Cubs sign Scott Feldman

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It wasn't really within the range of variance. It took trading away Dempster and Maholm (among others) and giving their spots to garbage pitchers for that to happen.

 

That's variance. And they've more or less promised to do it again at some point, which probably means this coming season.

[Guest]

It wasn't really within the range of variance. It took trading away Dempster and Maholm (among others) and giving their spots to garbage pitchers for that to happen.

 

That's variance. And they've more or less promised to do it again at some point, which probably means this coming season.

 

 

That's ridiculous.

 

I guess 130 losses is within the range of variance next year because they might trade the entire major league roster and bring up the I-Cubs.

 

Making the decision to trade away the short term assets they could convert to long term assets is not variance that takes a 75 win roster to a 60 win roster. It's just a decision that was made given results that were on the low end of the range of variance.

Edited November 27, 2012 by David

[jersey cubs fan]

Even Cameron, the author of that article though, is liking what we're doing though.

 

Who the F cares if he likes it or not? Paying customers who care how the team performs should care that the team hasn't tried to win yet and doesn't look poised to win for a while.

[jersey cubs fan]

It wasn't really within the range of variance. It took trading away Dempster and Maholm (among others) and giving their spots to garbage pitchers for that to happen.

 

That's variance. And they've more or less promised to do it again at some point, which probably means this coming season.

 

 

That's ridiculous.

 

I guess 140 losses is within the range of variance next year because they might trade the entire major league roster and bring up the I-Cubs.

 

That's ridiculous because last year's team was certainly capable of losing 100 games and they did, while 140 losses is a whole different ballgame.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It wasn't really within the range of variance. It took trading away Dempster and Maholm (among others) and giving their spots to garbage pitchers for that to happen.

 

That's variance. And they've more or less promised to do it again at some point, which probably means this coming season.

 

 

That's ridiculous.

 

I guess 140 losses is within the range of variance next year because they might trade the entire major league roster and bring up the I-Cubs.

 

If they continue their current pattern of roster decisions, I'm not sure that wouldn't be an improvement.

[Guest]

It wasn't really within the range of variance. It took trading away Dempster and Maholm (among others) and giving their spots to garbage pitchers for that to happen.

 

That's variance. And they've more or less promised to do it again at some point, which probably means this coming season.

 

 

That's ridiculous.

 

I guess 140 losses is within the range of variance next year because they might trade the entire major league roster and bring up the I-Cubs.

 

That's ridiculous because last year's team was certainly capable of losing 100 games and they did, while 140 losses is a whole different ballgame.

 

 

Last year's team was not going to lose 100 games if they hadn't traded Dempster and Maholm (and lost Garza to injury). The former two were (as would've been trading Garza if they could've) a decision that was made by the front office. It wasn't variance.

[Guest]

Even Cameron, the author of that article though, is liking what we're doing though.

 

Who the F cares if he likes it or not? Paying customers who care how the team performs should care that the team hasn't tried to win yet and doesn't look poised to win for a while.

 

He's saying that the author (who I don't particularly like, as if that matters) of the article that Kyle used as an indictment of what the Cubs are doing thinks the Cubs are making smart moves and are doing the right thing. Clearly there is a disconnect there, and it's more than likely on Kyle's end.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The chance to do deadline deals and shoot to an extreme is most definitely part of the variance between projections and reality. It's the same as knowing that it's OK to be an 81-win team because if variance gets you close, you can add at the deadline.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

He's saying that the author (who I don't particularly like, as if that matters) of the article that Kyle used as an indictment of what the Cubs are doing thinks the Cubs are making smart moves and are doing the right thing. Clearly there is a disconnect there, and it's more than likely on Kyle's end.

 

I was using it more as an indictment on Cubs fans.

[Guest]

The chance to do deadline deals and shoot to an extreme is most definitely part of the variance between projections and reality. It's the same as knowing that it's OK to be an 81-win team because if variance gets you close, you can add at the deadline.

 

No. The team as constructed has a range within which they can reasonably be expected to perform. If they substantially alter what the team is, that's not variance. That's changing the composition of the team and changing the expectation for it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The chance to do deadline deals and shoot to an extreme is most definitely part of the variance between projections and reality. It's the same as knowing that it's OK to be an 81-win team because if variance gets you close, you can add at the deadline.

 

No. The team as constructed has a range within which they can reasonably be expected to perform. If they substantially alter what the team is, that's not variance. That's changing the composition of the team and changing the expectation for it.

 

It's reasonable to expect teams to change around the trade deadline. I'd go as far as to say it's unreasonable to not expect it.

 

But it's semantic quibbling at this point. Who cares whether it counts as "variance" or not? It happened and it might happen again.

[jersey cubs fan]

The chance to do deadline deals and shoot to an extreme is most definitely part of the variance between projections and reality. It's the same as knowing that it's OK to be an 81-win team because if variance gets you close, you can add at the deadline.

 

No. The team as constructed has a range within which they can reasonably be expected to perform. If they substantially alter what the team is, that's not variance. That's changing the composition of the team and changing the expectation for it.

 

That's nonsense. Teams don't finish seasons exactly how they start them. The Cubs went into that season with every intention of dealing away as many veterans as possible for prospects. That was the goal. It was painfully obvious. The opening day team stunk and it just got worse and worse. It doesn't matter what the opening day roster "projected to win". They were never going to go through the season with that opening day roster.

[sneakypower]

If the 2014 rotation is Shark, Wood and one year flotsam

[expletive] FINALLY you are starting to realize the gaping pit of emptiness that was left over from the previous regime, and the unavoidable long-lasting effects it will have

 

we aren't going to try to compete until 2015 which is ridiculous.

[expletive] everything

[sneakypower]

There's no way of telling what Epstein has in mind for 2012-2014, but with all of the money and effort put into assembling the FO, I can't imagine that we'll still look like the Pirates by the halfway mark in Epstein's contract.

 

He signed for five offseasons and we're halfway through the second. Clock's ticking to not be the Pirates.

TIL 36 days is half a year

[Guest]

The chance to do deadline deals and shoot to an extreme is most definitely part of the variance between projections and reality. It's the same as knowing that it's OK to be an 81-win team because if variance gets you close, you can add at the deadline.

 

No. The team as constructed has a range within which they can reasonably be expected to perform. If they substantially alter what the team is, that's not variance. That's changing the composition of the team and changing the expectation for it.

 

That's nonsense. Teams don't finish seasons exactly how they start them. The Cubs went into that season with every intention of dealing away as many veterans as possible for prospects. That was the goal. It was painfully obvious. The opening day team stunk and it just got worse and worse. It doesn't matter what the opening day roster "projected to win". They were never going to go through the season with that opening day roster.

 

Had the team performed on the high end of what could've been projected, they would not have sold. Why do you continue to act like that wasn't a possibility just because the opposite happened?

[Guest]

There's no way of telling what Epstein has in mind for 2012-2014, but with all of the money and effort put into assembling the FO, I can't imagine that we'll still look like the Pirates by the halfway mark in Epstein's contract.

 

He signed for five offseasons and we're halfway through the second. Clock's ticking to not be the Pirates.

TIL 36 days is half a year

 

 

He meant half an offseason, which is still disingenuous at best.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Had the team performed on the high end of what could've been projected, they would not have sold. Why do you continue to act like that wasn't a possibility just because the opposite happened?

 

OK. So because something different might have happened, what did happen wasn't within the range of possibilities? Your stance on this is very odd.

[jersey cubs fan]

Had the team performed on the high end of what could've been projected, they would not have sold. Why do you continue to act like that wasn't a possibility just because the opposite happened?

 

A) Only an idiot expects a team to perform at the high end of their expectations.

B) They made it perfectly clear their number 1 goal was to trade veterans for prospects.

C) The higher end of realistic projects by non-morons wasn't high in the first place.

 

I'm not "acting" like anything. Rather I am actually living in the real world where the Cubs took an obvious dive last year and lost a lot of games as result. It wasn't luck that did them in, it was not trying to win games in the first place. The fact that the team at the end of the season was worse than the opening day roster was not a result of a weird series of events, it was the whole goddam point in the first place.

[Guest]

Had the team performed on the high end of what could've been projected, they would not have sold. Why do you continue to act like that wasn't a possibility just because the opposite happened?

 

OK. So because something different might have happened, what did happen wasn't within the range of possibilities? Your stance on this is very odd.

 

Actively deciding to do something with no regard to the subsequent performance and that drastically alters said performance is not variance. It's silly to pretend like it is. If you do, everything is within the range of variance.

 

The whole point of bringing up the subject is to project how the team, within a reasonable range of how it was constructed, performed. They then threw said projections out the window because they didn't care how it performed. It's not the same projection. It's a brand new projection at that point.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Actively deciding to do something with no regard to the subsequent performance and that drastically alters said performance is not variance. It's silly to pretend like it is. If you do, everything is within the range of variance.

 

Well, yes, that's what variance means. But in this case, it's not some far flung remote possibility like a ball quantum tunneling through Starlin Castro's glove. It was a very realistic possibility of a series of events that would cause the team's performance to vary from the projection. Variance.

 

The whole point of bringing up the subject is to project how the team, within a reasonable range of how it was constructed, performed. They then threw said projections out the window because they didn't care how it performed. It's not the same projection. It's a brand new projection at that point.

 

When you put out a team that projects to mid-70s wins, you are implicitly accepting the possibility that you will dismantle them at the trade deadline and lose 100 games.

[Guest]

Had the team performed on the high end of what could've been projected, they would not have sold. Why do you continue to act like that wasn't a possibility just because the opposite happened?

 

A) Only an idiot expects a team to perform at the high end of their expectations.

B) They made it perfectly clear their number 1 goal was to trade veterans for prospects.

C) The higher end of realistic projects by non-morons wasn't high in the first place.

 

I'm not "acting" like anything. Rather I am actually living in the real world where the Cubs took an obvious dive last year and lost a lot of games as result. It wasn't luck that did them in, it was not trying to win games in the first place. The fact that the team at the end of the season was worse than the opening day roster was not a result of a weird series of events, it was the whole goddam point in the first place.

 

 

A - Cool. Who is doing that, again?

 

You realize that the same could and should be said about the low end of their expectations? Because that's what happened. The team performed on the far low end. And still wouldn't have lost 100 games had they not traded away half of what was good about the team.

 

B - No, they didn't. They said, and said again this year, that if things go right, they'll keep the team together. If things go wrong, they'll sell.

 

C - Most of those non-morons (including myself) had this team somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 wins. That's the projection, not the high end of the projection.

Edited November 27, 2012 by David

[Cubswin11]

Had the team performed on the high end of what could've been projected, they would not have sold. Why do you continue to act like that wasn't a possibility just because the opposite happened?

 

A) Only an idiot expects a team to perform at the high end of their expectations.

B) They made it perfectly clear their number 1 goal was to trade veterans for prospects.

C) The higher end of realistic projects by non-morons wasn't high in the first place.

 

I'm not "acting" like anything. Rather I am actually living in the real world where the Cubs took an obvious dive last year and lost a lot of games as result. It wasn't luck that did them in, it was not trying to win games in the first place. The fact that the team at the end of the season was worse than the opening day roster was not a result of a weird series of events, it was the whole goddam point in the first place.

Not arguing against any of this, but an argument could be made that the Team/Organization as a whole was a lot better and in stronger condition long term at the end of the year than it was at the begining.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Not arguing against any of this, but an argument could be made that the Team/Organization as a whole was a lot better and in stronger condition long term at the end of the year than it was at the begining.

 

The organization was, sure. But when the goal is to win the World Series, the state of the MLB roster means more than the rest of the organization combined.

[sneakypower]

There's no way of telling what Epstein has in mind for 2012-2014, but with all of the money and effort put into assembling the FO, I can't imagine that we'll still look like the Pirates by the halfway mark in Epstein's contract.

 

He signed for five offseasons and we're halfway through the second. Clock's ticking to not be the Pirates.

TIL 36 days is half a year

 

 

He meant half an offseason, which is still disingenuous at best.

OK my mistake, i hadn't really realized that Theo goes water skiing in Cape Cod Bay all spring and summer long; seems like a weird contract stipulation

Edited November 27, 2012 by sneakypower

[jersey cubs fan]

You realize that the same could and should be said about the low end of their expectations, and that's what happened. The team performed on the far low end. And still wouldn't have lost 100 games had they not traded away half of what was good about the team.

 

No actually, it cannot. Your theoretical projections assume the team is trying to win. They were not. They never were. They fielded a team that would be bad enough to justify further selling off at the trade deadline. The fact that they may have projected to win 70 games on opening day doesn't change the fact that they were going to sell off veterans whenever possible, it is completely disingenuous to now pretend that wasn't their plan.