2014 MLB transactions

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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.

 

Yeah, but we also waited too long and now payroll flexibility means less than ever as revenue sharing has given small-market teams much more room to operate than they had in the 1990s.

 

And we've got a division full of teams that may not have unprecedented levels of talent, but they have more than enough to think that any of them might win a couple of division titles themselves some time in the next decade.

 

I think the early 1990s Indians might be a better comp than the Yankees, and they never did win a WS.

[Sammy Sofa]

And absolutely no pitching.

[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.

 

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.

 

Right now what the A's have is the best team in baseball and a soon to be 3 playoff berth headstart on us.

[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.

 

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

 

The fact that teams never have this many of these types of assets?

[Gilby]

And absolutely no pitching.

 

Well that's not true.

[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.

 

Right now what the A's have is the best team in baseball and a soon to be 3 playoff berth headstart on us.

 

Umm? What does that have to do with what I said?

[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.

 

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.

 

Right now what the A's have is the best team in baseball and a soon to be 3 playoff berth headstart on us.

 

[expletive] I just realized you compared OUR CURRENT SITUATION to the motherfucking New York Yankees on the verge of 4 titles out of 5.

[WrigleyField 22]

If Beane is our template it's pretty close to hopeless.

 

But I think this year was the first really bad tank year. 2012 signings were pretty good and cost effective. And they seemed to use their available funds, but still had a lot of legacy payroll. 2013 they tried harder but had their worst miss in signing Jackson who was I recall their second or third choice. And 2013 was a bad year obviously for our young players, and perhaps can be drawn to Sveum. Then they really were okay waiving the white flag this past offseason unless they got Tanaka.

 

So we basically have one manager fail, one big FA fail (which was just as much about failing to get their first choice), and one white flag offseason. The third is the only one that really irks me, and the other two seem to be a reasonable fail rate against their other FA activity.

 

It sucks and all, but I can't complain too much about 2012/13.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

 

The fact that teams never have this many of these types of assets?

 

Obviously there's been plenty of collections of amazing prospects over the year. Is this the mythical greatest of all time? I have no idea, but it just seems unlikely that all of these guys will pan out to be amazing players. Baseball is brutal like that.

[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.

 

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.

 

Right now what the A's have is the best team in baseball and a soon to be 3 playoff berth headstart on us.

 

Umm? What does that have to do with what I said?

 

You were responding to Kyle talking about how the siutation was never hopeless. YOu responded about how we have all this great stuff right now, so there.

[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.

 

Right now what the A's have is the best team in baseball and a soon to be 3 playoff berth headstart on us.

 

[expletive] I just realized you compared OUR CURRENT SITUATION to the [expletive] New York Yankees on the verge of 4 titles out of 5.

 

You mean the titles we only know about in hindsight?

 

You're really good at bringing up irrelevant [expletive] right now.

[Sammy Sofa]

And absolutely no pitching.

 

Well that's not true.

 

Who are you banking on? Arrieta? Edwards?

[SouthSideRyan]

You mean the titles we only know about in hindsight?

 

You're really good at bringing up irrelevant [expletive] right now.

 

Foresight, depending on whether you were talking post or pre '95 season, you're looking at a team with a .566 winning percentage the previous 3 seasons or .575 winning percentage the previous 2. That comparison is something I'd expect out of Neeley

[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.

 

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

 

The fact that teams never have this many of these types of assets?

 

Obviously there's been plenty of collections of amazing prospects over the year. Is this the mythical greatest of all time? I have no idea, but it just seems unlikely that all of these guys will pan out to be amazing players. Baseball is brutal like that.

 

They don't need to. And if ours is not the mythical greatest, it's somewhere in the conversation. For a ton of reasons, teams just don't end up with these things.

 

I mean, take what most believe to be our two safest bats in Soler and Schwarber alone (some would say Bryant belongs there over Schwarber but the K issues freak me out), add to Rizzo and Castro, and that could very well be enough to have the basis of a pretty good lineup. The standard nowadays isn't that high.

[WrigleyField 22]

We basically have Arrieta, and Wood we can count on for the backend probably, based on cost. It's not technically nothing but with injuries and pitchers it certainly ain't pretty. I just worry we'll stop hitting on these Malhom, Hammels, Feldman types.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sammy Sofa]

I mean, take what most believe to be our two safest bats in Soler and Schwarber alone (some would say Bryant belongs there over Schwarber but the K issues freak me out), add to Rizzo and Castro, and that could very well be enough to have the basis of a pretty good lineup. The standard nowadays isn't that high.

 

I agree with all of this; I kind of expect at least a couple to not make it for whatever reason, and then ultimately what does show up to be pretty good. Seems a lot more realistic than a world-beating team of offensive monsters.

[SouthSideRyan]

wtf, how is Schwarber one of our safest bats? He has 135 professional ABs, none above high A

[davell]

What was an actual percentile chance that the team inherited could have been turned into a current contender that also had an extremely bright longterm future and doing it while dropping payroll?

[Guest]

You mean the titles we only know about in hindsight?

 

You're really good at bringing up irrelevant [expletive] right now.

 

Foresight, depending on whether you were talking post or pre '95 season, you're looking at a team with a .566 winning percentage the previous 3 seasons or .575 winning percentage the previous 2. That comparison is something I'd expect out of Neeley

 

I'm just referring to the collection of prospects, a few good young established players, and big spending ability going forward (achieved in very different ways, yes).

 

Kyle might be right that given the marginalization of spending on MLB payroll compared to then, the Indians might be a better comp since at that point it just comes down mostly to the young talent.

 

That said, I'd [expletive] love to be the 90s Indians, too.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What was an actual percentile chance that the team inherited could have been turned into a current contender that also had an extremely bright longterm future and doing it while dropping payroll?

 

Pretty low. But if you change "extremely" to "reasonably," I'd say better than 50% if Epstein really wanted to.

[Guest]

wtf, how is Schwarber one of our safest bats? He has 135 professional ABs, none above high A

 

Contact ability, plate approach, power.

[WrigleyField 22]

wtf, how is Schwarber one of our safest bats? He has 135 professional ABs, none above high A

Only if you really worry about K rates and think Bryant and Baez are destined for failure.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

wtf, how is Schwarber one of our safest bats? He has 135 professional ABs, none above high A

Only if you really worry about K rates and think Bryant and Baez are destined for failure.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't have to think they're destined for failure to feel more comfortable in Schwarber becoming a competent and productive MLB hitter.

[Gilby]

And absolutely no pitching.

 

Well that's not true.

 

Who are you banking on? Arrieta? Edwards?

 

Arrieta (who has been elite and has a ways to drop off and still be good), Hendricks (strikes and groundballs FTW), and as much as I don't love them, I doubt both Wood and Jackson continue to post mid 5 ERAs.

 

Then there's the bullpen - Rondon, Strop, Ramirez, and Rivero all are currently/should be good relief pitchers.

 

There's also a lot of money to be spent and a pretty good group of free agent starting pitchers to spend it on. I guess I'm not THAT worried about the pitching.

[WrigleyField 22]

wtf, how is Schwarber one of our safest bats? He has 135 professional ABs, none above high A

Only if you really worry about K rates and think Bryant and Baez are destined for failure.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't have to think they're destined for failure to feel more comfortable in Schwarber becoming a competent and productive MLB hitter.

Uh they're mashing AAA despite K rates so that's basically what it means when the other reference point is in A ball as mentioned above.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk