Random Cubs Musings

[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.

 

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.

 

I look at it this way: the job is "build the franchise into a perennial power in the way you deem best, and don't worry about the immediate big league results". It may well be that large payrolls won't be available in the short term. No one is going to tolerate many years and years of this, and only the most alarmist and reactionary would believe that is/was ever the plan.

 

And again, the new CBA has made it much more difficult to make substantial gains for the system while stocking the big league team, which has almost certainly affected how Theo/Jed have approached things (along with the presumed payroll restrictions).

[XZero771679666304]

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

 

If only...

[SouthSideRyan]

Say what you will, but the Cubs' abandonment of the 2012 season seriously expedited the farm system rebuild, which is crucial to long term success. If the FO had half halfheartedly tried to compete last year it almost certainly would have slowed the overall process down. It sucked, but in the end I prefer pragmatism to the feeble pretense of "trying" to return a moribund team to competition immediately to satisfy the meatballish sensibilities of the common fan. Whether it will prove to have been the most efficacious path remains to be seen.

 

The abandonment of 2012 also put them in a hole they tried but failed to dig out of in 2013, and we may yet see more of those consequences in 2014 and 2015.

 

I'm far from convinced that what we gained in an expedited farm system will make up for the seasons we lost. We've locked in the downside and are praying for enough upside to cover it.

I think part of it will depend on how Kris Bryant turns out.

 

Considering he's essentially the only thing we gained out of punting 2012, I'll say it's a pretty substantial part.

[Andy]

Say what you will, but the Cubs' abandonment of the 2012 season seriously expedited the farm system rebuild, which is crucial to long term success. If the FO had half halfheartedly tried to compete last year it almost certainly would have slowed the overall process down. It sucked, but in the end I prefer pragmatism to the feeble pretense of "trying" to return a moribund team to competition immediately to satisfy the meatballish sensibilities of the common fan. Whether it will prove to have been the most efficacious path remains to be seen.

 

The abandonment of 2012 also put them in a hole they tried but failed to dig out of in 2013, and we may yet see more of those consequences in 2014 and 2015.

 

I'm far from convinced that what we gained in an expedited farm system will make up for the seasons we lost. We've locked in the downside and are praying for enough upside to cover it.

I think part of it will depend on how Kris Bryant turns out.

 

Considering he's essentially the only thing we gained out of punting 2012, I'll say it's a pretty substantial part.

To be fair, the prospects we got out of the midseason dump-off of Dempster and company would probably also be included in that.

[sneakypower]

Say what you will, but the Cubs' abandonment of the 2012 season seriously expedited the farm system rebuild, which is crucial to long term success. If the FO had half halfheartedly tried to compete last year it almost certainly would have slowed the overall process down. It sucked, but in the end I prefer pragmatism to the feeble pretense of "trying" to return a moribund team to competition immediately to satisfy the meatballish sensibilities of the common fan. Whether it will prove to have been the most efficacious path remains to be seen.

 

The abandonment of 2012 also put them in a hole they tried but failed to dig out of in 2013, and we may yet see more of those consequences in 2014 and 2015.

 

I'm far from convinced that what we gained in an expedited farm system will make up for the seasons we lost. We've locked in the downside and are praying for enough upside to cover it.

I think part of it will depend on how Kris Bryant turns out.

 

Considering he's essentially the only thing we gained out of punting 2012, I'll say it's a pretty substantial part.

Anthony Rizzo, Travis Wood, Luis Valbuena, Jeff Samardzija, Arodys Vizcaino, Kyle Hendricks, Christian Villanueva

[Andy]

Say what you will, but the Cubs' abandonment of the 2012 season seriously expedited the farm system rebuild, which is crucial to long term success. If the FO had half halfheartedly tried to compete last year it almost certainly would have slowed the overall process down. It sucked, but in the end I prefer pragmatism to the feeble pretense of "trying" to return a moribund team to competition immediately to satisfy the meatballish sensibilities of the common fan. Whether it will prove to have been the most efficacious path remains to be seen.

 

The abandonment of 2012 also put them in a hole they tried but failed to dig out of in 2013, and we may yet see more of those consequences in 2014 and 2015.

 

I'm far from convinced that what we gained in an expedited farm system will make up for the seasons we lost. We've locked in the downside and are praying for enough upside to cover it.

I think part of it will depend on how Kris Bryant turns out.

 

Considering he's essentially the only thing we gained out of punting 2012, I'll say it's a pretty substantial part.

Anthony Rizzo, Travis Wood, Luis Valbuena, Jeff Samardzija, Arodys Vizcaino, Kyle Hendricks, Christian Villanueva

Trading for Rizzo and Wood would've been smart moves (I'd even call them slam-dunk moves) even if the Cubs were good, so I'd disagree vehemently that those were part of the 2012 tanking.

[KingCubsFan]

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

Don't forget CJ Wilson. Fielder/Pujols + Wilson were supposed to lead us to the playoffs last year.

[KingCubsFan]

Trading for Rizzo and Wood would've been smart moves (I'd even call them slam-dunk moves) even if the Cubs were good, so I'd disagree vehemently that those were part of the 2012 tanking.

Well, if you were going for it, I doubt you'd trade your best reliever for young players. And we probably wouldn't have traded our best young pitcher for a 1B who needed at least half a year at AAA.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

The Yankees had 4 losing seasons from '89-'92, wound up with 3 top 10 picks those years and got the worthless Brien Taylor, Carl Everett who they lost for nothing in the expansion draft, and Jeter. Granted Derek Jeter was a pretty [expletive] important part of the Yankees in the 90s-2000s, but to chalk up the Yankees success to their lucking out and being bad for 4 years (and really only terrible for 1) is really disingenuous.

[SouthSideRyan]

Say what you will, but the Cubs' abandonment of the 2012 season seriously expedited the farm system rebuild, which is crucial to long term success. If the FO had half halfheartedly tried to compete last year it almost certainly would have slowed the overall process down. It sucked, but in the end I prefer pragmatism to the feeble pretense of "trying" to return a moribund team to competition immediately to satisfy the meatballish sensibilities of the common fan. Whether it will prove to have been the most efficacious path remains to be seen.

 

The abandonment of 2012 also put them in a hole they tried but failed to dig out of in 2013, and we may yet see more of those consequences in 2014 and 2015.

 

I'm far from convinced that what we gained in an expedited farm system will make up for the seasons we lost. We've locked in the downside and are praying for enough upside to cover it.

I think part of it will depend on how Kris Bryant turns out.

 

Considering he's essentially the only thing we gained out of punting 2012, I'll say it's a pretty substantial part.

Anthony Rizzo, Travis Wood, Luis Valbuena, Jeff Samardzija, Arodys Vizcaino, Kyle Hendricks, Christian Villanueva

 

Yeah because if you tried in 2012 you're completely [expletive] incapable of realizing you're out of it in July. Nope I just want to sign all the free agents and trade away Baez for a middle reliever because all I [expletive] want is 77 wins. GO CUBS GO

[SouthSideRyan]

Trading for Rizzo and Wood would've been smart moves (I'd even call them slam-dunk moves) even if the Cubs were good, so I'd disagree vehemently that those were part of the 2012 tanking.

Well, if you were going for it, I doubt you'd trade your best reliever for young players. And we probably wouldn't have traded our best young pitcher for a 1B who needed at least half a year at AAA.

 

Dual fronts?

[imb]

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.

 

The Yankees had 4 losing seasons from '89-'92, wound up with 3 top 10 picks those years and got the worthless Brien Taylor, Carl Everett who they lost for nothing in the expansion draft, and Jeter. Granted Derek Jeter was a pretty [expletive] important part of the Yankees in the 90s-2000s, but to chalk up the Yankees success to their lucking out and being bad for 4 years (and really only terrible for 1) is really disingenuous.

 

what the [expletive] are you talking about, dummy, that's not what i was saying

[Andy]

Trading for Rizzo and Wood would've been smart moves (I'd even call them slam-dunk moves) even if the Cubs were good, so I'd disagree vehemently that those were part of the 2012 tanking.

Well, if you were going for it, I doubt you'd trade your best reliever for young players. And we probably wouldn't have traded our best young pitcher for a 1B who needed at least half a year at AAA.

You would if you thought Cashner was an injury liability (which we already had a reason to believe), thought Rizzo was going to be a cornerstone player (somewhat TBD but certainly way more good than bad) and thought a decent SP in Wood could give you more value than a reliever (he didn't last year, but it would still have been a worthy gamble, and he's been far better than Marshall this year).

[Backtobanks]

 

Because they were already good when Theo took over there. The Cubs were not. Trying to do the dual fronts thing from where the Cubs were in 2011 (bad big league team, bad farm system) would have resulted in just as protracted a wait, if not longer, because one comes at the expense of the other. The cost of that trade off is mitigated when both are already good, but to get to that point one is more vital than the other. Like I said, you need the foundation laid before you build the house, and Theo and Jed have done nothing short of spectacular (though imperfect) work in building up the farm in a relatively short period of time.

 

And the Cubs absolutely do not need a disproportionately high number of prospects to pan out to get where they want to go. That line of thought would be on the assumption that were never going to spend or make significant trades. They just need a few of them to work out, enough to constitute a core to supplement. Every successful MLB team relies on certain level of contribution from their farm to win with consistency.

 

A good example of where the Cubs are (hopefully) could be the Yankees of the mid-1990s. They were objectively terrible at the big league level for the first half of the decade, but out of those bad years came Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, Rivera, etc., who they then built around with shrewd signings and trade acquisitions. They did not have a disproportionately high number of their prospects work out (in fact many of their top kids flamed out), but enough did.

 

If you add just 2-3 of the Cubs' top 10 to the existing roster, suddenly you're quite close, close enough that just a few decent acquisitions (or a couple really good ones) puts the team in a very good place. That's how the Yankees did it (Before they turned into the Evil Empire), that's how Epstein's Sox did it, that's how the Cardinals have done it, how the consistently great franchises do it. Once you get that machine up and running, then it fuels itself. It's becoming clearer by the day that Jim Hendry and predecessors did not, that they tried to build their house on metaphorical sand and is why we are enduring what we are.

 

The Cubs do need a disproportionate number of their prospects to succeed because they have so many holes to fill. You mention spending and trades to supplement the core, but who are you going to trade if your prospects don't succeed? How much are you going to spend on FAs to fill more than one glaring hole in your lineup? I'm not criticizing or condoning Theo's plan, just stating that his whole plan is based on a high percentage of prospects being successful enough to contribute or being productive enough to attract other teams in trades.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

The Yankees had 4 losing seasons from '89-'92, wound up with 3 top 10 picks those years and got the worthless Brien Taylor, Carl Everett who they lost for nothing in the expansion draft, and Jeter. Granted Derek Jeter was a pretty [expletive] important part of the Yankees in the 90s-2000s, but to chalk up the Yankees success to their lucking out and being bad for 4 years (and really only terrible for 1) is really disingenuous.

 

what the [expletive] are you talking about, dummy, that's not what i was saying

 

The previous argument was that the Yankees got good because they were terrible in the early 90s. I was lazy quoting.

[Guest]

Can someone help me understand what it would've looked like to "go for it" in 2012 or whatever you want to call it? Like specifically?

[SouthSideRyan]

Can someone help me understand what it would've looked like to "go for it" in 2012 or whatever you want to call it? Like specifically?

 

I would've signed Ramirez and suffered the horrors of being without Pierce Johnson (who I like)

[XZero771679666304]

 

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

 

A big market team that was terrible for multiple years at the big league level that built itself back in large part because of the resulting stocking of the system is a worthless analogy to the Cubs situation? Just because the "intent to suck" wasn't there? Or because a couple of their homegrown players turned out to be HOF types (based on resumes built largely on performance that came after they had already returned to prominence)?

 

The level of success that team achieved was unusual, but the circumstances that led to it were not. Building from within and the supplementing those homegrown players with trades and signings is what initially returned the Yankees to glory, the insane spending and HOF-caliber careers/peak performance that followed came further down the road (and kept them there).

 

The Cubs do not need their kids to become Derek Jeter or Mariano Rivera or 200MM payolls to replicate the path to sustained success that the Yankees followed. What their FO intended to do from 1989-1992 doesn't change what actually transpired. They sucked, they drafted well, and rebuilt responsibly.

[sneakypower]

Trading for Rizzo and Wood would've been smart moves (I'd even call them slam-dunk moves) even if the Cubs were good, so I'd disagree vehemently that those were part of the 2012 tanking.

Well, if you were going for it, I doubt you'd trade your best reliever for young players. And we probably wouldn't have traded our best young pitcher for a 1B who needed at least half a year at AAA.

...in which we OVERHAULED HIS SWING

 

Yeah because if you tried in 2012 you're completely [expletive] incapable of realizing you're out of it in July. Nope I just want to sign all the free agents and trade away Baez for a middle reliever because all I [expletive] want is 77 wins. GO CUBS GO

don't get pissy at me because you're doing a poor job of explaining your point, or not even making a point

 

Hendry holdovers combined for next to nothing in terms of tangible production, if you want me to dig through the Feldman thread for totals i will; but it would have involved some incredible delusion and likely some dangerous, reckless spending to pretend we had a chance to do much of anything last year...framing it as 'willful punting of a season' is too obtuse/intellectually dishonest an argument to even entertain

[sneakypower]

Can someone help me understand what it would've looked like to "go for it" in 2012 or whatever you want to call it? Like specifically?

http://www.kingsofcork.com/archive/images/albert-pujols-cubs-uniform.jpg

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Can someone help me understand what it would've looked like to "go for it" in 2012 or whatever you want to call it? Like specifically?

 

There's a bunch of interesting scenarios here:

 

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=60154

 

There's one in the middle of page 2 of the thread that I really like.

[Guest]

Can someone help me understand what it would've looked like to "go for it" in 2012 or whatever you want to call it? Like specifically?

 

I would've signed Ramirez and suffered the horrors of being without Pierce Johnson (who I like)

 

There has to be more than that, right? Because even with Ramirez's unexpected 2012 it wouldn't have tipped the scales, and at this point no one could possibl ywant to sign up for his injury riddled 2013 and to pay him 16 mil next year with a 4 mil buyout(they also would be less likely to discover Valbuena's value).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

A big market team that was terrible for multiple years at the big league level that built itself back in large part because of the resulting stocking of the system is a worthless analogy to the Cubs situation?

 

Yes. Everyone sucks sometimes. Everyone eventually gets good. Everyone develops prospects. The confluence of those three things in one specific situation is not particularly instructive.

 

Just because the "intent to suck" wasn't there?

 

Yes.

 

Or because a couple of their homegrown players turned out to be HOF types

 

Also yes.

 

The level of success that team achieved was unusual, but the circumstances that led to it were not. Building from within and the supplementing those homegrown players with trades and signings is what initially returned the Yankees to glory, the insane spending and HOF-caliber careers/peak performance that followed came further down the road (and kept them there).

 

Assuming you meant 'and then,' that's not what happened. The Yankees were *always* adding to their team with trades and signings. They didn't do one then the other.

 

The Cubs do not need their kids to become Derek Jeter or Mariano Rivera or 200MM payolls to replicate the path to sustained success that the Yankees followed.

 

We need some compelling reason to believe we can do it better than the other 20 teams that are aiming for sustained success. And the hypothetical future payroll isn't all that compelling of a reason.

[imb]

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.

 

*compares the cubs to the royals*

[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.

 

*compares the cubs to the royals*

 

Yes. That was the point. Do you get it now?