Re: Projecting the 2013 Cubs

[Backtobanks]

 

It depends on what you view as fail. If he were to put together another high priced Frankenstein's Monster, then that would hurt. But if he were to move on at the end of his contract, and at the time we're still sub .500 but have a top 10 farm system with several of his draft picks and acquired prospects filtering through and contributing at the big league level, then he still comes off looking prett good. I suppose it depends on how he were to leave. If it were ownership making the decision, he may well get the benefit of the doubt that the team was in too sad of a shape, and a lot of people may even give him the "victim of the Cubs" card. However, if ownership wanted to keep him around but be chose to move on, that would look worse for him, and he could be accused of not being willing to finish what he started.

 

We should remember that Theo chose this route. Ricketts pretty much handed him the keys, and rather than going after any of the high profile free agents he opted to level the place and build from the ground.

 

I can't see how "we're still sub .500 but have a top 10 farm system with several of his draft picks and acquired prospects filtering through and contributing at the big league level, then he still comes off looking pretty good" makes sense. He was hired to a 5-year contract to win a WS (or at least get us to the WS and be a solid, perennial contender). This is the biggest market team in a weak, winnable division and Theo was given complete autonomy. If this team is still below .500 next year, then we need to realize we've been sold some snake oil.

[Tracer Bullet]

You can also look at it from the standpoint that Hendry still has close to 40 mill tied up in Soriano, Marmol, and Garza alone. Those 3 account for over 35% of our payroll. At least we'll see Marmol drop off, Garza too or become part of Theo's decision at least, and with how we're playing Soriano is likely begging to be dealt.

 

Well, technically, Epstein could have non-tendered Garza, right?

 

If we're counting those players, throw in Castro, Samardzija and Barney. Those seven in aggregate are worth what they are getting paid, I'd imagine.

 

It's one thing to argue that we're bad because Epstein has decided it's worth it to be bad for some long-term plan. But we're far past the point where we can say that we're bad because the front office didn't inherit enough from Hendry. They've had two offseasons now to build a team that they wanted, and they've done so.

 

[expletive]

[SouthSideRyan]

Jim Hendry really ruined this organization more than people thought. His lack of success in the draft and the Soriano contract has really tied the hands of the club.

 

I think/hope/pray Theo can right the ship.

 

By my count, 19 of the 25 men on the current active roster were either acquired or promoted to the roster by the Epstein/Hoyer regime. It's time they start getting the credit for what's happening.

 

Promoted to?? What a weird qualifier. By my count there's only one guy who falls under that. (Castillo) You know that I think this is a hideous plan they've enacted, but you don't think the fact that we've had to turn over 2/3 of the roster in 2 years lends credence to the fact that the roster he was handed sucked?

[Sammy Sofa]

 

It depends on what you view as fail. If he were to put together another high priced Frankenstein's Monster, then that would hurt. But if he were to move on at the end of his contract, and at the time we're still sub .500 but have a top 10 farm system with several of his draft picks and acquired prospects filtering through and contributing at the big league level, then he still comes off looking prett good. I suppose it depends on how he were to leave. If it were ownership making the decision, he may well get the benefit of the doubt that the team was in too sad of a shape, and a lot of people may even give him the "victim of the Cubs" card. However, if ownership wanted to keep him around but be chose to move on, that would look worse for him, and he could be accused of not being willing to finish what he started.

 

We should remember that Theo chose this route. Ricketts pretty much handed him the keys, and rather than going after any of the high profile free agents he opted to level the place and build from the ground.

 

I can't see how "we're still sub .500 but have a top 10 farm system with several of his draft picks and acquired prospects filtering through and contributing at the big league level, then he still comes off looking pretty good" makes sense. He was hired to a 5-year contract to win a WS (or at least get us to the WS and be a solid, perennial contender). This is the biggest market team in a weak, winnable division and Theo was given complete autonomy. If this team is still below .500 next year, then we need to realize we've been sold some snake oil.

 

"Sold some snake oil?" What? They're not trying to trick or scam anyone.

[davell]

Damn whippersnappers! Think they're the bees knees with their giant calculators and electronical thingamajigs.

[Little Slide Rooter]

 

It depends on what you view as fail. If he were to put together another high priced Frankenstein's Monster, then that would hurt. But if he were to move on at the end of his contract, and at the time we're still sub .500 but have a top 10 farm system with several of his draft picks and acquired prospects filtering through and contributing at the big league level, then he still comes off looking prett good. I suppose it depends on how he were to leave. If it were ownership making the decision, he may well get the benefit of the doubt that the team was in too sad of a shape, and a lot of people may even give him the "victim of the Cubs" card. However, if ownership wanted to keep him around but be chose to move on, that would look worse for him, and he could be accused of not being willing to finish what he started.

 

We should remember that Theo chose this route. Ricketts pretty much handed him the keys, and rather than going after any of the high profile free agents he opted to level the place and build from the ground.

 

I can't see how "we're still sub .500 but have a top 10 farm system with several of his draft picks and acquired prospects filtering through and contributing at the big league level, then he still comes off looking pretty good" makes sense. He was hired to a 5-year contract to win a WS (or at least get us to the WS and be a solid, perennial contender). This is the biggest market team in a weak, winnable division and Theo was given complete autonomy. If this team is still below .500 next year, then we need to realize we've been sold some snake oil.

 

"Sold some snake oil?" What? They're not trying to trick or scam anyone.

 

He's getting at Epstein and Co. being viewed as scam artist. A Harold Hill/The Great Oz type.

 

To play devils advocate, if anyone was "selling snake oil" it would be Ricketts. He's the one who jumped through so many hoops to get Epstein as his big signing. Epstein just accepted the un-refuseable offer. Everyone assumed that he'd do pretty much what Jim Hendry would have done; launched buckets of money at Pujols, Ramirez, Darvish, Wilson, and anyone else within range as well as produce our own Pedroia, Lester, Ellsbury, etc. Meanwhile, the fact that Epstein inherited a perenial 90 game winner to build off of didn't seem to register. As I recall, Epstein spent that entire off season preaching that he wabnted to go young, and we probably wouldn't be where we want to be for several years, but fans chose to ignore that, expecting him to Ninja Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder for a 3/75 contract. Again, not his fault.

 

If anything, his chosen route isn't to scam anyone so much as do what Andrew Friedman did; create a team that when all is said and done is 100% his. A monument to himself so to speak. Depending on how the next 2 drafts turn out, whether or not he stays or goes when his contract expires, that's pretty much what he'll have done.

[jersey cubs fan]

Everyone assumed that he'd do pretty much what Jim Hendry would have done; launched buckets of money at Pujols, Ramirez, Darvish, Wilson, and anyone else within range as well as produce our own Pedroia, Lester, Ellsbury, etc.

 

Jimminy Christmas.

 

 

Nobody thought Theo would do what Hendry did and what in the hell makes people think that is what Hendry would have done?

[Sammy Sofa]

 

It depends on what you view as fail. If he were to put together another high priced Frankenstein's Monster, then that would hurt. But if he were to move on at the end of his contract, and at the time we're still sub .500 but have a top 10 farm system with several of his draft picks and acquired prospects filtering through and contributing at the big league level, then he still comes off looking prett good. I suppose it depends on how he were to leave. If it were ownership making the decision, he may well get the benefit of the doubt that the team was in too sad of a shape, and a lot of people may even give him the "victim of the Cubs" card. However, if ownership wanted to keep him around but be chose to move on, that would look worse for him, and he could be accused of not being willing to finish what he started.

 

We should remember that Theo chose this route. Ricketts pretty much handed him the keys, and rather than going after any of the high profile free agents he opted to level the place and build from the ground.

 

I can't see how "we're still sub .500 but have a top 10 farm system with several of his draft picks and acquired prospects filtering through and contributing at the big league level, then he still comes off looking pretty good" makes sense. He was hired to a 5-year contract to win a WS (or at least get us to the WS and be a solid, perennial contender). This is the biggest market team in a weak, winnable division and Theo was given complete autonomy. If this team is still below .500 next year, then we need to realize we've been sold some snake oil.

 

"Sold some snake oil?" What? They're not trying to trick or scam anyone.

 

He's getting at Epstein and Co. being viewed as scam artist. A Harold Hill/The Great Oz type.

 

To play devils advocate, if anyone was "selling snake oil" it would be Ricketts. He's the one who jumped through so many hoops to get Epstein as his big signing. Epstein just accepted the un-refuseable offer. Everyone assumed that he'd do pretty much what Jim Hendry would have done; launched buckets of money at Pujols, Ramirez, Darvish, Wilson, and anyone else within range as well as produce our own Pedroia, Lester, Ellsbury, etc. Meanwhile, the fact that Epstein inherited a perenial 90 game winner to build off of didn't seem to register. As I recall, Epstein spent that entire off season preaching that he wabnted to go young, and we probably wouldn't be where we want to be for several years, but fans chose to ignore that, expecting him to Ninja Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder for a 3/75 contract. Again, not his fault.

 

If anything, his chosen route isn't to scam anyone so much as do what Andrew Friedman did; create a team that when all is said and done is 100% his. A monument to himself so to speak. Depending on how the next 2 drafts turn out, whether or not he stays or goes when his contract expires, that's pretty much what he'll have done.

 

You're saying, like, 28 different things with this post.

[sneakypower]

Jim Hendry really ruined this organization more than people thought. His lack of success in the draft and the Soriano contract has really tied the hands of the club.

 

I think/hope/pray Theo can right the ship.

 

By my count, 19 of the 25 men on the current active roster were either acquired or promoted to the roster by the Epstein/Hoyer regime. It's time they start getting the credit for what's happening.

absolutely, i'm perfectly willing to give them credit for turning two of Hendry's wild relievers, one of whom was/is terribly injury-prone, into arguably the most valuable 1B asset in baseball, and a front-line starter, and expediting a necessary painful rebuilding process

 

total home-grown, competent, MLB-ready assets Theo inherited for the lineup and starting rotation: 2 (well, 3 if we want to count Soto)

 

looking at the Braves from last year, i counted 12

looking at the Cards from last year, i got to 12 too and stopped

 

that's how you win consistently, and thankfully Theo understands that

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Promoted to?? What a weird qualifier. By my count there's only one guy who falls under that. (Castillo) You know that I think this is a hideous plan they've enacted, but you don't think the fact that we've had to turn over 2/3 of the roster in 2 years lends credence to the fact that the roster he was handed sucked?

 

Promoted to is to emphasize the point that if Castillo is the catcher after two offseasons, it's because Epstein chose him to be (and not saying that's a bad choice), not because he inherited him from Hendry and had little choice but to make him the starting catcher.

 

Whether or not it lends credence to the idea that the roster he was handed sucks, I find that irrelevant at this point. We're past asking "Why did Epstein turn over 2/3rds of the roster" and to the point where we should be asking "Why hasn't he done a better job with that 2/3rds of the roster?"

 

If your answer is "Because committing resources to trying to make it better wouldn't support his long-term plan to build the team for sustained success," well, I disagree, but at least you are framing the question correctly.

 

As I recall, Epstein spent that entire off season preaching that he wabnted to go young, and we probably wouldn't be where we want to be for several years, but fans chose to ignore that, expecting him to Ninja Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder for a 3/75 contract. Again, not his fault.

 

Epstein has done a masterful job of giving the press piles and piles of quotes that say absolutely nothing and everything at the same time. No matter what he does in any given offseason, you can go back and find quotes from him saying he would do something along those lines.

 

absolutely, i'm perfectly willing to give them credit for turning two of Hendry's wild relievers, one of whom was/is terribly injury-prone, into arguably the most valuable 1B asset in baseball, and a front-line starter, and expediting a necessary painful rebuilding process

 

That's great. Meanwhile, we're 66-114 with his teams. Give him credit for any individual move you want, but the sum total isn't good enough.

 

total home-grown, competent, MLB-ready assets Theo inherited for the lineup and starting rotation: 2 (well, 3 if we want to count Soto)

 

Soto, Castro, Barney, Samardzija. That's four right there. We also had a decent amount of homegrown bullpen and infield depth, both of which Epstein squandered. It's not a coincidence that those are now two of the weakest parts of the team.

[Sammy Sofa]

What bullpen depth was squandered? Marshall? What infield depth? DJ LeMahieu?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What bullpen depth was squandered? Marshall? What infield depth? DJ LeMahieu?

 

Marshall, Samardzija, Cashner. Nothing wrong with any of those moves, but once you create the hole there, they need to be replaced with more than just Fujikawa over two years. Yeah, maybe "squandered" is the wrong word for the bullpen. He used those resources to strengthen other parts of the team, but never fixed the hole that left.

 

For the infield depth, when he took over we had LeMahieu, Flaherty, Marwin Gonzalez.

[Sammy Sofa]

So your bullpen gripe basically revolves around turning Cashner into Rizzo, Smardjiza becoming a fantastic starter and Marshall being traded for Wood, Sappelt and Torreyes. Huh. OK, moving on...

 

Oh, next is bemoaning the loss of DJ [expletive] LeMahieu and two Rule 5 deals. Come on, Kyle.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So your bullpen gripe basically revolves around turning Cashner into Rizzo, Smardjiza becoming a fantastic starter and Marshall being traded for Wood, Sappelt and Torreyes. Huh. OK, moving on...

 

You are intentionally ignoring the important part. The gripe is doing those things *and not replacing them*.

 

Oh, next is bemoaning the loss of DJ [expletive] LeMahieu and two Rule 5 deals. Come on, Kyle.

 

Well, Epstein himself admitted that two of those were mistakes.

 

Meanwhile, our reserve infielders have added up to a net -4.1 bWAR since the beginning of last year. Essentially negating Rizzo or Castro's contributions. That's worth bemoaning.

[Sammy Sofa]

So your bullpen gripe basically revolves around turning Cashner into Rizzo, Smardjiza becoming a fantastic starter and Marshall being traded for Wood, Sappelt and Torreyes. Huh. OK, moving on...

 

You are intentionally ignoring the important part. The gripe is doing those things *and not replacing them*.

 

Replacing what? Smardjiza had one whopping good year in the bullpen. Cashner had part of one mediocre season in the bullpen. Marshall was the only consistent part there and he's effectively been replaced by Russell.

 

Oh, next is bemoaning the loss of DJ [expletive] LeMahieu and two Rule 5 deals. Come on, Kyle.

 

Well, Epstein himself admitted that two of those were mistakes.

 

Meanwhile, our reserve infielders have added up to a net -4.1 bWAR since the beginning of last year. Essentially negating Rizzo or Castro's contributions. That's worth bemoaning.

 

And you're assuming one of those guys would have offset that...why, exactly? All three weren't good last year. The difference you're looking at is miniscule.

[sneakypower]

absolutely, i'm perfectly willing to give them credit for turning two of Hendry's wild relievers, one of whom was/is terribly injury-prone, into arguably the most valuable 1B asset in baseball, and a front-line starter, and expediting a necessary painful rebuilding process

 

That's great. Meanwhile, we're 66-114 with his teams. Give him credit for any individual move you want, but the sum total isn't good enough.

by the same absurd simple-minded logic, he could have taken over in Atlanta, just sat around masturbating in his office all day while allowing the stacked roster he inherited to win ballgames and he'd be doing a great job; that you keep obsessing over such a stupid point only serves to further damage your credibility

 

total home-grown, competent, MLB-ready assets Theo inherited for the lineup and starting rotation: 2 (well, 3 if we want to count Soto)

Soto, Castro, Barney, Samardzija. That's four right there. We also had a decent amount of homegrown bullpen and infield depth, both of which Epstein squandered. It's not a coincidence that those are now two of the weakest parts of the team.

Hendry's Samardzija: 5.30 BB/9 - 4.54 FIP, 4.84 xFIP (86% of his innings in relief, no less)

Theo's Samardzija: 2.82 BB/9 - 3.24 FIP, 3.29 xFIP

 

but if you want to give Theo's administration no credit and call the 2011 version of him a finished product, go ahead, it only further proves how unwilling you are to be nuanced about topics like this

[sneakypower]

For the infield depth, when he took over we had LeMahieu, Flaherty, Marwin Gonzalez.

lol squandered

 

those three have combined to be sub-replacement (per FG) for their careers in 778 PA

 

i just squandered an empty yogurt container

[Little Slide Rooter]

He's getting at Epstein and Co. being viewed as scam artist. A Harold Hill/The Great Oz type.

 

To play devils advocate, if anyone was "selling snake oil" it would be Ricketts. He's the one who jumped through so many hoops to get Epstein as his big signing. Epstein just accepted the un-refuseable offer. Everyone assumed that he'd do pretty much what Jim Hendry would have done; launched buckets of money at Pujols, Ramirez, Darvish, Wilson, and anyone else within range as well as produce our own Pedroia, Lester, Ellsbury, etc. Meanwhile, the fact that Epstein inherited a perenial 90 game winner to build off of didn't seem to register. As I recall, Epstein spent that entire off season preaching that he wabnted to go young, and we probably wouldn't be where we want to be for several years, but fans chose to ignore that, expecting him to Ninja Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder for a 3/75 contract. Again, not his fault.

 

If anything, his chosen route isn't to scam anyone so much as do what Andrew Friedman did; create a team that when all is said and done is 100% his. A monument to himself so to speak. Depending on how the next 2 drafts turn out, whether or not he stays or goes when his contract expires, that's pretty much what he'll have done.

 

You're saying, like, 28 different things with this post.

 

Short version; if The Epstein hiring was a stunt or scam of any kind (which I don't beleive), the guy who hired him is the scammer, not the guy who took the money.

 

When Epstein was hired, people were partying in the streets with visions of him turning [expletive] into gold in a year or 2. Epstein preached patience from the beginning, but people seemed to take Twitter rumors that we were in on every big free agent over his own words.

[neely crenshaw]

You make moves you think will work. Prospects are a crapshoot no matter what.

I'm pretty sure most FO's would feel that they could find a suitable replacement for DJ.

On the other hand, you have to trade something to get something.

Trading marshall for a potential decent starter makes sense. With the team we have last year, and this year exactly how valauble is a really good set up guy? Let's say he makes us 10 games better (which is a huge amount) We win 71 games? yeah!

keeping expensive guys, in order to be less crappy is short sighted.

Stewart for Colvin. Both had issues. Stewart was oft-injured, Colvin struggled all year. At the time, we had Soriano, DeJesus and Byrd(who was one of our better players the previous year), we had Lahair and Rizzo covering 1st-colvin's other potential spot. We had no one at 3b and no one close to ready. While we were also hoping Jackson would/will be ready soon.

we reached for potential help. It failed last year but it still made sense to make the move. And it is well documented that I am not a Stewart fan, but I get the move.

It's very easy to pick apart moves in hindsight. Every GM/FO has failures. They all miss. Usually trades are made because both teams think it's the best move for their team...usually that right there tells you someone is going to be wrong.

I think this group tends to like their guys over the leftovers. They tend to give their guys unlimited chances, but then again that also makes sense. If they are putting their reps on the line for a guy, then you give them every chance to succeed.

[Tracer Bullet]

So Kyle's concern is that Theo took bullpen and middle infield depth and turned it into a very good SP, a very good and controlled 1b, and a couple other long term assets with potential and dared not spend millions on the bullpen and middle infield depth in years in which we aren't going to win a title and had very little realistic chance of making the playoffs?

 

If he weren't left with a roster and farm system (and FO) bereft of any talent at all, who knows what the short term plan was. Not spending $27m for 3 years of Heath Bell, for example, is a negative in your book? One of the problems we had with Hendry was the contracts he kept giving out to relievers and middle infielders. Why are we longing for those days?

 

If the bullpen sucks when we're ready to compete, then that will be on Theo. Until then, it's a positive that we're not spending millions to have decent/good RPs.

[sneakypower]

amusingly he tanked the season, by just letting Hendry's shitty ass holdovers like Vitters, Clevenger, DeWitt, Jackson, Dolis, Raley, Coleman, Wells, Maine embarrass themselves

 

i will give Hendry some credit when we draft Gray or Appel though, how does that sound

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And you're assuming one of those guys would have offset that...why, exactly? All three weren't good last year. The difference you're looking at is miniscule.

 

They would have offset several negative wins worth of production. It's uncanny how everything bad that happens under Epstein's watch is either all part of the plan or too small to deign noticing.

 

by the same absurd simple-minded logic, he could have taken over in Atlanta, just sat around masturbating in his office all day while allowing the stacked roster he inherited to win ballgames and he'd be doing a great job; that you keep obsessing over such a stupid point only serves to further damage your credibility

 

I'm not so sure that's not what he would have done with Atlanta. Fortunately for Atlanta fans, their GM went out and got a pair of Uptons instead.

 

but if you want to give Theo's administration no credit and call the 2011 version of him a finished product, go ahead, it only further proves how unwilling you are to be nuanced about topics like this

 

I did nothing of the sort. You presented the "inherited immediate lineup or rotation" stat, and I was counting them up.

 

How much credit should Epstein get for Samardzija's success? Well, anyone who claims to know exactly is kidding themselves. But he did have an excellent second half in 2011, and he was promised a shot at starting in 2012 long before Epstein was hired. So the answer is definitely not "all of it" and probably not "the majority of it."

 

ol squandered

 

those three have combined to be sub-replacement (per FG) for their careers in 778 PA

 

i just squandered an empty yogurt container

 

I've got them at a combined +0.1, actually, but I've been known to forget how to math. So, roughly a 3-win improvement over what we actually fielded in those positions since last year? Sign me up.

 

So Kyle's concern is that Theo took bullpen and middle infield depth and turned it into a very good SP, a very good and controlled 1b, and a couple other long term assets with potential and dared not spend millions on the bullpen and middle infield depth in years in which we aren't going to win a title and had very little realistic chance of making the playoffs?

 

It's definitely one of my concerns.

 

But ultimately, this is where we disagree (not to mention 2011 NSBB seems to disagree considerably with 2013 NSBB). The post-2011 Cubs could absolutely have given themselves a reasonable chance at winning a title with a sufficiently skilled and aggressive front office at the helm. At worst, they could have set themselves up to have a real shot in 2013. They chose neither.

 

 

If he weren't left with a roster and farm system (and FO) bereft of any talent at all, who knows what the short term plan was.

 

Is this the part where I list all the talent and we argue over what "bereft" means?

 

 

Not spending $27m for 3 years of Heath Bell, for example, is a negative in your book? One of the problems we had with Hendry was the contracts he kept giving out to relievers and middle infielders. Why are we longing for those days?

 

See, this is what's so weird to me.

 

When Hendry was around, we constantly said that it doesn't take big signings like that to make a good bullpen. That a savvy front office could build a useful bullpen without those signings.

 

Fine. So where's my useful bullpen, savvy front office?

 

I didn't need Heath Bell for 3/$27 (although that would be preferable to just letting $27 million mysteriously disappear from the baseball budget). I just needed it to not be the worst bullpen in baseball last year.

[Backtobanks]

He's getting at Epstein and Co. being viewed as scam artist. A Harold Hill/The Great Oz type.

 

To play devils advocate, if anyone was "selling snake oil" it would be Ricketts. He's the one who jumped through so many hoops to get Epstein as his big signing. Epstein just accepted the un-refuseable offer. Everyone assumed that he'd do pretty much what Jim Hendry would have done; launched buckets of money at Pujols, Ramirez, Darvish, Wilson, and anyone else within range as well as produce our own Pedroia, Lester, Ellsbury, etc. Meanwhile, the fact that Epstein inherited a perenial 90 game winner to build off of didn't seem to register. As I recall, Epstein spent that entire off season preaching that he wabnted to go young, and we probably wouldn't be where we want to be for several years, but fans chose to ignore that, expecting him to Ninja Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder for a 3/75 contract. Again, not his fault.

 

If anything, his chosen route isn't to scam anyone so much as do what Andrew Friedman did; create a team that when all is said and done is 100% his. A monument to himself so to speak. Depending on how the next 2 drafts turn out, whether or not he stays or goes when his contract expires, that's pretty much what he'll have done.

 

You're saying, like, 28 different things with this post.

 

Short version; if The Epstein hiring was a stunt or scam of any kind (which I don't beleive), the guy who hired him is the scammer, not the guy who took the money.

 

When Epstein was hired, people were partying in the streets with visions of him turning [expletive] into gold in a year or 2. Epstein preached patience from the beginning, but people seemed to take Twitter rumors that we were in on every big free agent over his own words.

 

Actually what I'm saying is that both Ricketts and Theo have convinced many of you that things were worse than anyone could imagine when they took over and now we should wait patiently while they rake in huge profits while fielding a terrible team. Ricketts knew about the state of the economy (in Chicago and in Illinois), the politics of Chicago, the rooftop agreement, the landmark status of Wrigley, the horrible physical condition of Wrigley, etc. when he bought the team. Theo knew about the terrible farm system, the payroll, the CBA, the lack of statistics used by the Cubs, the bad ML roster, etc. when he took the job. Hopefully Theo can build the perennial contender that he promised us, but I need to start seeing some results at the ML level next year.

[SouthSideRyan]

So Kyle's concern is that Theo took bullpen and middle infield depth and turned it into a very good SP, a very good and controlled 1b, and a couple other long term assets with potential and dared not spend millions on the bullpen and middle infield depth in years in which we aren't going to win a title and had very little realistic chance of making the playoffs?

 

 

But every season is sacred. Of course your team has no chance of making the playoffs when you don't bother to bring in any cost certainty to highly variable spots. I HATE this logic which keeps getting repeated around here. Oh what, you wanted to sign that guy and improve by 4 wins? Whoopdee doo, now you won 65 games last year. You don't build a team by looking at your zIPS projection, and if win total < 75, don't try.

 

ETA: And when arguing the point be sure to reference the worst contract at said position as your supporting evidence.

[Sammy Sofa]

Actually what I'm saying is that both Ricketts and Theo have convinced many of you that things were worse than anyone could imagine when they took over and now we should wait patiently while they rake in huge profits while fielding a terrible team. Ricketts knew about the state of the economy (in Chicago and in Illinois), the politics of Chicago, the rooftop agreement, the landmark status of Wrigley, the horrible physical condition of Wrigley, etc. when he bought the team. Theo knew about the terrible farm system, the payroll, the CBA, the lack of statistics used by the Cubs, the bad ML roster, etc. when he took the job. Hopefully Theo can build the perennial contender that he promised us, but I need to start seeing some results at the ML level next year.

 

So they somehow have convinced many of us that it's worse...than the plethora of terrible things you yourself just listed. Gotcha.