2013

[Guest]

yea i don't know why redskins fans are even bothering with rgiii

[Guest]

Because developing them is a crap shoot and trading your farm for them is stupid when you can keep the farm and just pay them. at some point you are going to have to overpay for talent if you want the prize. Stop thinking we are some crappy small market team.

 

developing a farm system over a long period of time is not a crapshoot. sure there is a lot of luck involved, but it's a skill.

[C.C.]

Because developing them is a crap shoot and trading your farm for them is stupid when you can keep the farm and just pay them. at some point you are going to have to overpay for talent if you want the prize. Stop thinking we are some crappy small market team.

 

developing a farm system over a long period of time is not a crapshoot. sure there is a lot of luck involved, but it's a skill.

 

More luck then skill. And over a long period of time you a bound to produce some studs, but how long is that period of time?

[SouthSideRyan]

yea i don't know why redskins fans are even bothering with rgiii

 

You're comparing NFL draft picks to MLB draft picks why exactly?

[Magnetic Curses]

Because developing them is a crap shoot and trading your farm for them is stupid when you can keep the farm and just pay them. at some point you are going to have to overpay for talent if you want the prize. Stop thinking we are some crappy small market team.

 

developing a farm system over a long period of time is not a crapshoot. sure there is a lot of luck involved, but it's a skill.

 

More luck then skill. And over a long period of time you a bound to produce some studs, but how long is that period of time?

 

assuming luck is a constant across all teams, i'm confident that our guys will get it done.

 

i just hate watching this [expletive].

[Guest]

Because developing them is a crap shoot and trading your farm for them is stupid when you can keep the farm and just pay them. at some point you are going to have to overpay for talent if you want the prize. Stop thinking we are some crappy small market team.

 

developing a farm system over a long period of time is not a crapshoot. sure there is a lot of luck involved, but it's a skill.

 

More luck then skill. And over a long period of time you a bound to produce some studs, but how long is that period of time?

 

i'm pretty sure they'll eventually start looking to add stars through free agency or trades. once they build up the system a little more, i wouldn't be surprised to see them try and get younger proven guys by giving up prospects. something similar to the justin upton situation, where you can get a guy in his mid 20's (instead of late 20's in FA) and then lock him up when you trade for him.

 

but yea, this is clearly going to be a drawn out process. i completely understand why people might dislike it, but i've accepted it and im actually enjoying baseball more than i have in a long time by following the minor leagues.... because there are finally people in charge that i have full confidence in.

[KaiserCesar]

It looks to me that the Maholm type signings are the way to actually build up the overall talent level in an organization. With a big time FA, you give up financial flexibility in addition to draft picks and have a difficult to trade asset in the event you want to move the player.

 

Mid-tier free agents don't cost you a draft pick, add to the talent of the organization and can be turned into solid prospects with a shrewd front office. Its really the only way to add something for nothing, and a team with a lot of payroll space like the Cubs should continuously be doing it.

 

The big moves can be made if enough of the mid-level pickups and prospects start performing at the same time. In lieu of that, you will have to wait for waves of prospects to start hitting the majors which should begin by 2015. I think we can look forward to a better team next offseason, but only with some great fortune would it contend under this framework.

[Gilby]

I think people are getting too upset over tanking the next few seasons when it hasn't even happened yet. Once we got off to the start we did this season, tanking/trading off players was absolutely necessary. While I don't believe the Cubs will contend next season, I think it will be an improvement over this season.

 

Cubs baseball has sucked since August 2009, so that isn't fun for us, but Theo and co. shouldn't care about that. This is their first year, and I'll give them a tank year to take full advantage of the draft. Let's see what they do this offseason, though, before we say the FO is tanking for the first half of their contracts. People have tried to spin Jed's comments from the other day, but they don't mean a whole lot.

[Guest]

Anyone know where I might be able to find all the FA deals signed in a given offseason?

[pccubfan]

So sucking is its own reward because you get higher draft picks and more money in both the amatuer draft and the IFA market.

 

How many years of sucking is too many? At what point does everyone get fed up getting a top five pick? Is there a point where everyone would say this front office isn't getting it done? I'm not turning on Theo and Co. as I understand this is a process, but how many bad years would it take for you to say this isn't working?

 

If 2015 isn't pretty dang promising, I'd wonder if the plan was ever going to work.

[davell]

Dew, I fully expect us to after every name you just mentioned. Jackson probably gets too pricey though, with the lack of SP available, so my guess is we don't get serious on him. The key though during this process is finding more cheap talent that slot into our longterm plans. Maybe Brett or Vitters become a longterm answer, same with some of the pen arms or even a Rusin or Raley as a 5th starter. But the idea isn't to just start looking for good longterm players until 2015 or so. It's to find out how many holes you actually have by a certain point and go from there. My guess is next season will be THAT year. The system will be in much better shape by that offseason and I would fully expect us to be much more willing to sign a bigger FA then, same with trading away prospects at that point. You guys that are against this type of thing are looking at the Cubs and THEIR rate of turning prospects into legit talent. Not teams that have consistently done it. The guys we have now WILL do this. And when 2014 or 2015 comes, I bet we're a bigname FA signing and one teade away or so, from being a very exciting team again.

[davell]

So sucking is its own reward because you get higher draft picks and more money in both the amatuer draft and the IFA market.

 

How many years of sucking is too many? At what point does everyone get fed up getting a top five pick? Is there a point where everyone would say this front office isn't getting it done? I'm not turning on Theo and Co. as I understand this is a process, but how many bad years would it take for you to say this isn't working?

 

If 2015 isn't pretty dang promising, I'd wonder if the plan was ever going to work.

Pwrsonally, I think next year is the last year we really suck. Although losing some value in a Garza trade stings somewhat. I totally expect a decent young team playing in 2014, with some guys we've traded for as cost controlled young guys being a part of it. And tons of flexibility moving forward.

[sneakypower]

Anyone know where I might be able to find all the FA deals signed in a given offseason?

like this?

http://espn.go.com/mlb/freeagents/_/type/dollars

[Guest]

Anyone know where I might be able to find all the FA deals signed in a given offseason?

like this?

http://espn.go.com/mlb/freeagents/_/type/dollars

 

Perfect, thank you.

[C.C.]

It looks to me that the Maholm type signings are the way to actually build up the overall talent level in an organization. With a big time FA, you give up financial flexibility in addition to draft picks and have a difficult to trade asset in the event you want to move the player.

 

Mid-tier free agents don't cost you a draft pick, add to the talent of the organization and can be turned into solid prospects with a shrewd front office. Its really the only way to add something for nothing, and a team with a lot of payroll space like the Cubs should continuously be doing it.

 

The big moves can be made if enough of the mid-level pickups and prospects start performing at the same time. In lieu of that, you will have to wait for waves of prospects to start hitting the majors which should begin by 2015. I think we can look forward to a better team next offseason, but only with some great fortune would it contend under this framework.

 

I just don't see it. Contend next year? Not a chance.

[pccubfan]

So sucking is its own reward because you get higher draft picks and more money in both the amatuer draft and the IFA market.

 

How many years of sucking is too many? At what point does everyone get fed up getting a top five pick? Is there a point where everyone would say this front office isn't getting it done? I'm not turning on Theo and Co. as I understand this is a process, but how many bad years would it take for you to say this isn't working?

 

If 2015 isn't pretty dang promising, I'd wonder if the plan was ever going to work.

Pwrsonally, I think next year is the last year we really suck. Although losing some value in a Garza trade stings somewhat. I totally expect a decent young team playing in 2014, with some guys we've traded for as cost controlled young guys being a part of it. And tons of flexibility moving forward.

 

You are much more optimistic than I am. I think a lot would have to go right for the Cubs to be a decent young team in 2014. Baez is the only guy currently in the minors that I could envision in Chicago able to make a difference, and he'll be a rookie. Pitching is god awful in AA and AAA, and only average at A+ with Whitenack and Wells getting hit by the injury bug. I understand you think that some trades could be made for MLB guys with Cubs prospects, but don't know that this can happen that quickly as the majority of pitching talent the Cubs could offer would be below AA at that time. Jackson, Vitters and Castillo would almost all have to work out to some extent for this team to turn around by 2014.

[davell]

Shark, one trade addition for the rotation, Wood or Raley or Rusin as a 5th guy, and hopefully Vizcaino is your 2014 rotation, in my eyes right now. The traded piece being very solid obviously. You'd have Castillo, Rizzo, Castro, Barney, and probably one of Brett, Soler, or Szczur in your opening day lineup. Tons of flexibility payroll-wise obviously and before everyone says most of those guts suck, I'm expecting lwague average out of everyone mentioned. Other than Rizzo, Castro, Shark, and the mystery starter. This group WILL develop guys, it's different than what the Cubs have done previously.

[pccubfan]

Shark, one trade addition for the rotation, Wood or Raley or Rusin as a 5th guy, and hopefully Vizcaino is your 2014 rotation, in my eyes right now. The traded piece being very solid obviously. You'd have Castillo, Rizzo, Castro, Barney, and probably one of Brett, Soler, or Szczur in your opening day lineup. Tons of flexibility payroll-wise obviously and before everyone says most of those guts suck, I'm expecting lwague average out of everyone mentioned. Other than Rizzo, Castro, Shark, and the mystery starter. This group WILL develop guys, it's different than what the Cubs have done previously.

 

Are you trading Baez for that very solid rotation piece? It would probably have to be him to offset our lack of near-major league ready arms that another team might be able to offer. Again, after 2014 some of the arms currently in the low minors may have impressed enough people that a trade or two could take place.

[davell]

No. I'm still hopeful Garza can bring us one. If not him, maybe a deal with Oakland or Atlanta that we could fill needs for in exchange for one. If not that, I suspect guys like Vogelbach, Candelario, Brett, Vitters, Szczur could be parts involved. And while Vogelbach will just be in A ball next year, I do see him becoming a very well thought of guy quickly. Barney could be a valuable piece in a deal too obviously.

[Backtobanks]

The whole "either we have a juggernaut team or every win is wasted" idea is silly.

 

 

Who is saying that? I firmly in the "add if it helps but doesn't hinder the long term product" camp. In that mindset, adding Darvish/Cespedes would have made sense, but Pujols/Fielder would not have. At all. And I think the evidence indicates that Theo and Jed made legitimate plays for the former pair. I'd like to see more wins as much as anyone, but I'm not going to delude myself into the belief that with a few sensible additions the Cubs could have been good this year or next. You can say that comparing WAR and the like to gauge how many wins the team might or might not have had is silly, but it is at least grounded in some logic. WAR does provide some idea. Adding a couple superstar players isn't going to have a magical transformative effect. This isn't the NBA.

 

In order to have fielded a team that was at all competitive, we'd have had to keep guys like Marshall, Cashner (given the state of the bullpen going into the season) and Ramirez, on top of adding 2-3 top tier FAs. You can go on all day about how the team could have been decent and the same system gains could have been made at the same time, but it doesn't make it true.

 

Everything that I have read makes it sound like Cespedes wanted to play for the Cubs and the FO refused to shorten the deal. The bidding process on Darvish was expected to be in the $48-$51 million range and speculation is that the FO bid under $20 million. So how are those "legitimate plays"?

[C.C.]

Shark, one trade addition for the rotation, Wood or Raley or Rusin as a 5th guy, and hopefully Vizcaino is your 2014 rotation, in my eyes right now. The traded piece being very solid obviously. You'd have Castillo, Rizzo, Castro, Barney, and probably one of Brett, Soler, or Szczur in your opening day lineup. Tons of flexibility payroll-wise obviously and before everyone says most of those guts suck, I'm expecting lwague average out of everyone mentioned. Other than Rizzo, Castro, Shark, and the mystery starter. This group WILL develop guys, it's different than what the Cubs have done previously.

 

God it sounds like the Hill, Patterson, Choi, Harris etc....days. I'll see it when I believe it.

Edited August 24, 2012 by C.C.

[XZero771679666304]

The whole "either we have a juggernaut team or every win is wasted" idea is silly.

 

 

Who is saying that? I firmly in the "add if it helps but doesn't hinder the long term product" camp. In that mindset, adding Darvish/Cespedes would have made sense, but Pujols/Fielder would not have. At all. And I think the evidence indicates that Theo and Jed made legitimate plays for the former pair. I'd like to see more wins as much as anyone, but I'm not going to delude myself into the belief that with a few sensible additions the Cubs could have been good this year or next. You can say that comparing WAR and the like to gauge how many wins the team might or might not have had is silly, but it is at least grounded in some logic. WAR does provide some idea. Adding a couple superstar players isn't going to have a magical transformative effect. This isn't the NBA.

 

In order to have fielded a team that was at all competitive, we'd have had to keep guys like Marshall, Cashner (given the state of the bullpen going into the season) and Ramirez, on top of adding 2-3 top tier FAs. You can go on all day about how the team could have been decent and the same system gains could have been made at the same time, but it doesn't make it true.

 

Everything that I have read makes it sound like Cespedes wanted to play for the Cubs and the FO refused to shorten the deal. The bidding process on Darvish was expected to be in the $48-$51 million range and speculation is that the FO bid under $20 million. So how are those "legitimate plays"?

 

That obviously isn't the case.

 

There was a group of teams in the same range as the Cubs (who finished second) in terms of bidding for Darvish, with the Rangers waaayyy out by themselves. I say that it was a legitimate play in that they made what they believed to be a competitive bid. I don't think any of the other teams besides the Rangers saw the winning bid being where it was, and I certainly don't think every team but the Rangers was just screwing around just making pretense. If you believe that the Cubs were simply making a token bid they had no confidence was competitive, you have to believe that all the other interested teams aside from Texas did as well, and that strains credulity.

 

And we don't know for sure that the Cubs were given a chance to counter Oakland's offer, but even if they were, they at least made a legitimate effort to sign him.

 

I don't think they had any expectation of signing Pujols or Fielder, or that they made competitive offers, which I agree with.

[C.C.]

The whole "either we have a juggernaut team or every win is wasted" idea is silly.

 

 

Who is saying that? I firmly in the "add if it helps but doesn't hinder the long term product" camp. In that mindset, adding Darvish/Cespedes would have made sense, but Pujols/Fielder would not have. At all. And I think the evidence indicates that Theo and Jed made legitimate plays for the former pair. I'd like to see more wins as much as anyone, but I'm not going to delude myself into the belief that with a few sensible additions the Cubs could have been good this year or next. You can say that comparing WAR and the like to gauge how many wins the team might or might not have had is silly, but it is at least grounded in some logic. WAR does provide some idea. Adding a couple superstar players isn't going to have a magical transformative effect. This isn't the NBA.

 

In order to have fielded a team that was at all competitive, we'd have had to keep guys like Marshall, Cashner (given the state of the bullpen going into the season) and Ramirez, on top of adding 2-3 top tier FAs. You can go on all day about how the team could have been decent and the same system gains could have been made at the same time, but it doesn't make it true.

 

Everything that I have read makes it sound like Cespedes wanted to play for the Cubs and the FO refused to shorten the deal. The bidding process on Darvish was expected to be in the $48-$51 million range and speculation is that the FO bid under $20 million. So how are those "legitimate plays"?

 

Because it all reality it wasn't in play. We just didn't have the money. We are cash strapped between rebuilding Wrigley and bad contracts. Until then we just have to ride it out and hope our FO gets lucky on a draft or two. I guess the plan is to gut us and re-build. I hate the sound of it, but it's reality. Get used to it.

[XZero771679666304]

 

Because it all reality it wasn't in play. We just didn't have the money. We are cash strapped between rebuilding Wrigley and bad contracts. Until then we just have to ride it out and hope our FO gets lucky on a draft or two. I guess the plan is to gut us and re-build. I hate the sound of it, but it's reality. Get used to it.

 

You're right. The Cubs won't sign any free agents, make trades of sign IFAs. It'll all come down to draft luck.

[Sammy Sofa]

Because it all reality it wasn't in play. We just didn't have the money. We are cash strapped between rebuilding Wrigley and bad contracts. Until then we just have to ride it out and hope our FO gets lucky on a draft or two. I guess the plan is to gut us and re-build. I hate the sound of it, but it's reality. Get used to it.

 

Just admit you have no clue what you're talking about.