2014 MLB transactions

[bukie]

I don't give a damn about legacy; I give a damn about a super lopsided approach to building a team and being too in love with their prospects. I'm still hugely wary that we'll see them bother to try and make any kind of major trade using these guys before it's maybe too late to do so.

 

And how about just establishing the precedent that this is an acceptable way to run a [expletive] baseball team?

 

And again, hand-waving away all the ways the FO has managed to add value to the franchise as both meaningless and easy understates the job they've actually done. I do suppose, though, if they hit on every successful FA over the past 3 years, the team would be better. Course, the worst case for that scenario puts the team in far worse shape than they are now.

[Guest]

I'm just saying the stink (which seems to be mostly a matter of perception, no?)

 

I'm pretty sure all those losses and all those losing seasons were real and will remain in the record books. They are not just a figment of my imagination. It would be neat if they were, but also kind of scary.

 

They're there, but they're over,

 

It is July 25th and the Cubs have a .410 W%.

 

Again, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

 

Fair enough. Obviously, if this crashes and burns (or even just sorta falls flat somewhere in between), it's a totally different story. I just feel really, really good right now about our position after this season is over.

[SouthSideRyan]

As PTR PTR has been, we haven't been in the A's realm until this season. A's-Johnson is still slightly lower than Cubs - Soriano. In years past it's not even close when including dead money (Soriano in '13, Zambrano in '12)

 

As 2013 payroll: 70.8 (1.3 dead money)

As 2014 payroll: 88.6 (2.6 dead money) - pre-Jim Johnson DFA

 

Cubs 2013 payroll: 75.4 (17.5 dead money)

Cubs 2014 payroll: 79.7 (21.4 dead money)

 

Those are end of season payrolls. If the Cubs came into 2013 with a 75M payroll Tom Ricketts house would have long been burnt to the ground by somebody.

[SouthSideRyan]

As PTR PTR has been, we haven't been in the A's realm until this season. A's-Johnson is still slightly lower than Cubs - Soriano. In years past it's not even close when including dead money (Soriano in '13, Zambrano in '12)

 

As 2013 payroll: 70.8 (1.3 dead money)

As 2014 payroll: 88.6 (2.6 dead money) - pre-Jim Johnson DFA

 

Cubs 2013 payroll: 75.4 (17.5 dead money)

Cubs 2014 payroll: 79.7 (21.4 dead money)

 

Those are end of season payrolls. If the Cubs came into 2013 with a 75M payroll Tom Ricketts house would have long been burnt to the ground by somebody.

 

Me, it would've been me.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't give a damn about legacy; I give a damn about a super lopsided approach to building a team and being too in love with their prospects. I'm still hugely wary that we'll see them bother to try and make any kind of major trade using these guys before it's maybe too late to do so.

 

And how about just establishing the precedent that this is an acceptable way to run a [expletive] baseball team?

 

And again, hand-waving away all the ways the FO has managed to add value to the franchise as both meaningless and easy understates the job they've actually done. I do suppose, though, if they hit on every successful FA over the past 3 years, the team would be better. Course, the worst case for that scenario puts the team in far worse shape than they are now.

 

What am I hand-waving away? They deserve credit TO A POINT for what they've done. It's incredibly hard to have the sustained playoff success people seem to just assume the Cubs will be having, so it's not like being the worst team in baseball is just going to be cancelled out by some kind of baseball juggernaut.

[Guest]

We're going to be the Blackhawks soon, just watch.

 

Also, it's going to be awesomely fun because we're going to have more home runs in our infield than half the teams in the league.

 

The problem is that as a Blackhawks fan, I've noticed over the last five years how many other teams' fans thought they were about to be the next Blackhawks. None of them so far have done it.

 

None of them have 2 of top 10 players in the league who are both under 27. Of course, the Cubs don't either......

 

We might have two of the top 25-30 under 25, though. With more of that level of talent on the way.

 

Maybe.

 

Weren't people just laughing at a top 20 prospect list from several years ago earlier today?

 

I wasn't and I thought it was sorta odd. A lot of those guys ended up pretty good players. Some great. I mean, yeah, Matt Wieters over David Price and Buster Posey. That's a prospect list for you. I don't really pay attention to the order (beyond the tiers).

Edited July 25, 2014 by David

[Guest]

I feel like you'd argue either side of this particular debate depending on who you decided to argue with in a given conversation.

 

It's one of those subtlety things that I'm used to people not getting.

 

I am of the opinion that the Cubs have a better chance of being good soon than many non-Cubs' fans think, but I also think they have a better chance of not being dynastic than many Cubs fans think.

 

It's the overreaction thing that fans do. It's hard to be bad for a really long time, but it's also hard to be good for a really long time. Predicting the Cubs will be awful because they've been awful recently is wrong, but assuming they'll be awesome for a long run just because of some prospects is also wrong. Being awesome for a long time is hard. Pretty much nobody by the Yankees have made the playoffs at more than a 70% clip lately, and those days seem to be over for them too.

 

I'm talking about the pitching debate, you doof.

[Andy]

It's not Theo's fault the MLB changed their CBA to so obviously reward tanking and discourage 80-win seasons, and I sort of give him a pass for having us suck in 2012-13 because the odds were fairly long on us competing. It does irk me that we're still so damn bad this year because I don't think we needed to be, and it irks me that we've handed out one major free-agent contract under Theo and it was to one of the worst starting pitchers in baseball right now.

 

I'm far from warming up to 'The Plan', but I can see it coming together, and that is, in itself, kind of exciting.

 

That being said, if the Astros hadn't [expletive] stupidly passed on Kris Bryant, or if they'd taken someone else and then we'd taken Appel last June, I feel like things would look a lot different right now, both to us and to outsiders. All due credit for taking Bryant and not someone else when he was there, but to some extent it was kind of dumb luck that Houston didn't take him first.

[Sammy Sofa]

I wasn't and I thought it was sorta odd. A lot of those guys ended up pretty good players. Some great. I mean, yeah, Matt Wieters over David Price and Buster Posey. That's a prospect list for you. I don't really pay attention to the order.

 

Fair enough. It's not like I actually clicked the link or anything.

[WrigleyField 22]

There's a lot of A's and Beane talk and if the point is Beane would have been a better option, I don't think that would be too controversial of an opinion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm talking about the pitching debate, you doof.

 

Pitching is the *reason* nobody can be great or awful every year. It's fickle as hell.

 

The Cubs' pitching deficiency is the biggest reason they'll probably fail, but the fact that pitching deficiency is their biggest problem is why they won't certainly fail.

[Sammy Sofa]

There's a lot of A's and Beane talk and if the point is Beane would have been a better option, I don't think that would be too controversial of an opinion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Agreed. I think from the standpoint of, "hey, we want to build a team 'the right way,' but we're gonna have some serious money issues while it's happening" I think most people here would rather have Beane.

[Andy]

There's a lot of A's and Beane talk and if the point is Beane would have been a better option, I don't think that would be too controversial of an opinion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The point Kyle's making by bringing up Beane is that the A's were in just as bad a position as we were after 2011 - at least on paper - and since then the A's have won two straight AL West titles and are currently the best team in baseball by a lot, while we're having the worst 3-year stretch in the history of the franchise.

[WrigleyField 22]

The only other big name I remember people wanted was Friedman, and I think his rebuild would look like Theos too. I think I wanted Beane the most but can't remember for sure.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WrigleyField 22]

There's a lot of A's and Beane talk and if the point is Beane would have been a better option, I don't think that would be too controversial of an opinion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The point Kyle's making by bringing up Beane is that the A's were in just as bad a position as we were after 2011 - at least on paper - and since then the A's have won two straight AL West titles and are currently the best team in baseball by a lot, while we're having the worst 3-year stretch in the history of the franchise.

So his point us Beane is a great GM (maybe the best?) and Theo isn't as good. Okay.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sammy Sofa]

The only other big name I remember people wanted was Friedman, and I think his rebuild would look like Theos too. I think I wanted Beane the most but can't remember for sure.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Would have preferred Friedman, too. Definitely someone used to having to deal with these limitations for a sustained period of time. Part of my excitement over the Theo hire (and subsequent frustration) was it seemed to signal the Cubs were going to act like big boys while fixing things.

[WrigleyField 22]

The only other big name I remember people wanted was Friedman, and I think his rebuild would look like Theos too. I think I wanted Beane the most but can't remember for sure.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Would have preferred Friedman, too. Definitely someone used to having to deal with these limitations for a sustained period of time. Part of my excitement over the Theo hire (and subsequent frustration) was it seemed to signal the Cubs were going to act like big boys while fixing things.

But isn't Friedmans approach basically also to just suck and stockpile prospects?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sammy Sofa]

The only other big name I remember people wanted was Friedman, and I think his rebuild would look like Theos too. I think I wanted Beane the most but can't remember for sure.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Would have preferred Friedman, too. Definitely someone used to having to deal with these limitations for a sustained period of time. Part of my excitement over the Theo hire (and subsequent frustration) was it seemed to signal the Cubs were going to act like big boys while fixing things.

But isn't Friedmans approach basically also to just suck and stockpile prospects?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Lowered expectations, plus I'd rather have someone used to doing it as opposed to the GM equivalent of 1%-ers deciding to slum it for kicks. You bring in a Friedman or a Beane and of course there's the hope of "oh yeah, let's see what these guys do with money," though it makes more sense/hurts less when it becomes obvious that they're just doing their same ol' thing.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Sammy Sofa

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There's a lot of A's and Beane talk and if the point is Beane would have been a better option, I don't think that would be too controversial of an opinion.

 

The point is that was never hopeless.

 

Fans have become enamored with the idea of the success cycle, and that bad teams are doomed to stay bad for long periods until they build the Right Way from the bottom-up. It feeds the ridiculous idea that because the Cubs were bad in 2011, and didn't have Dodgers-level FU money, then it's perfectly understandable and acceptable for them to still be awful after three offseasons.

 

With today's standings, the Brewers and Angels are set to be the 14th and 15th different teams to make the playoffs in three seasons that Epstein's been in charge of the Cubs. The Mariners are half a game out of being the 16th.

 

Meanwhile, the Tigers and Cardinals are set to extend the longest current playoff streaks to four. (edit, wait, the Cardinals would be out as of today. That's smile-worthy)

 

There is no "guaranteed to make the playoffs every year" anymore, and there's no "guaranateed to miss" unless your FO wants it to be so. But some fans want to rewrite history to pretend that the Cubs were doomed to failure these last three years, and then prewrite the future to pretend that we're going to be awesome for some absurdly long period of time, all in an attempt to justify a front office that's presided over a sub-.400 winning percentage through more than half their contract.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Guest]

and on top of it these pretty much all appear to be good defensive players where they are going to end up (even bryant as an OF should be "not bad" at worst). there are so many safeguards in terms of them having some semblance of value. i can barely wrap my head around it.

 

an infield with 3.5 shortstops and an elite fielding 1b.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm pretty sure I can wrap my head around about 75% a good team.

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure I can wrap my head around about 75% a good team.

 

we have an elite positional prospect (either in terms of offense alone or some combination of offense and defense) or elite young player slated to play at every position as soon as next year. that's pretty insane and I have to think it's a near unprecedented situation to be in.

[SouthSideRyan]

There's a lot of A's and Beane talk and if the point is Beane would have been a better option, I don't think that would be too controversial of an opinion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The point Kyle's making by bringing up Beane is that the A's were in just as bad a position as we were after 2011 - at least on paper - and since then the A's have won two straight AL West titles and are currently the best team in baseball by a lot, while we're having the worst 3-year stretch in the history of the franchise.

 

And that some people seem to think there was no other option to make us better than what we've chosen. Turns out there was a much better option.

[Guest]

There's a lot of A's and Beane talk and if the point is Beane would have been a better option, I don't think that would be too controversial of an opinion.

 

The point is that was never hopeless.

 

Fans have become enamored with the idea of the success cycle, and that bad teams are doomed to stay bad for long periods until they build the Right Way from the bottom-up. It feeds the ridiculous idea that because the Cubs were bad in 2011, and didn't have Dodgers-level FU money, then it's perfectly understandable and acceptable for them to still be awful after three offseasons.

 

With today's standings, the Brewers and Angels are set to be the 14th and 15th different teams to make the playoffs in three seasons that Epstein's been in charge of the Cubs. The Mariners are half a game out of being the 16th.

 

Meanwhile, the Tigers and Cardinals are set to extend the longest current playoff streaks to four. (edit, wait, the Cardinals would be out as of today. That's smile-worthy)

 

There is no "guaranteed to make the playoffs every year" anymore, and there's no "guaranateed to miss" unless your FO wants it to be so.

 

Right now what we have, though, is a possibly unprecedented collection of prospects, young talent, combined with payroll flexibility that the smaller market teams who usually take this approach do not have...and the bigger market teams never try to get away with (not that I'm throwing a party about it) what we've done to acquire that young talent...not to mention increasing revenues on the horizon. The closest comparison I can come up with for that situation is the Yankees circa 1995 or something.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm pretty sure I can wrap my head around about 75% a good team.

 

we have an elite positional prospect (either in terms of offense alone or some combination of offense and defense) or elite young player slated to play at every position as soon as next year. that's pretty insane and I have to think it's a near unprecedented situation to be in.

 

Which seems to belie that it's likely to not work out that way.