The 2012 Offseason Thread

[Fro]

That's asking for an awful lot to go right, and assuming that the CBA won't continue to restrict the financial advantages Dodger money would infer.

 

It's pretty Cub-like to be the last to the table on those sorts of competitive advantages, right as they are shut down.

 

I think the biggest thing to worry about would be the TV money thing going away before we can take advantage of it.

 

We should be fine in getting market value for the WGN games package, but it's the fact that the CSN Chicago ones that don't end until after 2019 that worry me. We may very well have ala carte TV channels by then.

 

Obviously you could get more $$$ for the whole package, so I'd expect them to sign a short-term deal for the TV rights to the WGN games.

[Guest]

I don't think Kyle has tunnel vision so much as he isn't huge on prospects.

 

I prefer to think of it as I put prospects in their proper perspective. I love prospects, I absolutely do.

 

But sometime in the last two years, a contingent of Cubs fans has declared prospects uber alles as their creed, taking it to an absurd degree such that mere trifles like Major League wins and losses are considered purely secondary concerns if they are even worth noticing at all.

 

Yeah, relative to them it probably seems like I hate prospects. And it probably seems that way even more because I'm not one of those "Oh man, once every single one of our A-ball guys hits the big-league lineup in two years, they'll all be all-stars!" guys.

 

But in reality, I love prospects truer than anyone, because I love them for what they truly are.

 

(how's *that* for a maelstrom)

 

I don't think there are too many of those around here. Maybe at PSD.

 

I just think that if you amass enough of them (which we have done over the past year at a pretty crazy rate), you will guarantee yourself x amount of very good young and cheap core pieces (2-3 of which we already have). It obviously doesn't take all of them panning out.

 

Plus, they have value as trade assets if you move some of them before they fail to pan out (obviously, your organization has to be pretty smart and lucky to be good at knowing which ones those would be).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Sure. We'll definitely be getting something out of this prospect-gasm. But will it be enough to justify the losing in the meantime? We'll see. Especially since we could have gotten a lot of them without losing.

 

Heck, this season we'll be fielding three pre-arbs in the everyday lineup, and could push in a fourth if he learns to hit a baseball. Plus three more pre-FA guys, plus a pre-arb starting pitcher.

[KingCubsFan]

I don't think Kyle has tunnel vision so much as he isn't huge on prospects.

 

I prefer to think of it as I put prospects in their proper perspective. I love prospects, I absolutely do.

 

But sometime in the last two years, a contingent of Cubs fans has declared prospects uber alles as their creed, taking it to an absurd degree such that mere trifles like Major League wins and losses are considered purely secondary concerns if they are even worth noticing at all.

 

Yeah, relative to them it probably seems like I hate prospects. And it probably seems that way even more because I'm not one of those "Oh man, once every single one of our A-ball guys hits the big-league lineup in two years, they'll all be all-stars!" guys.

 

But in reality, I love prospects truer than anyone, because I love them for what they truly are.

 

(how's *that* for a maelstrom)

I don't think anyone imagines every prospect will somehow turn out to be a major leaguer (except when SCS does his random 2015 lineup projections where we trade Rizzo because Vogelbach has cemented himself as an all-star). The point of prospects is to collect as many talented ones as possible, in order to maximize the chances that one or two will become big-time contributors to your team and you can trade others for major league talent.

 

We didn't have a good collection of top-end talent when Theo got here, both at the minor and major league levels. I know you and others on this board disagree with that, but most of the evidence has supported that perception. And collecting high-end talent takes time (and it's only gotten worse with the new CBA). When you get to a team where the cupboard is pretty bare, you can (a) take shots on undervalued guys for cheap, (b) get a bunch of prospects through the draft and IFA market, and © spend as much as possible on free agents. C is by far the most expensive and most damaging if it doesn't work out, so it's no surprise that a front office with a ton of job security has chosen to pretty much ignore that and focus on (a) and (b).

[SouthSideRyan]

I absolutely love the much needed baseball infrastructure upgrades (understatement) that have happened and are happening. I just wish we could make the major league team more watchable in the meanwhile (and maybe we are doing that).

 

Overall, though, I'm really happy with the direction of the organization.

 

Is this how most of the people feel?

Absolutely. The fact that they actually have a concrete plan and direction for the first time in 20+ years is refreshing. And it's nice to root for a team that actually has a front office/minor league infrastructure on par with the rest of the league and not lagging decades behind. The fact that they might lose a lot of games next year doesn't bother me at all, considering they were losing a lot of games before Theo got here.

 

I feel like that's taking it a bit far.

 

The fact that they have been losing lots of games recently shouldn't make it not matter to you that they lose now and in the short term future.

 

Saying we didn't have a plan or direction under MacPhail is also misleading.

[SouthSideRyan]

I absolutely love the much needed baseball infrastructure upgrades (understatement) that have happened and are happening. I just wish we could make the major league team more watchable in the meanwhile (and maybe we are doing that).

 

Overall, though, I'm really happy with the direction of the organization.

 

Is this how most of the people feel?

 

I'm on the fence. They screwed the pooch hard in 2012. They're halfway to something not-awful in 2013, but we'll see if they have the will and skill to finish that job. If they don't make some very savvy moves in the remaining half-offseason, they are putting themselves in an awfully bad spot for 2014 as well. But they make enough good moves that I get the impression that when they decide they want to turn it on, it might be impressive.

 

For 2015 and beyond, I'm sure we'll get to the point where the team is pretty good for an extended stretch. But I don't think the other teams in the division are going to just roll over and let us win six straight or anything, so I'm not sure we're actually going to get good bang for our buck ultimately. If you have something like 3 tanked seasons, then 4 division titles in 8 years, have you really come out ahead?

 

Definitely, because you're giving yourself a legitimate chance every year instead of just hoping things work out. If they're in the hunt, they can add pieces each year and the 2 wild cards always gives you another chance even if you don't win the division every year.

 

4 out of 11 is a miserable failure for this front office.

[SouthSideRyan]

Re: TV Money

 

It's ridiculous that we feel the need to wait until the WGN deal expires to spend the money we'll be getting from them? Like we can't project what kind of revenue bump is going to come with the new deal?

[Guest]

I absolutely love the much needed baseball infrastructure upgrades (understatement) that have happened and are happening. I just wish we could make the major league team more watchable in the meanwhile (and maybe we are doing that).

 

Overall, though, I'm really happy with the direction of the organization.

 

Is this how most of the people feel?

Absolutely. The fact that they actually have a concrete plan and direction for the first time in 20+ years is refreshing. And it's nice to root for a team that actually has a front office/minor league infrastructure on par with the rest of the league and not lagging decades behind. The fact that they might lose a lot of games next year doesn't bother me at all, considering they were losing a lot of games before Theo got here.

 

I feel like that's taking it a bit far.

 

The fact that they have been losing lots of games recently shouldn't make it not matter to you that they lose now and in the short term future.

 

Saying we didn't have a plan or direction under MacPhail is also misleading.

 

Yea. There definitely was a plan and direction.

 

 

I wonder how far behind the rest of baseball we were in the 90s in all of the stuff that we were super behind baseball in over the last 10 years, though. Not as much, because most of the rest of baseball wasn't near as advanced, but I feel like we have always been really far behind in player development, going back decades.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yea. There definitely was a plan and direction.

 

 

I wonder how far behind the rest of baseball we were in the 90s in all of the stuff that we were super behind baseball in over the last 10 years, though. Not as much, because most of the rest of baseball wasn't near as advanced, but I feel like we have always been really far behind in player development, going back decades.

 

Well, Andy's plan was to emulate the Braves. And his interpretation of how to emulate Atlanta was by drafting and developing pitchers and then acquiring established bats when they could. Those were his words. At a time when the great franchises were churning out great bats on a regular basis, the Cubs couldn't do that, but they also kind of weren't even trying. When they did venture into young hitters they focused on all the wrong things, the proverbial 5-tool athletes instead of baseball players. They actually did a fairly decent job of drafting and developing arms. They wanted hard throwers that could strike people out and they got those, for the most part. They were were absolute morons about bats though. Their willingness to focus on pitching prospects at the expense of hitters and their focus on ancient methods of evaluating hitters doomed their plan.

 

But they did have a plan.

[Guest]

Yea. There definitely was a plan and direction.

 

 

I wonder how far behind the rest of baseball we were in the 90s in all of the stuff that we were super behind baseball in over the last 10 years, though. Not as much, because most of the rest of baseball wasn't near as advanced, but I feel like we have always been really far behind in player development, going back decades.

 

Well, Andy's plan was to emulate the Braves. And his interpretation of how to emulate Atlanta was by drafting and developing pitchers and then acquiring established bats when they could. Those were his words. At a time when the great franchises were churning out great bats on a regular basis, the Cubs couldn't do that, but they also kind of weren't even trying. When they did venture into young hitters they focused on all the wrong things, the proverbial 5-tool athletes instead of baseball players. They actually did a fairly decent job of drafting and developing arms. They wanted hard throwers that could strike people out and they got those, for the most part. They were were absolute morons about bats though. Their willingness to focus on pitching prospects at the expense of hitters and their focus on ancient methods of evaluating hitters doomed their plan.

 

But they did have a plan.

 

I guess that's true. They drafted and developed Kerry Wood. Zambrano too. But Mark Prior was pretty much ready made. I guess Cruz was a viable major league arm.

[Guest]

Jayson StarkVerified

‏@jaysonst

Clubs pursuing Mike Adams say he could sign in next couple of days. Among teams linked to him: Nats, Jays, Phillies, Rangers, Cubs, Brewers

[Cubswin11]

Yea. There definitely was a plan and direction.

 

 

I wonder how far behind the rest of baseball we were in the 90s in all of the stuff that we were super behind baseball in over the last 10 years, though. Not as much, because most of the rest of baseball wasn't near as advanced, but I feel like we have always been really far behind in player development, going back decades.

 

Well, Andy's plan was to emulate the Braves. And his interpretation of how to emulate Atlanta was by drafting and developing pitchers and then acquiring established bats when they could. Those were his words. At a time when the great franchises were churning out great bats on a regular basis, the Cubs couldn't do that, but they also kind of weren't even trying. When they did venture into young hitters they focused on all the wrong things, the proverbial 5-tool athletes instead of baseball players. They actually did a fairly decent job of drafting and developing arms. They wanted hard throwers that could strike people out and they got those, for the most part. They were were absolute morons about bats though. Their willingness to focus on pitching prospects at the expense of hitters and their focus on ancient methods of evaluating hitters doomed their plan.

 

But they did have a plan.

 

I guess that's true. They drafted and developed Kerry Wood. Zambrano too. But Mark Prior was pretty much ready made. I guess Cruz was a viable major league arm.

Also, Marshall, Marmol, Guzman (the little bit he was healthy he looked like he could be awesome), Nolasco, Samardzija, sure I'm missing a guy or two. Plus you also have an acquisition like Dempster where he wasn't drafted but I think you could make an argument he was "developed" here.

[jersey cubs fan]

Garland as well. Farnsworth was already in the system when that regime took over, but they were in charge of his development from a 47th round pick to a guy who stuck in the big leagues for well over a decade.

 

They never should have tried the all pitching no hitting approach, but if they were, the last think they should have done is ever hire Dusty Baker. But that's another discussion.

 

They had a plan. It was just a bad plan.

[davell]

Obviously, I like the direction. The second part of Olney's quote had us possibly being ready to trade for David Price,next offseason. I'm all for making bigtime moves at that point, but we need to make an impact move(adding prospects or very young major leaguers) or two over the course of this offseason.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Want.

[mul21]

 

Definitely, because you're giving yourself a legitimate chance every year instead of just hoping things work out. If they're in the hunt, they can add pieces each year and the 2 wild cards always gives you another chance even if you don't win the division every year.

 

4 out of 11 is a miserable failure for this front office.

 

Well, that's a pretty terrible way of looking at it but ok. That is just division titles, not playoff appearances though. I'd be disappointed if it was 4/11 in playoff appearances but if you're looking at getting into the playoffs in 7 of 8 years after the rebuild, I'm fine with that.

 

I'm giving them 2 years of crap and then I expect to have a legitimate shot at post season in 2014. So if from 2014 until 2021 they make the playoffs 7 times, is it still a miserable failure?

[Guest]

Re: TV Money

 

It's ridiculous that we feel the need to wait until the WGN deal expires to spend the money we'll be getting from them? Like we can't project what kind of revenue bump is going to come with the new deal?

 

I think it's more complex than that. The team's uncertain burden for the Wrigley renovations might mitigate a lot of the WGN money considering what percentage of the total TV contract it is.

[Backtobanks]

My point was that I'm OK with losing now, given that the direction of the organization is heading upwards, whereas before it was pointing down. I'd obviously prefer they win, but it's easier to stomach the losses knowing that the team has a long-term vision that I agree with. Beforehand, each successive year was essentially a patch-up job attempting to copy last year's World Series winner (and listening to the whims of our managers) with the hope that, if everything went right, the team might be good.

 

It's definitely better. But I was hoping when we hired Epstein that we'd be aiming for slightly higher than "well, it's not as bad as the Tribune/MacPhail/Hendry era."

I think it's 1,000,000x better. But I guess if you have tunnel vision and are only looking at how many losses they had last year, I could see how you wouldn't be a fan of what they're doing.

 

I guess you're entitled to your opinion about being 1,000,000x better, but there is still a lot of uncertainty about the future. There are still a lot of question marks on the 2013 team and all of our top prospects are still very young and in the low minors. Also, the minors are severly lacking in pitching prospects for 2014 and beyond.

[Guest]

 

Definitely, because you're giving yourself a legitimate chance every year instead of just hoping things work out. If they're in the hunt, they can add pieces each year and the 2 wild cards always gives you another chance even if you don't win the division every year.

 

4 out of 11 is a miserable failure for this front office.

 

Well, that's a pretty terrible way of looking at it but ok. That is just division titles, not playoff appearances though. I'd be disappointed if it was 4/11 in playoff appearances but if you're looking at getting into the playoffs in 7 of 8 years after the rebuild, I'm fine with that.

 

I'm giving them 2 years of crap and then I expect to have a legitimate shot at post season in 2014. So if from 2014 until 2021 they make the playoffs 7 times, is it still a miserable failure?

 

Winning the division is hugely important, though. So those playoff appearances better be division title heavy.

[SouthSideRyan]

Re: TV Money

 

It's ridiculous that we feel the need to wait until the WGN deal expires to spend the money we'll be getting from them? Like we can't project what kind of revenue bump is going to come with the new deal?

 

I think it's more complex than that. The team's uncertain burden for the Wrigley renovations might mitigate a lot of the WGN money considering what percentage of the total TV contract it is.

 

So we can't spend money until 2019?

[davell]

This group took over an organization with basically zero pitching in the minors at any level. In one year, they added Vizcaino(ranked 40th by BA, pre-TJS), Paniagua(definite breakout candidate that likely hits AA in 2012), Pierce Johnson(2/3 upside thats likely to hit Daytona in 2013) Paul Blackburn(midrotation type thats advanced for his age and could move quick), and Duane Underwood(very raw, but plus makeup and likely the highest ceiling of anyone in the system). Hell, we've added more than that actually, that have chances to hit the rotation. At any rate, one more year of us adding another class like this and plenty of teams will be envious of our young pitching.

[davell]

Hypothetically, we "could" add Price or Felix and Upton or Stanton next offseason. Wouldn't even be clearing out the minors, in order to do it.

[Cubswin11]

Hypothetically, we "could" add Price or Felix and Upton or Stanton next offseason. Wouldn't even be clearing out the minors, in order to do it.

We'd come close though, probably. We'd likely have to give up at least 2 of Baez/Soler/Almora and whichever pitcher (assuming we have at least one) out of the Maples/Paniagua/Underwood/Johnson/etc. field has the best season and presumably became our best pitching prospect. Not that I'd have a problem giving up any of those guys for a Felix/Price/Stanton type player

[davell]

Upton will obviously cost much less than Stanton, not sure we could have much left over if he dealt for Price AND Stanton, but once you factor in another high pick in 2014, large IFA budget, and any talent we acquire in selloffs between now and then, its a possibility.

[Guest]

The Cubs continue to make investments in the international market and take chances on pitchers recovering from injuries.

 

Chang-Yong Lim spoke with reporters on Thursday at Incheon International Airport outside Seoul, South Korea, indicating he had a deal that could be worth $5 million over two years.

 

The Cubs have not commented on the reports, though sources said the money has been overstated, cautioning that if they close the deal, it would be a two-year minor-league contract that contains only a small amount guaranteed. It would not come with a spot on the 40-man roster.

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/cubs-talk/Taking-a-small-risk-Cubs-closing-in-on-C?blockID=813389&feedID=10336