2014 Roster Discussion

[Sammy Sofa]

I assumed it would take two years to unwind the old team

 

Why? I mean, it didn't even play out that way.

[Beer Kaese]

I assumed it would take two years to unwind the old team

 

Why? I mean, it didn't even play out that way.

 

It did play out that way. Zambrano, Soto, Maholm and Dempster last season. Marmol, Harriston, Feldman, Garza, Soriano and DeJesus this season. While not 24 months, it took nearly two complete seasons to trade six core players from the old team.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Why was it necessary to "unwind" the old team? Why is that even a thing?

[Sammy Sofa]

I assumed it would take two years to unwind the old team

 

Why? I mean, it didn't even play out that way.

 

It did play out that way. Zambrano, Soto, Maholm and Dempster last season. Marmol, Harriston, Feldman, Garza, Soriano and DeJesus this season. While not 24 months, it took nearly two complete seasons to trade six core players from the old team.

 

What is the "old team?" How do Maholm, Hairston and Feldman fit into whatever that is since none were on the team before 2012 and none lasted an entire season? The rest of those players all had very different legths in terms of their time with the Cubs, so, again, what exactly is "the old team (DeJesus was only on the team for a year and a half and was signed by the current FO, so how is he a "core player from the old team?")?" Why would it have been necessary to "unwind it?" What is "unwinding" in the first place?

[Beer Kaese]

Why was it necessary to "unwind" the old team? Why is that even a thing?

 

The team that won in 2007 and 2008 had run it's course. It was expensive, old and in decline. The farm system offered no quick fix and the impact players that could have kept the team above .500 would have come at a great cost over a very long period of time.

 

The Cubs are a piece of land. The land had a house on it. The foundation was crumbling and the structure was rotten. So, you tear it down and build new.

[Sammy Sofa]

That doesn't explain why they had to "unwind" anything; nevermind most of the "older" players weren't preventing the FO from rebuilding the organization and most of them were moved near or the end of the contracts with the Cubs (and most of them for crappy or unremarkable returns, too).

[Beer Kaese]

I assumed it would take two years to unwind the old team

 

Why? I mean, it didn't even play out that way.

 

It did play out that way. Zambrano, Soto, Maholm and Dempster last season. Marmol, Harriston, Feldman, Garza, Soriano and DeJesus this season. While not 24 months, it took nearly two complete seasons to trade six core players from the old team.

 

What is the "old team?" How do Maholm, Hairston and Feldman fit into whatever that is since none were on the team before 2012 and none lasted an entire season? The rest of those players all had very different legths in terms of their time with the Cubs, so, again, what exactly is "the old team (DeJesus was only on the team for a year and a half and was signed by the current FO, so how is he a "core player from the old team?")?" Why would it have been necessary to "unwind it?" What is "unwinding" in the first place?

 

Maholm (and Johnson) were moved because the team liked the package and Dempster balked. Marmol had no value because there was zero chance he'd be with the team beyond his contract. Harriston . . . we actually got something for him? I'm still in shock. Feldman was signed to replace Maholm whom they intended to trade this season and they found a taker.

 

All of these deals bring back multiple minor leaguers who create greater competition in the minors allowing management to cull the herd, so to speak.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Why was it necessary to "unwind" the old team? Why is that even a thing?

 

The team that won in 2007 and 2008 had run it's course. It was expensive, old and in decline. The farm system offered no quick fix and the impact players that could have kept the team above .500 would have come at a great cost over a very long period of time.

 

The Cubs are a piece of land. The land had a house on it. The foundation was crumbling and the structure was rotten. So, you tear it down and build new.

 

The Cubs are not a piece of land.

 

You can build a good baseball team and still have a couple of players from the old team.

[Sammy Sofa]

I assumed it would take two years to unwind the old team

 

Why? I mean, it didn't even play out that way.

 

It did play out that way. Zambrano, Soto, Maholm and Dempster last season. Marmol, Harriston, Feldman, Garza, Soriano and DeJesus this season. While not 24 months, it took nearly two complete seasons to trade six core players from the old team.

 

What is the "old team?" How do Maholm, Hairston and Feldman fit into whatever that is since none were on the team before 2012 and none lasted an entire season? The rest of those players all had very different legths in terms of their time with the Cubs, so, again, what exactly is "the old team (DeJesus was only on the team for a year and a half and was signed by the current FO, so how is he a "core player from the old team?")?" Why would it have been necessary to "unwind it?" What is "unwinding" in the first place?

 

Maholm (and Johnson) were moved because the team liked the package and Dempster balked. Marmol had no value because there was zero chance he'd be with the team beyond his contract. Harriston . . . we actually got something for him? I'm still in shock. Feldman was signed to replace Maholm whom they intended to trade this season and they found a taker.

 

All of these deals bring back multiple minor leaguers who create greater competition in the minors allowing management to cull the herd, so to speak.

 

But that's seemingly a completely separate goal/action from "unwinding the old team." I don't know how you can lump in players who were signed by the current FO and lasted less than a year with any kind of effort to dismantle the "old team."

[Beer Kaese]

That doesn't explain why they had to "unwind" anything; nevermind most of the "older" players weren't preventing the FO from rebuilding the organization and most of them were moved near or the end of the contracts with the Cubs (and most of them for crappy or unremarkable returns, too).

 

The fact the team didn't net high ceiling prospects in return for what they were trading away speaks volumes about the quality of player they traded. When you do a one for three deal you add two players that are better than two players you have. You are elevating the level of play at every level. I don't see how that could be a bad strategy.

[Beer Kaese]

Why was it necessary to "unwind" the old team? Why is that even a thing?

 

The team that won in 2007 and 2008 had run it's course. It was expensive, old and in decline. The farm system offered no quick fix and the impact players that could have kept the team above .500 would have come at a great cost over a very long period of time.

 

The Cubs are a piece of land. The land had a house on it. The foundation was crumbling and the structure was rotten. So, you tear it down and build new.

 

The Cubs are not a piece of land.

 

You can build a good baseball team and still have a couple of players from the old team.

 

If the Cubs were an investment I would have sold 2010 and I would be buying now. On a cost per win basis (price to earning) the team was over priced. Now they have costs under control. They are investing in new equipment and have a exciting products in the pipeline with some nearly ready for the market.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The Cubs are also not an investment.

[Beer Kaese]

The Cubs are also not an investment.

 

The Cubs are, in reality, a financial asset. Like stock in a company or a piece of real estate.

 

The Cubs are a company and Wrigley Field is the store where they sell the product. You can purchase it live, on TV, the internet or the radio.

 

We use sabermetrics to determine wins over replacement. What this measures is the performance of one player relative to other players at his position, correct? How is that different than the market share of a product?

 

The performance of a team is determined by the market share of it's mix of 25 products. One way to maximize value is to have inexpensive products that out perform the market which allows for increased investment in products which can dominate their product category.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Sweet Jesus, just stop with the metaphors.

[Guest]

Sweet Jesus, just stop with the metaphors.

It's really bad and not appropriate. The bottom line is that the Ricketts bought the team and wanted to start over, from scratch, including everything.

[Sammy Sofa]

That doesn't explain why they had to "unwind" anything; nevermind most of the "older" players weren't preventing the FO from rebuilding the organization and most of them were moved near or the end of the contracts with the Cubs (and most of them for crappy or unremarkable returns, too).

 

The fact the team didn't net high ceiling prospects in return for what they were trading away speaks volumes about the quality of player they traded. When you do a one for three deal you add two players that are better than two players you have. You are elevating the level of play at every level. I don't see how that could be a bad strategy.

 

It's just not even a strategy at all; again, you're talking about the "old team" (whatever that is) like they had to take it apart to move forward, but that's simply not true. They did it simply because it's what you tend to do when you have a terrible team and veteran players coming to the end of their deals, but it's not like rebuilding the team/organization hinged on moving older players.

[Sammy Sofa]

They are investing in new equipment and have a exciting products in the pipeline with some nearly ready for the market.

 

So please point to how many of those "products" were obtained by "unwinding the old team."

[Backtobanks]

The Cubs are also not an investment.

 

The Cubs are, in reality, a financial asset. Like stock in a company or a piece of real estate.

 

The Cubs are a company and Wrigley Field is the store where they sell the product. You can purchase it live, on TV, the internet or the radio.

 

We use sabermetrics to determine wins over replacement. What this measures is the performance of one player relative to other players at his position, correct? How is that different than the market share of a product?

 

The performance of a team is determined by the market share of it's mix of 25 products. One way to maximize value is to have inexpensive products that out perform the market which allows for increased investment in products which can dominate their product category.

 

The Cubs are not like a piece of real estate because Ricketts has poured tons of money into real estate while cutting money from the Cubs.

[Guest]

Holy [expletive] there is a whole lot of terrible logic on this page, and it's all coming from the same guy.

[Guest]

The Cubs are also not an investment.

 

The Cubs are, in reality, a financial asset. Like stock in a company or a piece of real estate.

 

The Cubs are a company and Wrigley Field is the store where they sell the product. You can purchase it live, on TV, the internet or the radio.

 

We use sabermetrics to determine wins over replacement. What this measures is the performance of one player relative to other players at his position, correct? How is that different than the market share of a product?

 

The performance of a team is determined by the market share of it's mix of 25 products. One way to maximize value is to have inexpensive products that out perform the market which allows for increased investment in products which can dominate their product category.

 

The Cubs are not like a piece of real estate because Ricketts has poured tons of money into real estate while cutting money from the Cubs.

 

The Cubs are not like a piece of real estate, true. But that's not why.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The Cubs are like a snakebite. You had to suck the poison out before you could apply a band-aid.

[Guest]

I assumed it would take two years to unwind the old team

 

Why? I mean, it didn't even play out that way.

 

It did play out that way. Zambrano, Soto, Maholm and Dempster last season. Marmol, Harriston, Feldman, Garza, Soriano and DeJesus this season. While not 24 months, it took nearly two complete seasons to trade six core players from the old team.

 

Hairston and Feldman weren't even in the wind to unwind them a year ago.

[ConstableRabbit]

That's not your favorite baseball team-- that's a cellphone!

[Sammy Sofa]

Heh-heh-heh..."mule."

[Boris]

This all wouldn't have been too bad if it hadn't started with the house analogy. That was awful. Some of the other stuff was OK.