Spending

[Tedward]

we have got to rebuild...i do not understand cubs fans who do not understand that this will be a bad team for another 2-3 years and then begin a complete culture change...

 

I do not understand fans who try to pretend they can't spend on the now and rebuild the system at the same time.

 

Maybe because it's better to completely suck. You get the advantage of getting a top draft choice which gives you a better chance of landing an impact talent. There is also an added benefit to sucking that gives you a higher international draft $ pool with which to work with which can also lead to signing more impact players.

 

What spending on the now do you want? Do you see any impact 27-29 yr old free agents hitting their prime that are available to sign, if so, I'm all for it...

[Backtobanks]

 

 

Also note, I'm not advocating the idea of having the MLB club sucking until they get the MiL players in place to come up, THEN starting to sign FA's. I do agree with gooney, there's no reason that both can't be done at the same time, at least to the point of keeping the team competitive and near or above .500. That much I am disappointed with. However, I'm also willing to wait and see what happens this year before complaining that they don't know what they're doing or intentionally scrapping multiple years to try to get high draft picks etc. There's enough out there available via trade and FA, and without killing what they've built so far in the minors, to at least put a competitive team on the field.

 

Actually this quote is almost exactly what I've posted dozens of times and not "Boy wonder sucks and doesn't know what he's doing. My evidence is that they lost 101 games." My argument has always been a disagreement with Theo's timeline. 2012 was historically bad and 2013 doesn't look a whole lot better. Most of our future players probably won't be in the ML until 2015, that leaves 2014 questionable. Now is the time to try to start filling some holes with young players that are rumored to be available in trades.

[questionmarkgrace]

I agree with the op. there is no reason they cant rebuild and field a decent team. This is true now more than ever because with the new rules capping international spending and draft spending its not like we can take money slotted for the major league team and restock the farm quickly in 1-2 years.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Maybe because it's better to completely suck. You get the advantage of getting a top draft choice which gives you a better chance of landing an impact talent. There is also an added benefit to sucking that gives you a higher international draft $ pool with which to work with which can also lead to signing more impact players.

 

You can't look at the upsides while ignoring the downsides. You waste the highly valuable pre-FA seasons of the young players you already have. You lose several of the very finite number of years you have to try to win the World Series. You take a revenue hit as fans begin to stop coming and watching. Your failure to fill in holes on the MLB roster can create problems for several years down the road.

[questionmarkgrace]

Maybe because it's better to completely suck. You get the advantage of getting a top draft choice which gives you a better chance of landing an impact talent. There is also an added benefit to sucking that gives you a higher international draft $ pool with which to work with which can also lead to signing more impact players.

 

You can't look at the upsides while ignoring the downsides. You waste the highly valuable pre-FA seasons of the young players you already have. You lose several of the very finite number of years you have to try to win the World Series. You take a revenue hit as fans begin to stop coming and watching. Your failure to fill in holes on the MLB roster can create problems for several years down the road.

 

2012 was the lowest cubs attendance in ten years. It will lower again if the cubs dont make any legitimate improvements at the major league level.

[jersey cubs fan]

Maybe because it's better to completely suck. You get the advantage of getting a top draft choice which gives you a better chance of landing an impact talent. There is also an added benefit to sucking that gives you a higher international draft $ pool with which to work with which can also lead to signing more impact players.

 

You can't look at the upsides while ignoring the downsides. You waste the highly valuable pre-FA seasons of the young players you already have. You lose several of the very finite number of years you have to try to win the World Series. You take a revenue hit as fans begin to stop coming and watching. Your failure to fill in holes on the MLB roster can create problems for several years down the road.

 

Not to mention you institutionalize a culture of accepting losing and not even trying to win.

[Little Slide Rooter]

As the OP insinuates, entertainment does factor into it. Professional sports is a form of entertainment. I'm 100% for building a top notch farm system. However, when most fans pay to see a game in 2013, they're not paying for the promise of a World Series in 2016, they want to watch this team win. This isn't to say that every team should turn into the Yankees or Dodgers, but no team should be built so that they can safely assume that they'll lose more games than they win before the season begins. Especially in the Cub's financial situation, there's no excuse not to make some quality additions without burdensome contracts. Passing on Fielder and Pujols at their outrageous prices was logical. However, if there are players that can help make this a better team in the next 1-3 years, there's no reason not to drop a few contracts in the 3/45-5/65 range over the next few years, assuming they're attached to the right players.

[KingCubsFan]

Maybe because it's better to completely suck. You get the advantage of getting a top draft choice which gives you a better chance of landing an impact talent. There is also an added benefit to sucking that gives you a higher international draft $ pool with which to work with which can also lead to signing more impact players.

 

You can't look at the upsides while ignoring the downsides. You waste the highly valuable pre-FA seasons of the young players you already have. You lose several of the very finite number of years you have to try to win the World Series. You take a revenue hit as fans begin to stop coming and watching. Your failure to fill in holes on the MLB roster can create problems for several years down the road.

 

Not to mention you institutionalize a culture of accepting losing and not even trying to win.

Thank goodness the Cubs franchise has never had that perception!

 

And losing fans for a few years and sliding down a bit in attendance doesn't really matter. There's no question they'll all come back as soon as the Cubs show a glimpse of being good.

[Sammy Sofa]

Maybe because it's better to completely suck. You get the advantage of getting a top draft choice which gives you a better chance of landing an impact talent. There is also an added benefit to sucking that gives you a higher international draft $ pool with which to work with which can also lead to signing more impact players.

 

You can't look at the upsides while ignoring the downsides. You waste the highly valuable pre-FA seasons of the young players you already have. You lose several of the very finite number of years you have to try to win the World Series. You take a revenue hit as fans begin to stop coming and watching. Your failure to fill in holes on the MLB roster can create problems for several years down the road.

 

Not to mention you institutionalize a culture of accepting losing and not even trying to win.

Thank goodness the Cubs franchise has never had that perception!

 

And losing fans for a few years and sliding down a bit in attendance doesn't really matter. There's no question they'll all come back as soon as the Cubs show a glimpse of being good.

 

To me that actually goes beyond some kind of question as to fans "accepting losing" or not; I really don't care about that. My concern is when it comes to trying to sign FA. Yes, money does most of the talking, but you can't totally dismiss how a bad, bad team is going to impact a player's choice when he's getting other competitive offers.

[jersey cubs fan]

Not to mention you institutionalize a culture of accepting losing and not even trying to win.

Thank goodness the Cubs franchise has never had that perception!

 

It's not a matter of perception, but reality. The Cubs actively tried to lose last year. They not only accepted it but sought it out. There may have been a perception of the Cubs as lovable losers, but from at least the mid-80's through a couple years ago they were trying really hard to win. The payroll went from middle of the pack to top of the NL and among the highest in baseball. They just really sucked at what they were trying to do. When you actively take a dive as management and you stay on the ground for a prolonged period of time you risk institutionalizing an acceptance of failure. And it's not about the fans, but the organization itself.

[Guest]

Not to mention you institutionalize a culture of accepting losing and not even trying to win.

Thank goodness the Cubs franchise has never had that perception!

 

It's not a matter of perception, but reality. The Cubs actively tried to lose last year. They not only accepted it but sought it out. There may have been a perception of the Cubs as lovable losers, but from at least the mid-80's through a couple years ago they were trying really hard to win. The payroll went from middle of the pack to top of the NL and among the highest in baseball. They just really sucked at what they were trying to do. When you actively take a dive as management and you stay on the ground for a prolonged period of time you risk institutionalizing an acceptance of failure. And it's not about the fans, but the organization itself.

 

This is the definition of absurd.

[jersey cubs fan]

Not to mention you institutionalize a culture of accepting losing and not even trying to win.

Thank goodness the Cubs franchise has never had that perception!

 

It's not a matter of perception, but reality. The Cubs actively tried to lose last year. They not only accepted it but sought it out. There may have been a perception of the Cubs as lovable losers, but from at least the mid-80's through a couple years ago they were trying really hard to win. The payroll went from middle of the pack to top of the NL and among the highest in baseball. They just really sucked at what they were trying to do. When you actively take a dive as management and you stay on the ground for a prolonged period of time you risk institutionalizing an acceptance of failure. And it's not about the fans, but the organization itself.

 

This is the definition of absurd.

 

Oh, so you're denying they took a dive? I didn't think anybody was still pretending otherwise.

[KingCubsFan]

Maybe because it's better to completely suck. You get the advantage of getting a top draft choice which gives you a better chance of landing an impact talent. There is also an added benefit to sucking that gives you a higher international draft $ pool with which to work with which can also lead to signing more impact players.

 

You can't look at the upsides while ignoring the downsides. You waste the highly valuable pre-FA seasons of the young players you already have. You lose several of the very finite number of years you have to try to win the World Series. You take a revenue hit as fans begin to stop coming and watching. Your failure to fill in holes on the MLB roster can create problems for several years down the road.

 

Not to mention you institutionalize a culture of accepting losing and not even trying to win.

Thank goodness the Cubs franchise has never had that perception!

 

And losing fans for a few years and sliding down a bit in attendance doesn't really matter. There's no question they'll all come back as soon as the Cubs show a glimpse of being good.

 

To me that actually goes beyond some kind of question as to fans "accepting losing" or not; I really don't care about that. My concern is when it comes to trying to sign FA. Yes, money does most of the talking, but you can't totally dismiss how a bad, bad team is going to impact a player's choice when he's getting other competitive offers.

I still believe that, for most players, it's all about money so that doesn't really bother me either. If a player cares about more than money, the Cubs must have some strengths given how many players have either refused to waive their no-trade clause or have needed some persuading (Ramirez, Soriano, Marmol, Dempster) despite the fact that we've sucked. Plus we signed multiple free agents last year despite the fact that everyone knew we were rebuilding. If a player truly cares about more than money, I'm confident our front office can sell them on the long-term vision for the team.

[davell]

Wasn't the general perception around here heading into 2012, was that we were likely a low 70's win team?

[KingCubsFan]

Not to mention you institutionalize a culture of accepting losing and not even trying to win.

Thank goodness the Cubs franchise has never had that perception!

 

It's not a matter of perception, but reality. The Cubs actively tried to lose last year. They not only accepted it but sought it out. There may have been a perception of the Cubs as lovable losers, but from at least the mid-80's through a couple years ago they were trying really hard to win. The payroll went from middle of the pack to top of the NL and among the highest in baseball. They just really sucked at what they were trying to do. When you actively take a dive as management and you stay on the ground for a prolonged period of time you risk institutionalizing an acceptance of failure. And it's not about the fans, but the organization itself.

Kudos to them for "trying really hard." They were terrible at it. I'd argue that this front office is "trying harder" than any front office we've ever had before, as they're the only ones who seem committed to sustained success. Who exactly are you referring to when you talk about "institutionalizing an acceptance of failure?" It's clearly not the front office. The minor leaguers? I'd imagine they're working harder on improving than ever before, given the renewed focus by management on all of them. The major leaguers that will only be here one or two more years? They're fighting for jobs. Castro and Rizzo? I doubt Castro would sign an extension if he thought this organization was headed nowhere.

 

"Institutionalizing" and "accepting" failure are things Jay Mariotti or Phil Rogers would throw around when complaining about the Cubs not signing more free agents. There's nothing like that going on. This organization was decades behind the pack when Theo took over, so there's work that's had to be done up and down the entire organization. Losing 90 or 100 games for two seasons isn't going to set back anything. We lost a ton of games for two years before Theo took over with a huge payroll.

[Guest]

Not to mention you institutionalize a culture of accepting losing and not even trying to win.

Thank goodness the Cubs franchise has never had that perception!

 

It's not a matter of perception, but reality. The Cubs actively tried to lose last year. They not only accepted it but sought it out. There may have been a perception of the Cubs as lovable losers, but from at least the mid-80's through a couple years ago they were trying really hard to win. The payroll went from middle of the pack to top of the NL and among the highest in baseball. They just really sucked at what they were trying to do. When you actively take a dive as management and you stay on the ground for a prolonged period of time you risk institutionalizing an acceptance of failure. And it's not about the fans, but the organization itself.

 

This is the definition of absurd.

 

Oh, so you're denying they took a dive? I didn't think anybody was still pretending otherwise.

 

You said they actively sought out losing. They put together a team that could've been competitive if some things went right (i.e. if the bullpen wasn't completely awful, if Ian Stewart had a bounceback...).

 

Soto and Byrd ended up worse than anybody could have imagined. So did the bullpen. Stewart was a miss. It took selling off in July for this team to be as bad as it ended up.

[XZero771679666304]

Not to mention you institutionalize a culture of accepting losing and not even trying to win.

Thank goodness the Cubs franchise has never had that perception!

 

It's not a matter of perception, but reality. The Cubs actively tried to lose last year. They not only accepted it but sought it out. There may have been a perception of the Cubs as lovable losers, but from at least the mid-80's through a couple years ago they were trying really hard to win. The payroll went from middle of the pack to top of the NL and among the highest in baseball. They just really sucked at what they were trying to do. When you actively take a dive as management and you stay on the ground for a prolonged period of time you risk institutionalizing an acceptance of failure. And it's not about the fans, but the organization itself.

 

This is the definition of absurd.

 

I agree, it's hogwash. If they had been determined to lose as much as possible, to really drive the 2012 season into the ground, their initial plan could have been much, much better, and they could have achieved their other goals as well. The team that broke camp was not a 100-loss team, and it very easily could have been had Garza, Dempster and Marmol been traded before the season. The very easily could have left Rizzo in AAA, too.

 

That said, they didn't assign any importance to winning in 2012, either. Their primary mission seemed to be acquiring as much young talent as possible, preferably in exchange for older players and expiring contracts, as well as assessing the younger talent already in the system. If the team lost a ton, well, so much the better. They didn't care to win in 2012, but to say they tried to put as bad a product on the field as possible is just drama queenery.

[Sammy Sofa]

I still believe that, for most players, it's all about money so that doesn't really bother me either. If a player cares about more than money, the Cubs must have some strengths given how many players have either refused to waive their no-trade clause or have needed some persuading (Ramirez, Soriano, Marmol, Dempster) despite the fact that we've sucked. Plus we signed multiple free agents last year despite the fact that everyone knew we were rebuilding. If a player truly cares about more than money, I'm confident our front office can sell them on the long-term vision for the team.

 

Where did I say that nobody would sign as a FA? Unless you're arguing that, pointing that were simply to sign FA isn't much of a point; you're always going to find players willing to sign, but it can hurt you when you're trying to sign more critical players who are having competitive offers. Look at the recent international FA discussion and people bringing up/wondering why Puig signed with the Dodgers despite the Cubs reportedly offering more money. Players that are in demand are going to have the luxury to turn down an extra year from the Cubs or an extra few million dollars to go to a more competitive team.

 

Again, not saying it's a problem that's epidemic, but actively fostering a losing/rebuilding team can make it more difficult to sign the players you want.

[Guest]

 

I agree, it's hogwash. If they had been determined to lose as much as possible, to really drive the 2012 season into the ground, their initial plan could have been much, much better, and they could have achieved their other goals as well. The team that broke camp was not a 100-loss team, and it very easily could have been had Garza, Dempster and Marmol been traded before the season. The very easily could have left Rizzo in AAA, too.

 

That said, they didn't assign any importance to winning in 2012, either. Their primary mission seemed to be acquiring as much young talent as possible, preferably in exchange for older players and expiring contracts, as well as assessing the younger talent already in the system. If the team lost a ton, well, so much the better. They didn't care to win in 2012, but to say they tried to put as bad a product on the field as possible is just drama queenery.

 

Pretty much what I'm trying to say.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The likelihood that we weren't trying to lose makes some of our front office's decisions even less palatable. "It's OK, we weren't *trying* to put together an amazing array of sub-replacement players. It just happened. You can still trust us in the future."

[jersey cubs fan]

The team that broke camp was not a 100-loss team,

 

That's such a stupid pointless comment. People clung to the notion of how ridiculous it was to think this team could lose 100 games this year until they lost 100 games. They put together a crap team that was designed to lose, and it lost. The fact that they kept Garza doesn't change that fact at all. They planned on trading him when they thought they could get peak return and missed an opportunity due to injury. They kept Rizzo at AAA longer than he needed because they were not interested in getting the most they could out of the 2012 team.

 

 

The notion that some people still pretend that they didn't take a dive this year is mind boggling. I don't know if you need to pretend that isn't the case to convince yourself of something else, but they took a dive. Everybody knows it.

[XZero771679666304]

The likelihood that we weren't trying to lose makes some of our front office's decisions even less palatable. "It's OK, we weren't *trying* to put together an amazing array of sub-replacement players. It just happened. You can still trust us in the future."

 

They weren't trying to win, either. It seems fair to say that after the new CBA was in place and given the state of the roster, they decided that they couldn't put a winning product on the field in 2012 and still serve their larger goal of overhauling the foundation. So, they didn't attempt to. If they felt like they could have won in 2012 and achieved their other goals, they would have attempted to. But as it was, they judged it was too unlikely a scenario to plan for, and I don't begrudge them for it.

 

Things didn't get really ugly (the carousel of retreads) until after the deadline, when there really wasn't much else that could have been done.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You said they actively sought out losing. They put together a team that could've been competitive if some things went right (i.e. if the bullpen wasn't completely awful, if Ian Stewart had a bounceback...).

 

Soto and Byrd ended up worse than anybody could have imagined. So did the bullpen. Stewart was a miss. It took selling off in July for this team to be as bad as it ended up.

 

Man, the team would have had a chance to be good if not for all those terrible players they had...

[Guest]

You said they actively sought out losing. They put together a team that could've been competitive if some things went right (i.e. if the bullpen wasn't completely awful, if Ian Stewart had a bounceback...).

 

Soto and Byrd ended up worse than anybody could have imagined. So did the bullpen. Stewart was a miss. It took selling off in July for this team to be as bad as it ended up.

 

Man, the team would have had a chance to be good if not for all those terrible players they had...

 

Why is it OK to be a troll on this forum as long as you root for the Cubs?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If they felt like they could have won in 2012 and achieved their other goals, they would have attempted to.

 

Disagree. This wasn't about what they thought was or wasn't best for the franchise as it was when they took over. This was about trying something they'd always wanted to try and finding an owner willing to let them do it.