Random Cubs Musings

[XZero771679666304]

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)

 

And the team would still have sucked. Sign Ramirez and Fielder, and the team would have been better, but likely not competed. And that's assuming they kept guys like Marshall and Cashner. You would have lost a chunk of Fielder's (or whatever FA you want to substitute) prime (prime production being the only rationalization for paying the back end of contracts like that) and paid a premium for the end of Ramirez's career all for a gain of maybe 5 wins over 2011 (based on 2012 fWAR), which still leaves the team well short of contention. And thank god we stayed away from Pujols.

 

The appearance of effort would have made people feel better, but it would have done nothing to improve the long term over what ended up happening.

 

FTR, what has happened to Ramirez this year is exactly what those who felt re-signing him would be a mistake feared would happen. What he did last year would have been worth it had improbable gains been made all over the roster.

Edited August 6, 2013 by XZero77

[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?

 

There's a bunch of interesting scenarios here:

 

http://northsidebaseball.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=60154

 

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

 

Do you mean mine? Because that would've ended up a complete disaster, not to mention it wasn't possible due to reasons we weren't privy to at the time.

 

Really though, the specifics is what I'm after. How could they have done better by "going for it" last year?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Really though, the specifics is what I'm after. How could they have done better by "going for it" last year?

 

Putting together those sorts of alternative histories is a frustratingly pointless endeavor. It requires a lot of work and making a ton of debatable assumptions.

[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*

 

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

 

the point you were making was that none of the examples you gave as comparisons for what the cubs are trying to do were accurate? boy, you sure do debate weird.

[XZero771679666304]

Really though, the specifics is what I'm after. How could they have done better by "going for it" last year?

 

Putting together those sorts of alternative histories is a frustratingly pointless endeavor. It requires a lot of work and making a ton of debatable assumptions.

 

As is debating anything with you, yet here we are.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

As is debating anything with you, yet here we are.

 

I'm enjoying myself. If you aren't, then I grant you permission to stop.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

the point you were making was that none of the examples you gave as comparisons for what the cubs are trying to do were accurate? boy, you sure do debate weird.

 

I was making the point that the comparison was pointless by making a similarly inaccurate comparison in the opposite direction.

 

Pointing to a team that had unbelievable results in homegrown development and more money than the Cubs is mirrored by pointing to teams that have had worse results and less money.

[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?

 

There's a bunch of interesting scenarios here:

 

http://northsidebaseball.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=60154

 

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

 

Do you mean mine? Because that would've ended up a complete disaster, not to mention it wasn't possible due to reasons we weren't privy to at the time.

 

Really though, the specifics is what I'm after. How could they have done better by "going for it" last year?

these are always fun to revisit- here's mine

pluses: Headley! Liriano! DeJesus!

 

minuses: Sizemore (oof), the Prince Fielder bidding

 

woulda been a good BP, though

[Guest]

Really though, the specifics is what I'm after. How could they have done better by "going for it" last year?

 

Putting together those sorts of alternative histories is a frustratingly pointless endeavor. It requires a lot of work and making a ton of debatable assumptions.

 

It's the crux of your entire argument, that they've damaged this year and beyond by not making some sort of nebulous "effort" or "statement" last offseason. Especially considering how last year played out with the accepted current pieces(Byrd, Soto, Wood, Volstad, and Marmol disappointed), I personally need to see some sort of outcome that shows an actual missed opportunity.

[imb]

the point you were making was that none of the examples you gave as comparisons for what the cubs are trying to do were accurate? boy, you sure do debate weird.

 

I was making the point that the comparison was pointless by making a similarly inaccurate comparison in the opposite direction.

 

Pointing to a team that had unbelievable results in homegrown development and more money than the Cubs is mirrored by pointing to teams that have had worse results and less money.

 

this is some straight up erik moving the goalposts [expletive]

[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)

 

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).

 

Wilson as well. Those 2 moves wouldn't have made them a contender last year, but it would've given them a better starting point this year.

[imb]

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).

 

Wilson as well. Those 2 moves wouldn't have made them a contender last year, but it would've given them a better starting point this year.

 

cj wilson was never an option, didnt he take less money to go back home? man i'd feel a lot better about our future if i had gotten to see aramis ramirez for 20 healthy games this year or whatever

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's the crux of your entire argument, that they've damaged this year and beyond by not making some sort of nebulous "effort" or "statement" last offseason. Especially considering how last year played out with the accepted current pieces(Byrd, Soto, Wood, Volstad, and Marmol disappointed), I personally need to see some sort of outcome that shows an actual missed opportunity.

 

And I personally need to see some sort of actual sustained success before I give the front office credit for a strategy that is aimed creating it.

 

It's too complicated of a question. Do I need to show that we could have made the playoffs in 2012? Been "competitive"? Try to make some sort of estimates of the revenues we might not have lost without it? Do I use how players actually performed or how we would have believed they'd have performed at the time? Can I guess at what trades would have required? Can I assume free agents would have signed with us for the same price they signed elsewhere?

 

I could try to hit on some of the biggest moves, but the small differences also matter. "Going for it" heading into 2012 is a butterfly flapping its wings by the time we get to a season and a half later. It's not really feasible to talk in any more than generalities, and I accept that those generalities may not convince you.

[gocubs2118]

The obsession with Aramis is weird to me. The guy is old and injury prone and can barely play 3B anymore without injuring himself. I'm glad they decided to move on from him. The alternative they chose to him was bad but signing Aramis would of been worse.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

this is some straight up erik moving the goalposts [expletive]

 

The goalposts are right where they've always been.

[Guest]

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).

 

Wilson as well. Those 2 moves wouldn't have made them a contender last year, but it would've given them a better starting point this year.

 

I wanted Wilson too, but his below-market deal with the Angels put an end to that. But even playing along and saying Wilson is in the fold, I'm not seeing a vast difference in this year's fortunes. Wilson makes the rotation better, but if he and Ramirez are the big push, then this year is pretty much a wash production wise, and the damage Ramirez does to future seasons offsets a great deal of the difference in value Wilson projects to have in 2014 and beyond. Is that potentially better? Sure, that's possible, but we're talking in very marginal terms here that don't at all deserve the "WE PUNTED 2012" rhetoric of this thread.

[imb]

this is some straight up erik moving the goalposts [expletive]

 

The goalposts are right where they've always been.

 

lmao

[Hairyducked Idiot]

this is some straight up erik moving the goalposts [expletive]

 

The goalposts are right where they've always been.

 

lmao

 

@#%@#!% goalposts just won't stay still.

 

[neely crenshaw]

For all our "improved"play we are 2 games ahead of the Brewers and 5.5 ahead of the AAA Marlins, and behind the Mets.

 

That's weird...because we didn't trade any of our good players for future talent at the deadline...

 

Oh wait...

First, I just mentioned it simply because I was surprised they were that close, shocked we're behind the mets

 

Your statement would make sense if not for the fact that since Feldman was traded we are 14-14, since Garza was traded 6-7, and since Soriano(4-5). So unless you are talking about the big loss of Hairston and Marmol, we are actually playing at a better % since the starting to trade than our overall record. Other than that it's right on.

By the way we've won 2 of 3 Rusin starts for Garza. Villanueva is 1-5 replacing Feldman, but he's had one bad start. he's lost 1-0, 3-1,3-2 and 6-5 (where he gave up 4). So maybe we win an extra game or 2 with Feldman... but maybe none.

Then factor in the start of Lake in Soriano's place, and I am not sure where that big drop off from the trade is happening.

but carry on, don't let facts deter you..

 

Hey, since we're talking about facts, how do you figure that the Cubs have gone 4-5 since the Soriano trade, when they've lost 7 of their last 8?

 

I posted Sunday before we had lost to LA.

So we had lost 2 to LA, went 1-3 vs Milwaukee and won 3 straight at SF. So we were 4-6 even if we were 0-10 since Soriano left it's hard to say it's because of that deal when Lake has posted .333 4 hr and .884 ops, hard to say we would have won more with Soriano.

Again, I was saying that I was very surprised that we were that far down still. I was also just as surprised that the sox are pushing the Astros for the worst record. Didn't mean it as a slam.

[dcvalpo]

I'm actually quite happy with where the Cubs are headed. We've been much more watchable this year, the farm system has done a massive turnaround and we're not locked into awful long term deals we would have regretted in short order.

 

I've yet to hear one plan for last year that would have helped enough in the short term to overcome the long term damage. And in the irony of all ironies, the one guy who is really trumpeting this whole "we should have gone for it" thought says it's a "frustratingly pointless endeavor" to actually think of a plan that would have worked.

 

Enjoy the ride...it's actually fun to be a part of a franchise with a plan and a bright long-term future.

[Guest]

Enjoy the ride...it's actually fun to be a part of a franchise with a plan and a bright long-term future.

We hope. I'm waiting for the day that everyone is pissed that the Cubs traded away the #1 and #3 prospect for an expensive past 30 player who will be "the guy" to get them deep into the playoffs. Can't wait, actually. It means that they will actually be good.

[davell]

Enjoy the ride...it's actually fun to be a part of a franchise with a plan and a bright long-term future.

We hope. I'm waiting for the day that everyone is pissed that the Cubs traded away the #1 and #3 prospect for an expensive past 30 player who will be "the guy" to get them deep into the playoffs. Can't wait, actually. It means that they will actually be good.

Did B2B steal your account. Because unless we're trading for Harper or Trout, your scenario has about the same chance of happening as Theo quitting and Hendry taking back over.

[Guest]

Enjoy the ride...it's actually fun to be a part of a franchise with a plan and a bright long-term future.

We hope. I'm waiting for the day that everyone is pissed that the Cubs traded away the #1 and #3 prospect for an expensive past 30 player who will be "the guy" to get them deep into the playoffs. Can't wait, actually. It means that they will actually be good.

Did B2B steal your account. Because unless we're trading for Harper or Trout, your scenario has about the same chance of happening as Theo quitting and Hendry taking back over.

Listen, if they don't use the farm system to make the big league team better there is no point in having one. It doesn't matter if it is home grown talent or talent that was bought with homegrown talent. If they won't do that they have no business running a team. Theo can spew his "I don't believe you are ever one guy away" [expletive] for the media all he wants, but they have to find some impact talent to be good and they can't wait to develop 9 position players and 5 starting pitchers all in their prime at the same time. It's a childish dream.

 

EDIT: There's no sin in selling high in a futures market.

Edited August 7, 2013 by CubinNY

[davell]

Thats not what ANYONE here thinks will happen. I'm talking about your literal trade proposal. I'm not trading Javy AND another one of our big 3 for a single player in MLB not named Bryce Harper or Mike Trout. Much less anyone over 30. I fully suspect we'll be trading for a bigtime player or two, maybe even as soon as this upcoming offseason. But its not taking THAT type of package to make a big move.

[Guest]

some of you people don't deserve this front office