Theo on w/Kapman

[Banedon]

If Theo left before the Cubs were able to make an on field turnaround of some kind, I'd have to seriously re-evaluate my fandom. When Ricketts and Theo came in, I really believed things were pointed in the right direction. Despite my disagreements with the way Ricketts and Theo have gone about things, I still believe we'll get there, just not in the way I expected. But...if Theo were to leave...I dunno...

 

If the Cubs don't make an on-field turnaround while Theo is here, why would you be upset that he leaves? If we're still floundering after 5 years, he failed and it's time to let someone else try to fix it.

 

Because if Theo can't do it, I have little faith that anyone can.

[Guest]

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/cubs-keeping-open-mind-about-samardzija%E2%80%99s-future

 

Here's the interview (I'm not sure it's all of it...but it's a good sized chunk. About 10 min)

Edited December 5, 2013 by David

[KingCubsFan]

If Theo left before the Cubs were able to make an on field turnaround of some kind, I'd have to seriously re-evaluate my fandom. When Ricketts and Theo came in, I really believed things were pointed in the right direction. Despite my disagreements with the way Ricketts and Theo have gone about things, I still believe we'll get there, just not in the way I expected. But...if Theo were to leave...I dunno...

 

If the Cubs don't make an on-field turnaround while Theo is here, why would you be upset that he leaves? If we're still floundering after 5 years, he failed and it's time to let someone else try to fix it.

 

Please go away.

 

Well it's true.

 

If they have 5 years of not contending, that's not doing his job.

Yeah, if they haven't made significant improvement in wins and losses after 5 years, that would mean the prospects haven't turned out and they haven't done enough to address the pitching staff, both of which would be more on Theo than #poortomricketts.

[Guest]

If Theo left before the Cubs were able to make an on field turnaround of some kind, I'd have to seriously re-evaluate my fandom. When Ricketts and Theo came in, I really believed things were pointed in the right direction. Despite my disagreements with the way Ricketts and Theo have gone about things, I still believe we'll get there, just not in the way I expected. But...if Theo were to leave...I dunno...

 

If the Cubs don't make an on-field turnaround while Theo is here, why would you be upset that he leaves? If we're still floundering after 5 years, he failed and it's time to let someone else try to fix it.

 

Please go away.

 

Well it's true.

 

If they have 5 years of not contending, that's not doing his job.

 

If somehow that scenario were to play out, my belief that Theo is one of the smartest and most capable people at doing what he does would incline me to believe that whatever it was, it probably wasn't his fault. It's either the money continued to dry up further and the revenue increasing stuff was a colossal failure, horrific injury luck, or some other crazy thing.

 

In other words, like Brandon said, basically my position is if Theo can't do it, who the hell can? Theo might not be as superior to the replacement level GM as he used to be, but I don't think you can do much better.

[jersey cubs fan]

If somehow that scenario were to play out, my belief that Theo is one of the smartest and most capable people at doing what he does would incline me to believe that whatever it was, it probably wasn't his fault. It's either the money continued to dry up further and the revenue increasing stuff was a colossal failure, horrific injury luck, or some other crazy thing.

 

In other words, like Brandon said, basically my position is if Theo can't do it, who the hell can? Theo might not be as superior to the replacement level GM as he used to be, but I don't think you can do much better.

 

I think that's a little silly.

 

If you can't make a big market team respectable in five years, you have done a poor job running that team. I see no reason why we should think this team won't be competitive within the timeframe of his first contract.

 

15 years ago Theo was an anomaly. He rose to fame by being a smart man in a dumb man's game. There are more smart men in the game now. If Theo can't get the job done in 5 years he'd done a poor job and others should be able to take over the job.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

15 years ago Theo was an anomaly. He rose to fame by being a smart man in a dumb man's game. There are more smart men in the game now. If Theo can't get the job done in 5 years he'd done a poor job and others should be able to take over the job.

 

This. Even back before Epstein was hired, I wanted someone young and hungry and with a clean slate and new ideas. Getting Epstein's second act isn't the worst thing in the world, but I wouldn't have minded trying to find the next one.

 

I wouldn't mind if Epstein stepped out or up after his five years and handed things over to McLeod.

[Guest]

15 years ago Theo was an anomaly. He rose to fame by being a smart man in a dumb man's game. There are more smart men in the game now. If Theo can't get the job done in 5 years he'd done a poor job and others should be able to take over the job.

 

This. Even back before Epstein was hired, I wanted someone young and hungry and with a clean slate and new ideas. Getting Epstein's second act isn't the worst thing in the world, but I wouldn't have minded trying to find the next one.

 

I wouldn't mind if Epstein stepped out or up after his five years and handed things over to McLeod.

 

Based on some comments from the past couple of years, I think McLeod might be much more old timey than any of us would like to believe.

[Backtobanks]

If Theo left before the Cubs were able to make an on field turnaround of some kind, I'd have to seriously re-evaluate my fandom. When Ricketts and Theo came in, I really believed things were pointed in the right direction. Despite my disagreements with the way Ricketts and Theo have gone about things, I still believe we'll get there, just not in the way I expected. But...if Theo were to leave...I dunno...

 

If the Cubs don't make an on-field turnaround while Theo is here, why would you be upset that he leaves? If we're still floundering after 5 years, he failed and it's time to let someone else try to fix it.

 

Please go away.

 

Well it's true.

 

If they have 5 years of not contending, that's not doing his job.

 

If somehow that scenario were to play out, my belief that Theo is one of the smartest and most capable people at doing what he does would incline me to believe that whatever it was, it probably wasn't his fault. It's either the money continued to dry up further and the revenue increasing stuff was a colossal failure, horrific injury luck, or some other crazy thing.

 

In other words, like Brandon said, basically my position is if Theo can't do it, who the hell can? Theo might not be as superior to the replacement level GM as he used to be, but I don't think you can do much better.

 

So you're saying that just because Theo is smart, he can't fail. The idol worshipping of Theo by some of you borders on insanity. This is the first time Theo took a bad team (and system), tore it apart, and is trying to rebuild it from scratch. The Red Sox were a solid team (89 win average) when Theo took over and he made it an excellent team (93 win average). He is very smart and very capable, but he is human and humans are capable of failure.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Backtobanks

[jersey cubs fan]

15 years ago Theo was an anomaly. He rose to fame by being a smart man in a dumb man's game. There are more smart men in the game now. If Theo can't get the job done in 5 years he'd done a poor job and others should be able to take over the job.

 

This. Even back before Epstein was hired, I wanted someone young and hungry and with a clean slate and new ideas. Getting Epstein's second act isn't the worst thing in the world, but I wouldn't have minded trying to find the next one.

 

I wouldn't mind if Epstein stepped out or up after his five years and handed things over to McLeod.

 

Based on some comments from the past couple of years, I think McLeod might be much more old timey than any of us would like to believe.

 

I think McCleod is a better version of Jim Hendry. I wanted Jim Hendry to take over the GM role because of how well he appeared to be doing with the minor league system (you know, the last time the Cubs system went from also ran to elite) and I was dead wrong. McCleod is a scout/development guy and I would be in favor in bumping him up as far as a Hoyer type gig, GM in name only. But there is no way I want that type of guy actually running the whole thing.

[Guest]

If somehow that scenario were to play out, my belief that Theo is one of the smartest and most capable people at doing what he does would incline me to believe that whatever it was, it probably wasn't his fault. It's either the money continued to dry up further and the revenue increasing stuff was a colossal failure, horrific injury luck, or some other crazy thing.

 

In other words, like Brandon said, basically my position is if Theo can't do it, who the hell can? Theo might not be as superior to the replacement level GM as he used to be, but I don't think you can do much better.

 

I think that's a little silly.

 

If you can't make a big market team respectable in five years, you have done a poor job running that team. I see no reason why we should think this team won't be competitive within the timeframe of his first contract.

 

15 years ago Theo was an anomaly. He rose to fame by being a smart man in a dumb man's game. There are more smart men in the game now. If Theo can't get the job done in 5 years he'd done a poor job and others should be able to take over the job.

 

I agree. What I'm saying is my confidence in this front office is such that if you told me that after 5 years, the results would be a miserable failure, it would almost have to be some horrific luck or external circumstances.

 

Honestly, who the hell would be a significant upgrade over this FO? They are incredibly bright and thorough to a ridiculous degree. I'm not saying he's absolutely the smartest executive out there but I doubt there's anyone clearly superior. I'm never a fan of change just for the sake of change.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Honestly, who the hell would be a significant upgrade over this FO?

 

Anyone with a shred of ambition in a timeframe beyond one that perpetually stays three years in front of the present?

[Guest]

 

So you're saying that just because Theo is smart, he can't fail. The idol worshipping of Theo by some of you borders on insanity.

 

No, that's not what i'm saying.

 

In the terms we're talking about, smart = good. He may fail, but in terms of expected performance out of a GM going forward, I'd take the smart guy every time. That doesn't mean he is incapable of failure. It means I think his chances of failure going forward are less than that of others.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think McCleod is a better version of Jim Hendry. I wanted Jim Hendry to take over the GM role because of how well he appeared to be doing with the minor league system (you know, the last time the Cubs system went from also ran to elite) and I was dead wrong. McCleod is a scout/development guy and I would be in favor in bumping him up as far as a Hoyer type gig, GM in name only. But there is no way I want that type of guy actually running the whole thing.

 

 

That makes sense. Gosh, I wanted Hendry to be the GM so bad. He understood how to build teams the right way and we were finally going to build sustained success from within. We had a front office that got it for the first time ever.

[jersey cubs fan]

I agree. What I'm saying is my confidence in this front office is such that if you told me that after 5 years, the results would be a miserable failure, it would almost have to be some horrific luck or external circumstances.

 

Honestly, who the hell would be a significant upgrade over this FO? They are incredibly bright and thorough to a ridiculous degree. I'm not saying he's absolutely the smartest executive out there but I doubt there's anyone clearly superior. I'm never a fan of change just for the sake of change.

 

What I'm saying is that level of confidence is silly. And making such an excuse for failure is not helpful. We aren't talking about making change for the sake of change. We're talking about unnecessarily fretting over Theo leaving before this team is good. If they aren't good by the time his contract is up, he failed.

 

Change for change sake is swapping hitting coaches every year, or firing a front office after 2 miserable seasons. That isn't at issue.

[Guest]

It's probably not of huge consequence anyway, because, as others have said, Ricketts would probably hire someone else smart to replace him.

 

My point is that even if the team sucks in 5 years, it probably isn't due to lack of ability of the FO.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

So you're saying that just because Theo is smart, he can't fail. The idol worshipping of Theo by some of you borders on insanity.

 

No, that's not what i'm saying.

 

In the terms we're talking about, smart = good. He may fail, but in terms of expected performance out of a GM going forward, I'd take the smart guy every time. That doesn't mean he is incapable of failure. It means I think his chances of failure going forward are less than that of others.

 

You are ignoring the fact that Theo is no longer one of only a few smart guys in baseball, or the smartest.

[jersey cubs fan]

My point is that even if the team sucks in 5 years, it probably isn't due to lack of ability of the FO.

 

If the team sucks in 5 years it would be absurd to suggest the front office did not fail. Ability isn't the issue.

[Guest]

I agree. What I'm saying is my confidence in this front office is such that if you told me that after 5 years, the results would be a miserable failure, it would almost have to be some horrific luck or external circumstances.

 

Honestly, who the hell would be a significant upgrade over this FO? They are incredibly bright and thorough to a ridiculous degree. I'm not saying he's absolutely the smartest executive out there but I doubt there's anyone clearly superior. I'm never a fan of change just for the sake of change.

 

What I'm saying is that level of confidence is silly. And making such an excuse for failure is not helpful. We aren't talking about making change for the sake of change. We're talking about unnecessarily fretting over Theo leaving before this team is good. If they aren't good by the time his contract is up, he failed.

 

Change for change sake is swapping hitting coaches every year, or firing a front office after 2 miserable seasons. That isn't at issue.

 

Failure doesn't mean bad and that whoever replaces them would be better.

 

People good at things can fail too. And people bad at things can succeed. I'd still rather have the people who are good at things going forward.

[Guest]

My point is that even if the team sucks in 5 years, it probably isn't due to lack of ability of the FO.

 

If the team sucks in 5 years it would be absurd to suggest the front office did not fail. Ability isn't the issue.

 

Ability is the issue. WTF?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

My point is that even if the team sucks in 5 years, it probably isn't due to lack of ability of the FO.

 

Is there anything short of setting fire to Javy Baez in the batters box that could ever get Epstein dinged with a bit of failure with some people?

[Guest]

15 years ago Theo was an anomaly. He rose to fame by being a smart man in a dumb man's game. There are more smart men in the game now. If Theo can't get the job done in 5 years he'd done a poor job and others should be able to take over the job.

 

This. Even back before Epstein was hired, I wanted someone young and hungry and with a clean slate and new ideas. Getting Epstein's second act isn't the worst thing in the world, but I wouldn't have minded trying to find the next one.

 

I wouldn't mind if Epstein stepped out or up after his five years and handed things over to McLeod.

 

Based on some comments from the past couple of years, I think McLeod might be much more old timey than any of us would like to believe.

 

Well his primary function is much more on the subjective side of evaluation, so it's probably no surprise that those are the talking points. McLeod may end up as deluxe Jim Hendry as a GM, but I don't think we have any real indicator of how he would do in that role.

[jersey cubs fan]

My point is that even if the team sucks in 5 years, it probably isn't due to lack of ability of the FO.

 

If the team sucks in 5 years it would be absurd to suggest the front office did not fail. Ability isn't the issue.

 

Ability is the issue. WTF?

 

Ability isn't the issue. It's a nebulous term anyway, and Theo isn't the only guy with "ability" to smartly run a front office. You keep ignoring the fact that more and more smart people have gotten into the game. Theo went from being unique to being the most well known (and highly compensated) one of the bunch, but there are dozens of guys just like him in the game now. He's replaceable. He does not have an inherent natural ability to build a winning organization that other smart people in the game lack. He's not Mickey Mantle.

 

You keep framing the situation as going from Theo back to some neanderthal promoted from gym teacher to GM. If that happens, that would suck, but you don't form your opinion based on potential worst case scenario. The Cubs could easily find another smart guy ready to run an organization and do better than 5 crappy seasons.

[Banedon]

So you're saying that just because Theo is smart, he can't fail. The idol worshipping of Theo by some of you borders on insanity. This is the first time Theo took a bad team (and system), tore it apart, and is trying to rebuild it from scratch. The Red Sox were a solid team (89 win average) when Theo took over and he made it an excellent team (93 win average). He is very smart and very capable, but he is human and humans are capable of failure.

 

Circumstances have definitely gone against Theo since he arrived. Be it rules change, budget difficulties, issues with improving the ballpark, etc...there's been a number of factors that are out of his control.

 

I have no belief that somehow Theo is a magical man that is without fault. And I understand those that don't agree with the slow methodology he's using to build this team. I get all of that.

 

But I'm an optimistic sports fan generally, and I've had little faith in the Cubs for a long time. Ricketts and Theo always felt like "they better get this right, because if they can't, I don't know who can." And that hasn't changed for me, though I admit, my overall belief in Ricketts and Theo has definitely dipped since they came in.

 

Anyway, I'm not going to try to put a ton of rational explanation or thought into this point, because it's tough to rationally explain your fandom. All I can tell you is that if Theo fails at building this team into a consistent contender, my fandom is going to be at risk.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

People good at things can fail too.

 

Not for five years.

[Guest]

My point is that even if the team sucks in 5 years, it probably isn't due to lack of ability of the FO.

 

If the team sucks in 5 years it would be absurd to suggest the front office did not fail. Ability isn't the issue.

 

Ability is the issue. WTF?

 

Ability isn't the issue. It's a nebulous term anyway, and Theo isn't the only guy with "ability" to smartly run a front office. You keep ignoring the fact that more and more smart people have gotten into the game. Theo went from being unique to being the most well known (and highly compensated) one of the bunch, but there are dozens of guys just like him in the game now. He's replaceable. He does not have an inherent natural ability to build a winning organization that other smart people in the game lack. He's not Mickey Mantle.

 

You keep framing the situation as going from Theo back to some neanderthal promoted from gym teacher to GM. If that happens, that would suck, but you don't form your opinion based on potential worst case scenario. The Cubs could easily find another smart guy ready to run an organization and do better than 5 crappy seasons.

 

I acknowledged that already. Whoever replaces him will be smart too so it's not a big deal...unless Ricketts is more results oriented than we think and suddenly thinks that this smart stuff is for the birds and let's hire someone scouty and old timey....which I'm not really worried about.

 

But firing someone over shitty results when you know the process is good isn't my idea of smart.