saw a different offseason last year. Maybe we would have caved on Cespedes or possibly someone else. And we would have allocated 15-20 mill towards the draft and gone nuts, same with IFA's. I'm sure in taking the job, they thought they could just come in and overslot the hell out of the draft for a year or two and build the system up in a way it'd never been done. But it changed and this was the next best approach, in their eyes evidently. And considering the lack of success of ANY of the big name FA from last year basically(as far as justifying their deals) and the weak as hell class of this upcoming offseason, I see no reason why anyone is bothering to bitch about a patient approach here. They've been proven right so far and I don't see what the big deal is to put an 89ish win team out there, when it costs a bunch more money, costs us bigtime in draft and IFA, and hurts our longterm chances of building a powerhouse.

 

Once again, it's not all about the big name FA. It's about adding talent intelligently as it comes available and working to make the major league roster respectable while still building up the farm. I was a Pujols advocate, but there were other moves we could have made that could have made us better and there are moves we can make this offseason that can bring us closer to respectable next year and help us win in future seasons as well. None of those moves would hurt our chances of being a powerhouse long term and very likely would help in that pursuit.

 

We're all arguing in favor of a long term powerhouse here, we just have different methods of getting there.

Edited August 24, 2012 by dew

[davell]

It's also still entirely possible that a Stanek, Whitson, Manaea turns themselves into that type too though.

[C.C.]

A little off subject but since we are probably going to have the second pick in the draft are their any studs in next years draft?

Nope.

Well that sucks.

[C.C.]

A little off subject but since we are probably going to have the second pick in the draft are their any studs in next years draft?

Nope.

 

We'll probably pick high in 2014 too, though.

 

Rodon!

 

That's depressing.

[SouthSideRyan]

[Go ask the Angels or the Marlins if they would have done things differently this past offseason right about now......

 

Yeah, just think how much better the Angels would be set for the next few years if they weren't stuck with Pujols and Wilson.

[Guest]

It's also still entirely possible that a Stanek, Whitson, Manaea turns themselves into that type too though.

Definitely true. I'd add Austin Wilson to your list of potential breakouts.