Random Cubs Musings

[XZero771679666304]

this means nothing to me, assuming the cubs will be operating with a cubs-like payroll when the prospects are ready. i know we all have our qualms about our ownership right now and where the money is going, but if a few of our minor league guys hit at the same time, a la the royals or whatever, i don't see the cubs operating with a royals-like payroll or going "we're only spending briefly" like the brewers

 

We can be the Nationals with a little more money and a slightly worse prospects.

 

am i wrong or wouldn't that be like, awesome?

 

Absolutely.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

am i wrong or wouldn't that be like, awesome?

 

No.

 

They flat-sucked for 7 years, then they're working on their second losing season out of three when their window was supposed to be open. That would not be awesome.

 

When the role models for your franchise's plan have broken .500 once in nine seasons, maybe it's time to take a step back and have some perspective.

[Guest]

I'm quite certain he's not insinuating the starting point for comparing their progress was 7 or 9 years ago, come on.

[XZero771679666304]

am i wrong or wouldn't that be like, awesome?

 

No.

 

They flat-sucked for 7 years, then they're working on their second losing season out of three when their window was supposed to be open. That would not be awesome.

 

When the role models for your franchise's plan have broken .500 once in nine seasons, maybe it's time to take a step back and have some perspective.

 

I don't think you can evaluate the current state of the Nationals going back any further than the day Bowden stepped out and Rizzo stepped in.

 

And again, don't tell me you wouldn't have been thrilled if the Cubs and Nats switched positions prior to this season.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm quite certain he's not insinuating the starting point for comparing their progress was 7 or 9 years ago, come on.

 

I'm sure he wasn't. But that's what happened.

 

At the end of the day, we don't have a good role model for a major-market franchise just flat-out tanking in order to expedite a rebuilding. That's why so many of us were flat-out adamant that they would not be doing that when Epstein was hired.

 

But pointing to successful teams that developed prospects isn't particularly accurate or helpful to illuminating the Cubs' position or the viability of their plan.

[XZero771679666304]

I'm quite certain he's not insinuating the starting point for comparing their progress was 7 or 9 years ago, come on.

 

I'm sure he wasn't. But that's what happened.

 

 

That's what happened because you did it. And it's disingenuous at best.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And again, don't tell me you wouldn't have been thrilled if the Cubs and Nats switched positions prior to this season.

 

Opinions should change with relevant new information. And my switching places with them would be almost exclusively do their good fortune to be able to draft Harper and Strasburg while we had to settle for Baez and Bryant.

 

If you just want to look at the Rizzo era, that's one playoff season in four. Sure, that's an improvement over Hoyer, but I'm still not pining for it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

That's what happened because you did it. And it's disingenuous at best.

 

My influence is often underestimated, but I'm not responsible for the Nationals' sucking in the post-Montreal era.

 

If the argument is that the Cubs needed to expedite the rebuilding process because they were so terrible that they were starting with nothing, wouldn't going back to the beginning of the Nats' sucking be the logical starting point?

[mul21]

I'm quite certain he's not insinuating the starting point for comparing their progress was 7 or 9 years ago, come on.

 

I'm sure he wasn't. But that's what happened.

 

At the end of the day, we don't have a good role model for a major-market franchise just flat-out tanking in order to expedite a rebuilding. That's why so many of us were flat-out adamant that they would not be doing that when Epstein was hired.

 

But pointing to successful teams that developed prospects isn't particularly accurate or helpful to illuminating the Cubs' position or the viability of their plan.

 

Well, yeah, but then they changed the rules on how you can spend money on amateurs, which severely handcuffed what would have been the way they went about rebuilding. They could have bought all the over slot and IFA guys they wanted and not had to sell off anything and everything to get as many decent prospects as possible. I don't think it would have been entirely different, but there certainly would have been some noticeable changes in the way they approached a rebuild if not for the new CBA.

[mul21]

 

That's what happened because you did it. And it's disingenuous at best.

 

My influence is often underestimated, but I'm not responsible for the Nationals' sucking in the post-Montreal era.

 

If the argument is that the Cubs needed to expedite the rebuilding process because they were so terrible that they were starting with nothing, wouldn't going back to the beginning of the Nats' sucking be the logical starting point?

 

No, and you know that. You may have to go back a bit before Rizzo, but all the terribleness under Bowden certainly can't be counted because of a complete change in philosophy/level of competence.

[imb]

am i wrong or wouldn't that be like, awesome?

 

No.

 

They flat-sucked for 7 years, then they're working on their second losing season out of three when their window was supposed to be open. That would not be awesome.

 

When the role models for your franchise's plan have broken .500 once in nine seasons, maybe it's time to take a step back and have some perspective.

 

hey guess what we're the rays with a lot more money, frigging sweet. you have to keep couching your "examples" with situations that aren't analogous, it's worthless.

[bukie]

I'm quite certain he's not insinuating the starting point for comparing their progress was 7 or 9 years ago, come on.

 

I'm sure he wasn't. But that's what happened.

 

At the end of the day, we don't have a good role model for a major-market franchise just flat-out tanking in order to expedite a rebuilding. That's why so many of us were flat-out adamant that they would not be doing that when Epstein was hired.

 

But pointing to successful teams that developed prospects isn't particularly accurate or helpful to illuminating the Cubs' position or the viability of their plan.

Early 90's Yankees? Say what you will about the lap-the-field spending of the Yankees in the 2000's, but the late 90's success was predicated on the internal core of Jeter, Williams, Posada, Soriano, Pettitte, Orlando Hernandez, Rivera, etc.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think that overstates the importance of overslotting in the final years of the old CBA. It was one of those market inefficiencies that loses its potency as more teams jump on to it, and it was just about saturated at by 2011.

[Andy]

I'm quite certain he's not insinuating the starting point for comparing their progress was 7 or 9 years ago, come on.

 

I'm sure he wasn't. But that's what happened.

 

At the end of the day, we don't have a good role model for a major-market franchise just flat-out tanking in order to expedite a rebuilding. That's why so many of us were flat-out adamant that they would not be doing that when Epstein was hired.

 

But pointing to successful teams that developed prospects isn't particularly accurate or helpful to illuminating the Cubs' position or the viability of their plan.

Early 90's Yankees? Say what you will about the lap-the-field spending of the Yankees in the 2000's, but the late 90's success was predicated on the internal core of Jeter, Williams, Posada, Soriano, Pettitte, Orlando Hernandez, Rivera, etc.

He already noted that the early-'90s Yankees weren't tanking for a rebuild, they were just bad.

[imb]

I'm quite certain he's not insinuating the starting point for comparing their progress was 7 or 9 years ago, come on.

 

I'm sure he wasn't. But that's what happened.

 

At the end of the day, we don't have a good role model for a major-market franchise just flat-out tanking in order to expedite a rebuilding. That's why so many of us were flat-out adamant that they would not be doing that when Epstein was hired.

 

But pointing to successful teams that developed prospects isn't particularly accurate or helpful to illuminating the Cubs' position or the viability of their plan.

Early 90's Yankees? Say what you will about the lap-the-field spending of the Yankees in the 2000's, but the late 90's success was predicated on the internal core of Jeter, Williams, Posada, Soriano, Pettitte, Orlando Hernandez, Rivera, etc.

He already noted that the early-'90s Yankees weren't tanking for a rebuild, they were just bad.

 

is there a difference? if you're the worst team on accident, you don't get a better pick than a team that had the worst record on purpose.

[XZero771679666304]

 

That's what happened because you did it. And it's disingenuous at best.

 

My influence is often underestimated, but I'm not responsible for the Nationals' sucking in the post-Montreal era.

If the argument is that the Cubs needed to expedite the rebuilding process because they were so terrible that they were starting with nothing, wouldn't going back to the beginning of the Nats' sucking be the logical starting point?

 

No, going back to where they were in the process of really bottoming out and there was a regime (and total philosophy) change would be the logical starting point for evaluating how they've gotten to where they are (and for comparison to the Cubs situation). Clearly.

[XZero771679666304]

 

is there a difference? if you're the worst team on accident, you don't get a better pick than a team that had the worst record on purpose.

[sneakypower]

At the end of the day, we don't have a good role model for a major-market franchise just flat-out tanking in order to expedite a rebuilding. That's why so many of us were flat-out adamant that they would not be doing that when Epstein was hired.

it's so cute that you still seem to think Hendry left a lot of useful pieces to build off

 

2013 fWAR

Shark: 2.3

Castillo: 1.7

Garza: 1.5

Soriano: 1.0

Cashner: 0.8

LeMahieu: 0.6

Russell: 0.5

Barney: 0.5

Lake: 0.5

Soto: 0.3

 

Castro: -0.4

Marmol: -0.8

Colvin: -1.1

DeWitt: AAA

Vitters: AAA

B Jackson: AA

Wells: retired

 

so, a little over 7 WAR from the best 13 guys remaining in the league

 

yeah, why the [expletive] aren't we winning championships yet, THEO??

[Andy]

I'm quite certain he's not insinuating the starting point for comparing their progress was 7 or 9 years ago, come on.

 

I'm sure he wasn't. But that's what happened.

 

At the end of the day, we don't have a good role model for a major-market franchise just flat-out tanking in order to expedite a rebuilding. That's why so many of us were flat-out adamant that they would not be doing that when Epstein was hired.

 

But pointing to successful teams that developed prospects isn't particularly accurate or helpful to illuminating the Cubs' position or the viability of their plan.

Early 90's Yankees? Say what you will about the lap-the-field spending of the Yankees in the 2000's, but the late 90's success was predicated on the internal core of Jeter, Williams, Posada, Soriano, Pettitte, Orlando Hernandez, Rivera, etc.

He already noted that the early-'90s Yankees weren't tanking for a rebuild, they were just bad.

 

is there a difference? if you're the worst team on accident, you don't get a better pick than a team that had the worst record on purpose.

Well, Kyle was specifically talking about major-market franchises tanking to expedite rebuilds.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

it's so cute that you still seem to think Hendry left a lot of useful pieces to build off

 

I don't know if it's worse that you took on that strawman or that you did such a poor job of taking it down.

[jersey cubs fan]

am i wrong or wouldn't that be like, awesome?

 

No.

 

They flat-sucked for 7 years, then they're working on their second losing season out of three when their window was supposed to be open. That would not be awesome.

 

When the role models for your franchise's plan have broken .500 once in nine seasons, maybe it's time to take a step back and have some perspective.

 

hey guess what we're the rays with a lot more money, frigging sweet. you have to keep couching your "examples" with situations that aren't analogous, it's worthless.

 

What's worthless is full seasons of crappy major league baseball, and the Cubs are in their 4th consecutive, two of which will be on these guys' collective watch. It remains to be seen if they will have the Rays success. I would have assumed they could have been the Rays with more money at the outset, but what they've put on the field so far has put serious questions into whether they can actually pull it off.

 

A good front office should be able to draft and develop quality players without having to tank for the top of the draft, and/or wait for their third season to compete. Extremely highly compensated front office supergroups should be able to do it with relative ease. These guys have been handed an easy job, just stock the farm and don't worry about results at the major league level. That's simple.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Well, Kyle was specifically talking about major-market franchises tanking to expedite rebuilds.

 

It comes back to the fact that these are two very different arguments:

 

1) It's possible to succeed based on the rewards of tanking the MLB team

 

2) It was necessary or desirable to tank the MLB team to get those rewards in order for the team to succeed.

[jersey cubs fan]

yeah, why the [expletive] aren't we winning championships yet, THEO??

 

why aren't we a decent team?

[sneakypower]

yeah, why the [expletive] aren't we winning championships yet, THEO??

 

why aren't we a decent team?

because we didn't sign Prince Fielder

[Hairyducked Idiot]

hey guess what we're the rays with a lot more money

 

Not yet, we're not.

 

, frigging sweet. you have to keep couching your "examples" with situations that aren't analogous, it's worthless.

 

That was *my* point all along. The 1990s Yankees are a worthless example.