2013

[SouthSideRyan]

What does that matter? They weren't of significant value at the beginning of the year so they don't count as Hendry's guys?

(when i said he left them nothing, i assumed it was easily understood that meant nothing of value...he obviously left him some players with which to actually physically field a team, and not that he made off with all his players like some dastardly bandit)

 

How can you argue that Cashner was nothing of value when he was traded for Rizzo? How can you argue that Marshall was nothing of value when he was traded for Wood/Torreyes/Sappelt? How about Brett Jackson? Matt Szczur? Geovany Soto?

 

Jim Hendry was [expletive] horrendous at his job, but we weren't the Astros at the major league level and the White Sox in the minors.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

he left Theo & co with a bunch of penny stocks- that some have gained in value (Dempster fluking into a sub-3 ERA, or Barney's fielding stats jumping likely as a result of positioning) isn't really a huge credit to Hendry

 

So what you are saying is that Cashner and Marshall had no value whatsoever, but Epstein used his magic Jedi mind tricks to turn them into valuable assets?

yes, that's basically what i'm saying

 

by this same absurd twisted logic, we know Larry Andersen was simply oozing with trade value when the Red Sox dealt him

 

 

Yeah. You are being silly and I think/hope that you know it. That list included players coming off of 2.8, 2.2 and 2.8 fWAR major league seasons. To call them "penny stocks" just because you found a tortured phrase that could theoretically apply to them and sound bad does not diminish their actual value, which was significant.

 

The organization has significantly more player assets than the three players you named, and it also had significant financial assets at its disposal. This team is awful right now because Epstein chose for it to be awful. No more, no less.

[SouthSideRyan]

And can we stop acting like the anti-tank 2-3 years and get draft picks and amateur budget wanted to spend a billion dollars just to win 78 games this year? It's about gathering assets, and the easiest way to gather sure assets is to pay for them on the free agent market. Literally the only thing it would have cost us beyond the money is draft positioning, which goes back to my question to davell 4 pages ago whether he(and by extension those who agree with him) feel the only way to turn around a bad franchise is by being terrible for a few years. There's a difference between MacPhail era contending within the division and paying to make your team better today and in the future. Edited August 24, 2012 by SouthSideRyan

[XZero771679666304]

This team is awful right now because Epstein chose for it to be awful. No more, no less.

 

As opposed to what? Simply bad?

[SouthSideRyan]

This team is awful right now because Epstein chose for it to be awful. No more, no less.

 

As opposed to what? Simply bad?

 

How does one progress from awful to great? Do we just skip over any sort of improvement and lose 100 games the next couple years then bam 95 win juggernaut?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This team is awful right now because Epstein chose for it to be awful. No more, no less.

 

As opposed to what? Simply bad?

 

We'll never know. As opposed to less awful than it is, most likely.

[sneakypower]

How can you argue that Cashner was nothing of value when he was traded for Rizzo? How can you argue that Marshall was nothing of value when he was traded for Wood/Torreyes/Sappelt? How about Brett Jackson? Matt Szczur? Geovany Soto?

 

Jim Hendry was [expletive] horrendous at his job, but we weren't the Astros at the major league level and the White Sox in the minors.

most had given up on Cashner as a starter due to all the injuries

Marshall was a (great) middle reliever in his last arb year...when do guys like that get traded for a significant return?

Brett Jackson i liked, you can add him to my earlier list

Szczur wasn't a top-100 guy to anybody but BA; what would you realistically trade for a top-150ish prospect?

what did we even trade Soto for again?

[SouthSideRyan]

How can you argue that Cashner was nothing of value when he was traded for Rizzo? How can you argue that Marshall was nothing of value when he was traded for Wood/Torreyes/Sappelt? How about Brett Jackson? Matt Szczur? Geovany Soto?

 

Jim Hendry was [expletive] horrendous at his job, but we weren't the Astros at the major league level and the White Sox in the minors.

most had given up on Cashner as a starter due to all the injuries

Marshall was a (great) middle reliever in his last arb year...when do guys like that get traded for a significant return?

Brett Jackson i liked, you can add him to my earlier list

Szczur wasn't a top-100 guy to anybody but BA; what would you realistically trade for a top-150ish prospect?

what did we even trade Soto for again?

 

I think it's disingenuous to say Szczur had no value because other ranking systems didn't have him high. You don't think there are scouts out there that loved him?

 

We traded Soto for a shitty return after he had the worst 2/3 season of his career.

[davell]

Hendry left them nothing - Castro, Garza and...Baez, i guess

 

i don't think i can really emphasize this and repeat this often enough

 

Marshall. Barney. Dempster. Cashner. Samardzija.

And can you disagree with our FO's decisions on a single one of them?

[WrigleyField 22]

Hendry left us average assets and no vision (or just a terrible vision, not sure). Theo pawned off the average assets that were overvalued, found some undervalued average assets and gave us a vision.

 

So basically whays changed is the vision.

 

This is pretty simple.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Hendry left them nothing - Castro, Garza and...Baez, i guess

 

i don't think i can really emphasize this and repeat this often enough

 

Marshall. Barney. Dempster. Cashner. Samardzija.

And can you disagree with our FO's decisions on a single one of them?

 

Loaded question. I disagree with the direction the front office chose. Once that direction was chosen, their decisions with each of them have made perfect sense.

 

But regardless, those were assets in place.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Hendry left us average assets and no vision (or just a terrible vision, not sure). Theo pawned off the average assets that were overvalued, found some undervalued average assets and gave us a vision.

 

So basically whays changed is the vision.

 

This is pretty simple.

 

The vision includes sucking for a few years on purpose. It's not a great vision.

[sneakypower]

Yeah. You are being silly and I think/hope that you know it. That list included players coming off of 2.8, 2.2 and 2.8 fWAR major league seasons. To call them "penny stocks" just because you found a tortured phrase that could theoretically apply to them and sound bad does not diminish their actual value, which was significant.

 

The organization has significantly more player assets than the three players you named, and it also had significant financial assets at its disposal. This team is awful right now because Epstein chose for it to be awful. No more, no less.

didn't Casey Kotchman have a 2.8 fWAR last year? fwiw, Kurt Suzuki and James Loney had 2.3 fWAR seasons too last year

 

Dempster and Marshall were good enough players, but their contract statuses sucked most of the value out of them as assets

[C.C.]

And can we stop acting like the anti-tank 2-3 years and get draft picks and amateur budget wanted to spend a billion dollars just to win 78 games this year? It's about gathering assets, and the easiest way to gather sure assets is to pay for them on the free agent market. Literally the only thing it would have cost us beyond the money is draft positioning, which goes back to my question to davell 4 pages ago whether he(and by extension those who agree with him) feel the only way to turn around a bad franchise is by being terrible for a few years. There's a difference between MacPhail era contending within the division and paying to make your team better today and in the future.

 

Bingo! Trying to build through the draft is not easy. Look how many years the Bulls sucked until they drafted Rose. What a decade?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yeah. You are being silly and I think/hope that you know it. That list included players coming off of 2.8, 2.2 and 2.8 fWAR major league seasons. To call them "penny stocks" just because you found a tortured phrase that could theoretically apply to them and sound bad does not diminish their actual value, which was significant.

 

The organization has significantly more player assets than the three players you named, and it also had significant financial assets at its disposal. This team is awful right now because Epstein chose for it to be awful. No more, no less.

didn't Casey Kotchman have a 2.8 fWAR last year? fwiw, Kurt Suzuki and James Loney had 2.3 fWAR seasons too last year

 

Dempster and Marshall were good enough players, but their contract statuses sucked most of the value out of them as assets

 

Until Theo rode in on his magic unicorn and convinced teams to pay significant value for these previously worthless pieces. Gotcha.

[Cubswin11]

And can we stop acting like the anti-tank 2-3 years and get draft picks and amateur budget wanted to spend a billion dollars just to win 78 games this year? It's about gathering assets, and the easiest way to gather sure assets is to pay for them on the free agent market. Literally the only thing it would have cost us beyond the money is draft positioning, which goes back to my question to davell 4 pages ago whether he(and by extension those who agree with him) feel the only way to turn around a bad franchise is by being terrible for a few years. There's a difference between MacPhail era contending within the division and paying to make your team better today and in the future.

What if Theo and co. just didn't like any of the big FA this offseason? All of them had risks attached given where we stood and the money required to get them.

 

Pujols: $200m+ over 10 years, it would be tough to build a WS team while he was still at an elite level, there were signs pointing to him declining and coming back towards the pack of 1B

 

Fielder: Poor defender, long term questions about if he could stay in the field for a team that doesn't have DH.

 

Wilson: Short term track record of success as a starter, saw major jumps in IP over the last two years compared to his career

 

Darvish: Would have taken $100m plus to acquire him the FO might have had a bad taste in their mouth after Dice-K. He hasn't been all that great this year. Previously had a lot of innings on his arm already.

 

Cespedes: By all accounts we wanted him and offered him the same AAV as the A's but he wanted a shorter term deal (4 with the A's v. 7 with us) so he could potentially cash in big one more time.

[XZero771679666304]

This team is awful right now because Epstein chose for it to be awful. No more, no less.

 

As opposed to what? Simply bad?

 

How does one progress from awful to great? Do we just skip over any sort of improvement and lose 100 games the next couple years then bam 95 win juggernaut?

 

Not by trying to plug your numerous holes with expensive assets that will lose value instead of gaining it, that's for sure. I think we will see improvement next year over this year, and in 2014 over 2013.

 

Signing a group of older guys at exorbitant prices who won't immediately turn you into a contender isn't a sound strategy. It wouldn't have made significant immediate improvement, and it certainly wouldn't have improved the long term prognosis. In fact, the opposite is true; it would have prolonged the system building process while not providing significant enough short term improvement to make it remotely worth it.

 

Well, it would have provided the illusion and pretense of having a chance, and maybe that's all some people really want.

[C.C.]

Hendry left us average assets and no vision (or just a terrible vision, not sure). Theo pawned off the average assets that were overvalued, found some undervalued average assets and gave us a vision.

 

So basically whays changed is the vision.

 

This is pretty simple.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

What Vision? We suck for 2-3 years and hope and pray we draft well? That's a shitty vision for a big market team.

[SouthSideRyan]

There's nothing wrong with passing on any one free agent, or even the group of big names from this past offseason. Darvish and Wilson were the only ones I even wanted out of that group (after we got Rizzo) and Darvish was a blind bid and Wilson seemed set on LA. The issue is whether we're going to keep passing the next couple of offseasons so we can build up our farm system.

[C.C.]

And can we stop acting like the anti-tank 2-3 years and get draft picks and amateur budget wanted to spend a billion dollars just to win 78 games this year? It's about gathering assets, and the easiest way to gather sure assets is to pay for them on the free agent market. Literally the only thing it would have cost us beyond the money is draft positioning, which goes back to my question to davell 4 pages ago whether he(and by extension those who agree with him) feel the only way to turn around a bad franchise is by being terrible for a few years. There's a difference between MacPhail era contending within the division and paying to make your team better today and in the future.

What if Theo and co. just didn't like any of the big FA this offseason? All of them had risks attached given where we stood and the money required to get them.

 

Pujols: $200m+ over 10 years, it would be tough to build a WS team while he was still at an elite level, there were signs pointing to him declining and coming back towards the pack of 1B

 

Fielder: Poor defender, long term questions about if he could stay in the field for a team that doesn't have DH.

 

Wilson: Short term track record of success as a starter, saw major jumps in IP over the last two years compared to his career

 

Darvish: Would have taken $100m plus to acquire him the FO might have had a bad taste in their mouth after Dice-K. He hasn't been all that great this year. Previously had a lot of innings on his arm already.

 

Cespedes: By all accounts we wanted him and offered him the same AAV as the A's but he wanted a shorter term deal (4 with the A's v. 7 with us) so he could potentially cash in big one more time.

 

If he didn't like any of them why did he put in a bid for Pujols, Fielder, Darvish, and Cespedes? PR move?

[WrigleyField 22]

Hendry left us average assets and no vision (or just a terrible vision, not sure). Theo pawned off the average assets that were overvalued, found some undervalued average assets and gave us a vision.

 

So basically whays changed is the vision.

 

This is pretty simple.

 

The vision includes sucking for a few years on purpose. It's not a great vision.

Well it included sucking for one year. Beyond this year, I think you'll see gradual improvements in both the short and long term until we're awesome at both.

 

People aren't properly understanding that continuing to suck isn't going to have a significant effect on our ability to build for the future. We'll operate on more of a dual front going forward, trust me.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sneakypower]

This team is awful right now because Epstein chose for it to be awful. No more, no less.

Oh, win? Just win games? Why don’t I strap on my win helmet, and squeeze into a win cannon and fire off into win land, where wins grow on winnies!

[XZero771679666304]

Hendry left us average assets and no vision (or just a terrible vision, not sure). Theo pawned off the average assets that were overvalued, found some undervalued average assets and gave us a vision.

 

So basically whays changed is the vision.

 

This is pretty simple.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

What Vision? We suck for 2-3 years and hope and pray we draft well? That's a [expletive] vision for a big market team.

 

 

We draft well, spend in IFA and make shrewd aquisitions until a core is developed.

 

Honestly, would some people really sacrifice many of the system gains we have made just to have an outside shot at being decent instead of being bad? Make no mistake, the Cubs would still be mediocre at best even had Theo/Jed signed Albert, Prince, Wilson, or whoever. And the sytem would have been worse off for it.

[Cubswin11]

And can we stop acting like the anti-tank 2-3 years and get draft picks and amateur budget wanted to spend a billion dollars just to win 78 games this year? It's about gathering assets, and the easiest way to gather sure assets is to pay for them on the free agent market. Literally the only thing it would have cost us beyond the money is draft positioning, which goes back to my question to davell 4 pages ago whether he(and by extension those who agree with him) feel the only way to turn around a bad franchise is by being terrible for a few years. There's a difference between MacPhail era contending within the division and paying to make your team better today and in the future.

What if Theo and co. just didn't like any of the big FA this offseason? All of them had risks attached given where we stood and the money required to get them.

 

Pujols: $200m+ over 10 years, it would be tough to build a WS team while he was still at an elite level, there were signs pointing to him declining and coming back towards the pack of 1B

 

Fielder: Poor defender, long term questions about if he could stay in the field for a team that doesn't have DH.

 

Wilson: Short term track record of success as a starter, saw major jumps in IP over the last two years compared to his career

 

Darvish: Would have taken $100m plus to acquire him the FO might have had a bad taste in their mouth after Dice-K. He hasn't been all that great this year. Previously had a lot of innings on his arm already.

 

Cespedes: By all accounts we wanted him and offered him the same AAV as the A's but he wanted a shorter term deal (4 with the A's v. 7 with us) so he could potentially cash in big one more time.

 

If he didn't like any of them why did he put in a bid for Pujols, Fielder, Darvish, and Cespedes? PR move?

He liked them on his terms, but didn't love them enough and wasn't willing to bend over to the demands of the player/agent or match other teams offers

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This team is awful right now because Epstein chose for it to be awful. No more, no less.

Oh, win? Just win games? Why don’t I strap on my win helmet, and squeeze into a win cannon and fire off into win land, where wins grow on winnies!

 

It's sad how thin the margin is on this being your least coherent point in this discussion.