Executive Approval Poll - Post 2012 season

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Remember, how you define good job is up to you, just be consistent with your definition.

 

Past results:

 

Post Trade Deadline - 90% Yes - 42 Votes

Opening Day - 87% Yes - 31 Votes

[Sammy Sofa]

Don't know yet.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I have to reluctantly vote yes because judged against a generic front office, they are doing a good job.

 

I just wish we'd gotten the Theo Epstein who ran the Red Sox and not the one living out his fantasy rebuild.

[TruffleShuffle]

I just wish we'd gotten the Theo Epstein who ran the Red Sox and not the one living out his fantasy rebuild.

 

yeah well i also wish that theo epstein had taken over a team that won 93 games the previous year (100 pythagorean wins) and had jason varitek, nomar, manny ramirez, johnny damon, trot nixon, pedro martinez and derek lowe on the roster, rather than a team with 30 fewer pythagorean wins the previous year and an absolute dearth of star caliber players in their primes.

[sneakypower]

an emphatic yes

[UMFan83]

I have to reluctantly vote yes because judged against a generic front office, they are doing a good job.

 

I just wish we'd gotten the Theo Epstein who ran the Red Sox and not the one living out his fantasy rebuild.

 

Oh God here we go

[TruffleShuffle]

new poll, whose posts have become more unreadable in the last calendar year, KyleJRM or Backtobanks?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

yeah well i also wish that theo epstein had taken over a team that won 93 games the previous year (100 pythagorean wins) and had jason varitek, nomar, manny ramirez, johnny damon, trot nixon, pedro martinez and derek lowe on the roster, rather than a team with 30 fewer pythagorean wins the previous year and an absolute dearth of star caliber players in their primes.

 

That Theo Epstein was also dealing with the Yankees and not the Brewers, Cardinals and Pirates.

[TruffleShuffle]

yeah well i also wish that theo epstein had taken over a team that won 93 games the previous year (100 pythagorean wins) and had jason varitek, nomar, manny ramirez, johnny damon, trot nixon, pedro martinez and derek lowe on the roster, rather than a team with 30 fewer pythagorean wins the previous year and an absolute dearth of star caliber players in their primes.

 

That Theo Epstein was also dealing with the Yankees and not the Brewers, Cardinals and Pirates.

 

Who gives a crap? With the Red Sox he inherited a team that should have won 100 games and was very well positioned to continue winning. With the Cubs he inherited a 90+ loss team with declining veteran talent and very little major league ready talent in the upper minors. You're not an idiot, so I suspect you know this and are just trolling to perpetuate your new heel status on NSBB.

[Sammy Sofa]

New?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Who gives a crap? With the Red Sox he inherited a team that should have won 100 games and was very well positioned to continue winning. With the Cubs he inherited a 90+ loss team with declining veteran talent and very little major league ready talent in the upper minors. You're not an idiot, so I suspect you know this and are just trolling to perpetuate your new heel status on NSBB.

 

1) New?

 

2) I know it, but so what? It doesn't prove the implied point you are trying to make, which is that the strip-down rebuild was a necessary or best course of action. Going into last offseason, the Cubs were short on star players, but had a reasonable base of useful good players and about $60 million in budget room. There were enough resources to put together a winning team without taking a sledgehammer to the future, and that's always the best option.

[sneakypower]

"putting together a winning team" basically means no:

 

Anthony Rizzo

Arodys Vizcaino

Travis Wood

Christian Villanueva

Ronald Torreyes

Dave Sappelt

Jaye Chapman

Michael Bowden?

Shark as SP edit: don't really want to make this point the focus

 

(and still probably means like, a 75-win season at best)

 

now, debate the merits of those names as you please, but at the very least, if say, Grant Desme were to come around and convince all those guys to pursue a new calling in life, i have to imagine we'd consider that a debilitating blow to our prospects for the future

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"putting together a winning team" basically means no:

 

Anthony Rizzo

Arodys Vizcaino

Travis Wood

Christian Villanueva

Ronald Torreyes

Dave Sappelt

Jaye Chapman

Michael Bowden?

Shark as SP edit: don't really want to make this point the focus

 

(and still probably means like, a 75-win season at best)

 

now, debate the merits of those names as you please, but at the very least, if say, Grant Desme were to come around and convince all those guys to pursue a new calling in life, i have to imagine we'd consider that a debilitating blow to our prospects for the future

 

I'd say that names on that list we'd have to do without would be Vizcaino, Villanueva, Chapman and Bowden. And there's only one name on that list that would even register as an important loss.

[sneakypower]

you'd be completely void of any intellectual honesty to say that

 

teams that are making a real concerted effort to contend, don't install a 22-year-old, fresh off a 51 OPS+ season, as their every-day 1B (and weaken their worst position to do so); it's such a patently absurd assertion, and that's just one example

[Hairyducked Idiot]

you'd be completely void of any intellectual honesty to say that

 

teams that are making a real concerted effort to contend, don't install a 22-year-old, fresh off a 51 OPS+ season, as their every-day 1B (and weaken their worst position to do so); it's such a patently absurd assertion, and that's just one example

 

 

All I want is a credible attempt to fill out the entire roster with major league players. For 2012, that would mean a real 3b, the best players on the roster from the beginning (which would mean leaving Rizzo at Iowa for at least half the season) and a real bullpen.

[sneakypower]

then we have completely different priorities

 

i just want a clear vision for long-term, sustained success, and i can tolerate a 61-win season, rather than a season clawing at a 70- or 75-wins that runs in direct conflict with that long-term success

[Hairyducked Idiot]

then we have completely different priorities

 

i just want a clear vision for long-term, sustained success, and can easily tolerate a 61-win season, rather than clawing at a 70- or 75-win season that runs in direct conflict with that long-term success

 

You basically just said you want a plan, regardless of how good the plan is.

 

And it's silly to assume that the team that won 71 games and had $60 million to spend would be capped at 75 wins.

[sneakypower]

we would have had to add something like 14 wins via free agency to project as a contender

http://claydavenport.com/PROJHOME.shtml

 

on a semi-related note, did you know: the 2007 (WS winning) Red Sox had only one player on the roster acquired via FA post a 2+ WAR season (Matsuzaka)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

we would have had to add something like 14 wins via free agency to project as a contender

http://claydavenport.com/PROJHOME.shtml

 

Okay, is 14 wins for a team with that much money to spend somehow unthinkable? Would there be anything wrong with getting halfway there and putting yourself within variance range?

 

on a semi-related note, did you know: the 2007 (WS winning) Red Sox had only one player on the roster acquired via FA post a 2+ WAR season (Matsuzaka)

 

And things have gotten steadily worse for them since. Must not be a sustainable way to build a franchise.

[sneakypower]

we would have had to add something like 14 wins via free agency to project as a contender

http://claydavenport.com/PROJHOME.shtml

 

Okay, is 14 wins for a team with that much money to spend somehow unthinkable? Would there be anything wrong with getting halfway there and putting yourself within variance range?

and how do you get halfway there? well for starters, by not trading two of your best relievers, by not toying with the idea of putting another in the rotation, and signing...um, Prince Fielder, for $200 million or whatever (and of course also keeping Maholm and Dempster through the deadline)

 

congratulations, your approach has us winning a more respectable 78 games this year, and facing a future with a very good 1B, but very little else in the way of young, valuable contributors, and significantly reduced financial flexibility

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yes. Our only choices were emptying the bullpen without replacements and tanking, or signing Prince Fielder to a $200 million contract.

 

If you really think those were our only two choices, I understand why you prefer the former.

 

The Cubs would have still had an entire young, cost-controlled middle infield. They still would have had that catcher everyone is pencilling in for 2013. They still would have had the 2011 draft class that everyone is excited about, including the skyrocketing Javier Baez. It's not like all their young players and farm system would have just shriveled up and died.

[sneakypower]

not all (obviously), but we'd be without arguably 3 of our current top-10 prospects, and our former #1 prospect who just graduated prospect status

 

and other current contributors of course

[Hairyducked Idiot]

not all (obviously), but we'd be without arguably 3 of our current top-10 prospects, and our former #1 prospect who just graduated prospect status

 

and other current contributors of course

 

And as I said, only one of those three is worth being upset about losing out on in the pursuit of actually winning baseball games. (And no, there's absolutely no reason why we'd have to give up on trading Cashner for Rizzo).

 

In the meantime, a few of the improved MLB players we fielded in this imaginary 2012 would have miraculously managed to be useful in 2013 and beyond, so we'd be set up better on that end.

[Guest]

not all (obviously), but we'd be without arguably 3 of our current top-10 prospects, and our former #1 prospect who just graduated prospect status

 

and other current contributors of course

 

And as I said, only one of those three is worth being upset about losing out on in the pursuit of actually winning baseball games. (And no, there's absolutely no reason why we'd have to give up on trading Cashner for Rizzo).

 

In the meantime, a few of the improved MLB players we fielded in this imaginary 2012 would have miraculously managed to be useful in 2013 and beyond, so we'd be set up better on that end.

There's a very good reason if pursuing wins this past offseason had included signing Fielder or Pujols.

 

Now, I think this executive team didn't believe in Cashner as a high-leverage reliever or starter. But I'm sure they would have been able to turn him to another org for a player that filled a different gap than Rizzo.