Brett's take on Cubs finances

[Guest]

 

At this point, in this division, hovering around .500 is keeping yourself in contention for fourth place. I guess that's something.

.500 team is within striking distance of 3rd and a 2nd wild card IMO... maybe even second.

[Sammy Sofa]

At this point, in this division, hovering around .500 is keeping yourself in contention for fourth place. I guess that's something.

 

Oh, for God's sake.

 

Better not try until they can guarantee a playoff spot.

[XZero771679666304]

At this point, in this division, hovering around .500 is keeping yourself in contention for fourth place. I guess that's something.

 

Oh, for God's sake.

 

Better not try until they can guarantee a playoff spot.

 

I'd prefer they spend money and make the team more watchable, but .500 is not contention, unless you have a really generous definition of "striking distance". The second wild card team in 2013 was 18 games over, and while some teams might regress (Pirates), others may take a step forward (Nats). I can't realistically envision a scenario in which 81-81 gets you close to the postseason in 2014.

 

All I am saying is that if price you pay for being simply average-below average (with only a very outside chance of contention) rather than bad is a chance at a top prospect, you can't totally condemn the FO for taking the high draft pick. I don't much care for it, but I can understand the logic and reconcile with the reality of a bad season.

 

If you have limited resources (and I am in the camp that believes that ownership is being stingy, for whatever reason you choose to believe), the smart play is to play it safe and favor the long term.

 

Having said that, we're getting to [expletive] or get off the pot time. Trying to keep the team on the fringes of contention in 2012 would have been almost undeniably detrimental to long term goals, and to a lesser degree the same was true in 2013. 2014 is the last season I can be on board with this.

 

If some significant moves to add front line talent (especially pitching) during or after this season, I am going to be really perturbed, to say the least.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's a progressive thing; it's more likely (and makes more sense) that your team gets better with each season as opposed to going from shitty to good in a single offseason. Finishing around or just under .500 isn't a failure or detrimental to "The Process." Tanking for a top prospect is a self-fulfilling prophecy that can technically be justified every season.

[Guest]

It's a progressive thing; it's more likely (and makes more sense) that your team gets better with each season as opposed to going from [expletive] to good in a single offseason. Finishing around or just under .500 isn't a failure or detrimental to "The Process." Tanking for a top prospect is a self-fulfilling prophecy that can technically be justified every season.

 

Intuitively, I agree, but I seem to recall TT posting something a while back at least semi-debunking that line of thinking.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's a progressive thing; it's more likely (and makes more sense) that your team gets better with each season as opposed to going from [expletive] to good in a single offseason. Finishing around or just under .500 isn't a failure or detrimental to "The Process." Tanking for a top prospect is a self-fulfilling prophecy that can technically be justified every season.

 

Intuitively, I agree, but I seem to recall TT posting something a while back at least semi-debunking that line of thinking.

 

Of course this [expletive] game can somehow show that going from 65 wins to 85+ wins at the drop of a hat and sustaining it is somehow realistic. Go [expletive] yourself, baseball.

[XZero771679666304]

It's a progressive thing; it's more likely (and makes more sense) that your team gets better with each season as opposed to going from [expletive] to good in a single offseason. Finishing around or just under .500 isn't a failure or detrimental to "The Process." Tanking for a top prospect is a self-fulfilling prophecy that can technically be justified every season.

 

I think that last season, Castro's (and Rizzo's, to a lesser degree) regression threw a wrench into the works of progression a bit. It was going to be bad, but I don't think too many people thought it was going to be quite as bad as it was.

 

Tanking can only be justified so long as the odds of being in contention are sufficiently long. Of course adding players helps those odds, but financial constraints (along with limited appealing FA options) hamper your ability to do that. But if things go even decently this year, and guys like Baez and perhaps Bryant find their ways onto the big league roster (even moreso if Castro and Rizzo rebound, or Olt becomes even an approximation of a thing), justifying a tank (or even passive approach) to 2015 becomes nearly impossible.

 

It's not something that just go on forever, unless your FO is just grossly incompetent (see the Pirates for most of the past 20 years).

 

And finishing at .500 in and of itself isn't detrimental to the plan, but what you have to do to get there might be. If you have to give a guy or three you only sort of want a bad contract to get you to that point, that is absolutely detrimental for a number of reasons.

 

The only thing that has really stuck in my craw is not more aggressively pursuing guys who fit the bill of being long term assets who figure to be cost effective for most or all of the duration of a contract (young, good players like Tanaka, Darvish, etc.). My intuition is that these are guys the FO really wanted, and that they just weren't given enough money by ownership.

 

I'm not freaking out yet, but I am growing increasingly antsy about the financial situation.

[XZero771679666304]

It's a progressive thing; it's more likely (and makes more sense) that your team gets better with each season as opposed to going from [expletive] to good in a single offseason. Finishing around or just under .500 isn't a failure or detrimental to "The Process." Tanking for a top prospect is a self-fulfilling prophecy that can technically be justified every season.

 

Intuitively, I agree, but I seem to recall TT posting something a while back at least semi-debunking that line of thinking.

 

Of course this [expletive] game can somehow show that going from 65 wins to 85+ wins at the drop of a hat and sustaining it is somehow realistic. Go [expletive] yourself, baseball.

 

I don't think it's how you'd want to draw up a plan, but it can absolutely work out that way. If the Rickettses find some money, I think we could see it happen here really soon.

 

I think it's pretty easy to imagine a realistic (only somewhat optimistic) scenario in which the Cubs win 70-75 games this year and jump to 85-90 next year.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm thinking 75-80 is more likely in 2015. I don't see 85-90 wins unless basically everything goes right.

[davell]

This year is going to be extremely interesting. I want to say I don't give a [expletive] about wins this year, but we have too many guys that can contribute this year that are possible long term pieces for me to say it.

 

Castillo, Castro, Rizzo, Lake, Kalish, Olt, Ruggiano

 

Shark, Wood, Arrieta, Rusin

 

Strop, Rondon, Parker, Vizcaino, Cabrera, Grimm

 

Javy, Villanueva, Alcantara, Szczur, Bryant, God forbid either Brett or Vitters

 

Hendricks, Rivero, Rosscup, Ramirez

 

It's just way too many guys to not care at least somewhat about wins in 2014. Because if things go to form, quite a few of these guys will get chances this year. Maybe not KB, even if he's great in the minors, but the rest will definitely have a shot if they perform in AAA.

 

Add that to the guys that are already here and this is easily the most important year of the new regime's to date.

[XZero771679666304]

I'm thinking 75-80 is more likely in 2015. I don't see 85-90 wins unless basically everything goes right.

 

 

If Baez and Bryant come up and are simply decent, Rizzo and Castro approximate their 2012 rates and the FO is allowed to add a couple SP and Shark re-signs, I can see 80-85.

 

Everything going right would be Castro and Rizzo not only rebounding but progressing, Baez and Bryant not only being on the roster but being 3+ WAR players, Olt being a 3+ WAR player, Shark re-signing and improving, signing two of the top FA pitchers, Castillo progressing, Hendricks making the team and being a 2 WAR pitcher, the bullpen breaking right and maybe even Soler finding his way onto the team in the second half and contributing.

 

Somewhere in between is something that would could at least hope for without being crazy people.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm thinking 75-80 is more likely in 2015. I don't see 85-90 wins unless basically everything goes right.

 

 

If Baez and Bryant come up and are simply decent, Rizzo and Castro approximate their 2012 rates and the FO is allowed to add a couple SP and Shark re-signs, I can see 80-85.

 

I think you're selling short just how bad the offense is potentially going to be this year plus how iffy the starting rotation is. Baez and Bryant simply being OK and Castro and Rizzo only managing to be their old selves doesn't seem like much to drag this mess up past .500.

[XZero771679666304]

 

Add that to the guys that are already here and this is easily the most important year of the new regime's to date.

 

Yeah, this is a huge year. Not so much for W/L, but huge for assessing and setting up the core of the team. It's going to be quite interesting.

[XZero771679666304]

I'm thinking 75-80 is more likely in 2015. I don't see 85-90 wins unless basically everything goes right.

 

 

If Baez and Bryant come up and are simply decent, Rizzo and Castro approximate their 2012 rates and the FO is allowed to add a couple SP and Shark re-signs, I can see 80-85.

 

I think you're selling short just how bad the offense is potentially going to be this year plus how iffy the starting rotation is. Baez and Bryant simply being OK and Castro and Rizzo only managing to be their old selves doesn't seem like much to drag this mess up past .500.

 

Shark staying and adding a couple front end SP would do a lot. The bullpen cost us a lot of games and the looks to be well improved already. Castro and Rizzo going back to their 2012 rates would be no small improvement, and potentially replacing Barney's bat with Baez would make a difference.

 

The OF is a hot mess, but that's where I expect Bryant to end up, which will at least marginally improve that.

 

The offense this year does have to potential to be awful, but it also has the potential to be decent. We'll see how it shakes out.

[Sammy Sofa]

Shark staying and adding a couple front end SP would do a lot. The bullpen cost us a lot of games and the looks to be well improved already. Castro and Rizzo going back to their 2012 rates would be no small improvement, and potentially replacing Barney's bat with Baez would make a difference.

 

I agree that all of that would be an improvement, but I just don't see how that's potentially putting them at 90 wins. 90 wins sounds like Baez and Bryant showing up and kicking ass, the Cubs trading for at least one fantastic starting pitcher and re-singing Shark and Castro and Rizzo not just bouncing back but improving...at least. That's a lot that has to go really right. It's not that I don't think they won't get to that point along those lines, but I don't think 2015 is the year it's likely to happen. I think there's going to be growing pains/busts.

[Backtobanks]

Any talk of .500 or above in 2015 depends entirely on finding starting pitching. Putting a lineup of Castro, Rizzo, Olt, Baez, and Bryant together should produce at least a decent offense, but not enough to overcome mediocre pitching.

[Guest]

Castro and Rizzo going back to their 2012 rates would be no small improvement

 

Yeah, that's like a 4.5 win difference on its own.

[Guest]

Any talk of .500 or above in 2015 depends entirely on finding starting pitching. Putting a lineup of Castro, Rizzo, Olt, Baez, and Bryant together should produce at least a decent offense, but not enough to overcome mediocre pitching.

 

To me, depending obviously on what subjective terms are interpreted as (but I don't think my interpretations are a reach), a decent offense and mediocre pitching probably means a .500 or better team.

[mul21]

Shark staying and adding a couple front end SP would do a lot. The bullpen cost us a lot of games and the looks to be well improved already. Castro and Rizzo going back to their 2012 rates would be no small improvement, and potentially replacing Barney's bat with Baez would make a difference.

 

I agree that all of that would be an improvement, but I just don't see how that's potentially putting them at 90 wins. 90 wins sounds like Baez and Bryant showing up and kicking ass, the Cubs trading for at least one fantastic starting pitcher and re-singing Shark and Castro and Rizzo not just bouncing back but improving...at least. That's a lot that has to go really right. It's not that I don't think they won't get to that point along those lines, but I don't think 2015 is the year it's likely to happen. I think there's going to be growing pains/busts.

 

I think you're forgetting how completely and utterly awful the pen was until Gregg showed up last year. Just not giving away half the games they did by having nobody who could get guys out consistently after the 6th inning will be a big help. If the rotation is halfway decent, you get a bit of a bounce back from Castro and Rizzo, and you're not selling off parts at the deadline, that 65 wins from last year is probably closer to 75-80 this year and then you add in Bryant and Baez to replace Barney and an OF. Granted, you don't have Soriano propping up the offense this year, but you have the potential to make up for some of that with Olt.

[XZero771679666304]

Shark staying and adding a couple front end SP would do a lot. The bullpen cost us a lot of games and the looks to be well improved already. Castro and Rizzo going back to their 2012 rates would be no small improvement, and potentially replacing Barney's bat with Baez would make a difference.

 

I agree that all of that would be an improvement, but I just don't see how that's potentially putting them at 90 wins. 90 wins sounds like Baez and Bryant showing up and kicking ass, the Cubs trading for at least one fantastic starting pitcher and re-singing Shark and Castro and Rizzo not just bouncing back but improving...at least. That's a lot that has to go really right. It's not that I don't think they won't get to that point along those lines, but I don't think 2015 is the year it's likely to happen. I think there's going to be growing pains/busts.

 

I posted a couple scenarios above, one being the lowest degree of optimistic, and the other being an "everything goes right" scenario. I think 85-90 wins would be somewhere in between those two.

[Guest]

It's a progressive thing; it's more likely (and makes more sense) that your team gets better with each season as opposed to going from [expletive] to good in a single offseason. Finishing around or just under .500 isn't a failure or detrimental to "The Process." Tanking for a top prospect is a self-fulfilling prophecy that can technically be justified every season.

 

Intuitively, I agree, but I seem to recall TT posting something a while back at least semi-debunking that line of thinking.

 

It was this thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=62117&p=2955052

 

Short version: Going back to 2007, 13 teams made the playoffs after a 4 year drought. On average, they went from 76 wins the year before to 92 wins in that playoff year.

 

That doesn't mean that getting better shouldn't be a goal, but I think it reinforces the "it doesn't really matter if we win 75 or 70" attitude that's motivated the deadline sell-offs of the last 2 years.

 

As for winning 80ish games, I think it depends on what you mean. Do you mean building a team capable of winning 80 games? That team is interesting and watchable later into the summer. It's also something the 2014 Cubs are capable of with a little health and a some above projection performance from the offense. It's not that huge a gulf really, the 2013 Cubs were (I think) a game above .500 from the time Gregg was made closer until the Garza trade. At the same time, that type of ability doesn't really mean much, as the fact that it's within the grasp of this year's team proves.

 

Now if you're talking about a team that's true talent/expectation is winning 80ish games, that's a different story. That's a borderline playoff team with some positive variance, and is definitely something to shoot for. As it pertains to the Cubs though, I'm not sure that's been a hyper realistic goal given the financial restrictions. You can come relatively close given hindsight(say, they pay up to get Sanchez, then get Chris Young and Nolasco instead of pursuing Tanaka), but that has 2 problems. One is that I'm not sure that type of hindsight is something we can fault the front office for. The other, more important is that in order to get there you're making decisions that don't necessarily lead to building on that 80ish win team, because that level of team isn't the end goal. Guys like Young and Nolasco(who are indicative of the type of player needed and available, if not them specifically) increase the win total this year, but there's diminishing returns as they age, so then you're needing to backfill their production as they decline(or their contact ends), but now you don't have any financial flexibility to do so and fewer places to do so on the roster. It's the exact problem that was facing the 2011 Cubs with value consolidated in Ramirez, Pena, Soriano, Dempster, Kosuke, Byrd, etc.

 

So does that mean that the FO is "tanking" or the opposite of treating "every season sacred" by not pursuing every marginal upgrade in this way? Personally, I don't think that's a very intellectually honest argument considering every organization(okay, maybe not the Yankees) throws everything into every season that way. There's a reason that Drew and Morales are still FA and Santana only signed after someone got hurt. That doesn't mean they've been flawless either(they need to do better at accurately gauging the market for players they do target, and they ought to be more active in the trade market), but the "tanking" rhetoric is tired to me, especially in the light of a reasonable argument that the financial restrictions are real(the original point of this thread).

[Sammy Sofa]

Shark staying and adding a couple front end SP would do a lot. The bullpen cost us a lot of games and the looks to be well improved already. Castro and Rizzo going back to their 2012 rates would be no small improvement, and potentially replacing Barney's bat with Baez would make a difference.

 

I agree that all of that would be an improvement, but I just don't see how that's potentially putting them at 90 wins. 90 wins sounds like Baez and Bryant showing up and kicking ass, the Cubs trading for at least one fantastic starting pitcher and re-singing Shark and Castro and Rizzo not just bouncing back but improving...at least. That's a lot that has to go really right. It's not that I don't think they won't get to that point along those lines, but I don't think 2015 is the year it's likely to happen. I think there's going to be growing pains/busts.

 

I think you're forgetting how completely and utterly awful the pen was until Gregg showed up last year. Just not giving away half the games they did by having nobody who could get guys out consistently after the 6th inning will be a big help. If the rotation is halfway decent, you get a bit of a bounce back from Castro and Rizzo, and you're not selling off parts at the deadline, that 65 wins from last year is probably closer to 75-80 this year and then you add in Bryant and Baez to replace Barney and an OF. Granted, you don't have Soriano propping up the offense this year, but you have the potential to make up for some of that with Olt.

 

But you're not adding Bryant this year, who knows how long they're stuck with Barney this year and "adding an OF" definitely isn't happening this year.

 

I'd be perfectly happy with 75-80 wins this year and it's what I hope they do. I just think 90 wins is a ridiculous long shot.

[Sammy Sofa]

Short version: Going back to 2007, 13 teams made the playoffs after a 4 year drought. On average, they went from 76 wins the year before to 92 wins in that playoff year.

 

But like I said, sustained success. The Cubs went back to the playoffs after a drought in both 2007 and 2008, and we all know how that ended. How many of those 13 teams have consistently gone to the playoffs between 2007 and 2013? Were the Cubs just an unfortunate outlier?

 

And who isn't arguing that the financial restrictions aren't real? That's the main criticism against the Ricketts. Just because it's the unavoidable reality of the situation doesn't mean it's not something they shouldn't be criticized for. They've handicapped a major market team.

[Guest]

Short version: Going back to 2007, 13 teams made the playoffs after a 4 year drought. On average, they went from 76 wins the year before to 92 wins in that playoff year.

 

But like I said, sustained success. The Cubs went back to the playoffs after a drought in both 2007 and 2008, and we all know how that ended. How many of those 13 teams have consistently gone to the playoffs between 2007 and 2013? Were the Cubs just an unfortunate outlier?

 

And who isn't arguing that the financial restrictions aren't real? That's the main criticism against the Ricketts. Just because it's the unavoidable reality of the situation doesn't mean it's not something they shouldn't be criticized for. They've handicapped a major market team.

 

 

The link shows the playoff appearances in subsequent seasons, although it's not accurate for 2013 since I was looking at the standings in June. The Rays, Reds, and Nationals all made sizable jumps and have maintained their success better than the Cubs did.

 

If you think the financial restrictions are real, and an unavoidable reality of the situation, then I don't think it's very honest to claim the front office is intentionally making the MLB team bad, as has been said in several ways by several people in this thread and many others.

[Sammy Sofa]

If you think the financial restrictions are real, and an unavoidable reality of the situation, then I don't think it's very honest to claim the front office is intentionally making the MLB team bad, as has been said in several ways by several people in this thread and many others.

 

Then they failed to put together anything resembling a decent baseball team. Neither scenario is very encouraging. There's really not a way to positively spin the major league team the last few years.