Executive Approval Poll - Post Trade Deadline 2014

[Guest]

I believe it's Oakland, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Which three teams are they?

 

A's, Indians, Reds

 

I am assuming 1.) They also had some young talent already at the major league level.

 

So did the Cubs. Castro, Garza, Samardzija, Castillo.

 

2.) They didn't have as many bad players being paid exorbitant sums of money.

 

The Cubs didn't really have all that many in bad contracts. Most of them were expiring when Epstein came on board, or maybe had one year left.

 

3.) They had more success from guys that came up from the minors.

 

4.) Their payroll wasn't slashed because of a change in ownership.

 

In most cases, it was never that high to begin with.

 

5.) They probably spent some on veteran free agents, and some of those signings are probably going to be a hindrance to them soon. 6.) They probably don't look to have as bright of a future as we do, anyway.

 

Well, as long as the future is bright, who cares, I guess...

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'll point out again that three teams were lower than us in the farm system rankings at either the beginning or end of 2011, were below .500 in 2011, and have since made the playoffs with a payroll of less than $100m. It isn't some magically hard thing to do.

 

which teams were those? i'm looking forward to hearing this, because it will probably be extremely easy to punch holes in this argument.

 

I'm sure you'll find it extremely easy to find meaningless distinctions that justify your ridiculous belief that the Cubs have been justified in losing terribly for three years running.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I believe it's Oakland, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh.

 

Oh crap, I missed Pittsburgh. That makes four.

[Guest]

http://i.imgur.com/s3HnORX.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/WlTRA5D.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/gn3jXFz.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/59v3yAF.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/shz6fnY.png

[Sammy Sofa]

http://media3.giphy.com/media/AT6LbRAazEoPm/giphy.gif

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Did they have good players? Maybe we should have looked into acquiring some if that helps you win.

[Guest]

I have to go to bed so I'll spell it out:

 

Everyday position players 33+ years old:

 

Cubs - 5 of 8

Other 4 teams combined - 6 of 35 (half of which were DHs)

[Aaron_Kennelly]

It would appear to me that those teams were already in the midst of rebuilding and had much younger rosters and didn't have any Soriano contracts, and I believe one had an MVP, and a couple had 6-8 win guys come up from the minors, and one (the Indians) was kind of a fluky playoff team, where everything came together for that one year. I'm not sure it's best to compare their situations to ours. But if that makes us feel better about criticizing our front office, then so be it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I have to go to bed so I'll spell it out:

 

Everyday position players 33+ years old:

 

Cubs - 5 of 8

Other 4 teams combined - 6 of 35 (half of which were DHs)

 

I got what you were saying. I'm simply saying it's a meaningless distinction and one that glosses over some of the Cubs' strengths at the time.

 

If only we'd had a 27-year-old Mark Reynolds or a 28-year-old Ronny Cedeno, *then* Theo could have had a chance. Alas...

[TruffleShuffle]

the reds had a positive run differential in 2011, a lineup anchored by three very good players in their primes (votto, phillips, bruce) and one of the youngest pitching staffs in the league (including a bunch of starters in their early to mid 20s).

 

among the indians best hitters were carlos santana, asdrubal cabrera, michael brantley and shin-soo choo, all players in their early to late 20s, plus they had jason kipnis make his debut in the second half. they also had a number of starting pitchers in their primes. their hitters' average age was third lowest in the AL, and their pitchers' average age was second lowest in the AL.

 

the a's offense was old and not very good, but their starting pitching was good and all in their early to late 20s. of the three examples, the a's have probably "come from nowhere" moreso than the other clubs, but that's taken some combo of great scouting and great luck to unearth players like coco crisp, josh reddick and brandon moss. i guess you could argue that the cubs could have done the same thing, but there's a reason the a's have been regarded as one of the best-run organizations in baseball for over a decade. they're good at that stuff.

 

by the way, kyle's original argument isn't even valid. BA ranked the cubs at #14 (which was clearly an over-ranking) after 2011. the pirates (#11) and a's (#7) were ranked higher.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

the reds had a positive run differential in 2011, a lineup anchored by three very good players in their primes (votto, phillips, bruce) and one of the youngest pitching staffs in the league (including a bunch of starters in their early to mid 20s).

 

among the indians best hitters were carlos santana, asdrubal cabrera, michael brantley and shin-soo choo, all players in their early to late 20s, plus they had jason kipnis make his debut in the second half. they also had a number of starting pitchers in their primes. their hitters' average age was third lowest in the AL, and their pitchers' average age was second lowest in the AL.

 

the a's offense was old and not very good, but their starting pitching was good and all in their early to late 20s. of the three examples, the a's have probably "come from nowhere" moreso than the other clubs, but that's taken some combo of great scouting and great luck to unearth players like coco crisp, josh reddick and brandon moss. i guess you could argue that the cubs could have done the same thing, but there's a reason the a's have been regarded as one of the best-run organizations in baseball for over a decade. they're good at that stuff.

 

by the way, kyle's original argument isn't even valid. BA ranked the cubs at #14 (which was clearly an over-ranking) after 2011. the pirates (#11) and a's (#7) were ranked higher.

 

There are still a lot more holes to be punched. Get back to work.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

the reds had a positive run differential in 2011, a lineup anchored by three very good players in their primes (votto, phillips, bruce) and one of the youngest pitching staffs in the league (including a bunch of starters in their early to mid 20s).

 

among the indians best hitters were carlos santana, asdrubal cabrera, michael brantley and shin-soo choo, all players in their early to late 20s, plus they had jason kipnis make his debut in the second half. they also had a number of starting pitchers in their primes. their hitters' average age was third lowest in the AL, and their pitchers' average age was second lowest in the AL.

 

the a's offense was old and not very good, but their starting pitching was good and all in their early to late 20s. of the three examples, the a's have probably "come from nowhere" moreso than the other clubs, but that's taken some combo of great scouting and great luck to unearth players like coco crisp, josh reddick and brandon moss. i guess you could argue that the cubs could have done the same thing, but there's a reason the a's have been regarded as one of the best-run organizations in baseball for over a decade. they're good at that stuff.

 

by the way, kyle's original argument isn't even valid. BA ranked the cubs at #14 (which was clearly an over-ranking) after 2011. the pirates (#11) and a's (#7) were ranked higher.

 

I specified "before or after 2011." I'm including the Jan. 2011 rankings, when the A's were 27th and the Pirates were 19th, which should have meant both teams had no choice but to tank for three years until they fixed that because they were dooooomed anyway.

[TruffleShuffle]

I have to go to bed so I'll spell it out:

 

Everyday position players 33+ years old:

 

Cubs - 5 of 8

Other 4 teams combined - 6 of 35 (half of which were DHs)

 

I got what you were saying. I'm simply saying it's a meaningless distinction

 

http://www.nsmbl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/homer_facepalm.jpg

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If there had been an organization that was an exact clone except their shortstop was named Starlin Castri, you guys would be claiming that was the critical difference and really poor Epstein with his o-ending shortstop was doomed and had no choice but to rebuild.

[TruffleShuffle]

I specified "before or after 2011." I'm including the Jan. 2011 rankings, when the A's were 27th and the Pirates were 19th, which should have meant both teams had no choice but to tank for three years until they fixed that because they were dooooomed anyway.

 

except you're completely ignoring the composition of the major league clubs (both teams were packed with young pitching and the pirates with young hitting) and the composition of the minor league systems (players in the high minors versus low minors). i think/hope you're just doing this troll or get attention as per usual, because the alternative is that you're an abject moron.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I specified "before or after 2011." I'm including the Jan. 2011 rankings, when the A's were 27th and the Pirates were 19th, which should have meant both teams had no choice but to tank for three years until they fixed that because they were dooooomed anyway.

 

except you're completely ignoring the composition of the major league clubs (both teams were packed with young pitching and the pirates with young hitting) and the composition of the minor league systems (players in the high minors versus low minors). i think/hope you're just doing this troll or get attention as per usual, because the alternative is that you're an abject moron.

 

Go sit your [expletive] on a scorpion.

 

The Cubs had some nice young pitchers and hitters too, you know. Or I assume you know. Maybe the retcon to apologize has gone so far that you've actually forgotten?

[TruffleShuffle]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/59d89903250e13782a11b972c6dca9ef/tumblr_mw590mV4yB1rmin5no1_400.gif

[Aaron_Kennelly]

So what would your plan have been? Assuming you have this old, deteriorating roster with a few nice young guys -- none of whom are really superstar caliber -- and a pretty lousy farm? And you are working with an owner that is strapped for cash. And you are saddled with Soriano's albatross of a contract hanging around your neck for three years. And the prospects that do come up suck, for the most part. Spend on a couple of average veterans like Edwin Jackson? Waste money on a guy like Darvish, who would languish on a 75-80 win team for three years? Money that you might not even have access to spend anyway? Try to hit it big later in the draft... and still wait three years anyway? How does that team get better without trading away assets, getting younger, and waiting it out?

 

The only way you could conceivably get better is by winning a bunch of trades. And Theo has done pretty good on the trade front, in my belief.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So what would your plan have been? Assuming you have this old, deteriorating roster with a few nice young guys -- none of whom are really superstar caliber -- and a pretty lousy farm? And you are working with an owner that is strapped for cash. And you are saddled with Soriano's albatross of a contract hanging around your neck for three years. And the prospects that do come up suck, for the most part. Spend on a couple of average veterans like Edwin Jackson? Waste money on a guy like Darvish, who would languish on a 75-80 win team for three years? Money that you might not even have access to spend anyway? Try to get hit it big later in the draft... and still wait three years anyway? How does that team get better without trading away assets, getting younger, and waiting it out?

 

The only way you could conceivably get better is by winning a bunch of trades. And Theo has done pretty good on the trade front, in my belief.

 

Go back to read the 2011 archives. All the people here, now proclaiming that they had zero chance whatsoever not to suck, had some pretty good plans.

 

Despite the painting of this is a monolithic plan they've had since the beginning, the Cubs have gone through several different plans under this regime.

 

In 2011-12 offseason, they seemed to be pretty content with tanking. They could have gotten much better results with some simple tweaks (replacing what they took out of the bullpen when they removed Marshall and Samardzija, picking anyone besides for the love of god Ian Stewart for 3b) and not making some very bizarre roster decisions early in the year (Volstad over Wood, Clevenger over Castillo). They should have taken the season seriously. But if they weren't going to, then they needed to trade Garza that offseason. He was coming off a career year in which he relied heavily on breaking balls, and that's never a good long-term bet. Compare that with the A's selling Gio Gonzalez (who was under more control but an inferior pitcher) that offseason and setting themselves up for their turnaround.

 

In the 2012-13 offseason, they absolutely did try to win, and failed. They gave out a lot of free agent contracts, and other than the bizarre decision to let Sveum give a job to his good friend Lillibridge, they seemed to mostly be trying to fill out the roster credibly with an eye toward giving themselves a chance that year and setting a foundation for 2014. Unfortunately, they got some bad luck and it turned out several of their multi-year bets went wrong. Which is on them. Edwin Jackson being the biggest, of course.

 

So in the 2013-14 offseason, they changed plans yet again, and that was when there started being rumors and published reports that they'd pushed their plans back and started re-targetting for 2016. They then decided they had so little regard for the upcoming season that they didn't care if waiting for an admitted long-shot in Tanaka meant probably blowing off the entire offseason and the 2014 season with it. And that's exactly what happened.

 

So in summary, a better plan would have been to try every year instead of just one of the three, and even the year they had the right plan, their execution was subpar. Better decisions needed to be made.

 

 

But trying to paint this losing as something they've been planning all along and something they had no choice but to do is wrong on both accounts.

[TruffleShuffle]

i don't even know who the few nice guys are! castro and, i guess, garza (who was still 28). plus samardzija, but he wasn't transitioned to a starter until 2012. which other young stars am i missing? tony campana? casey coleman? blake dewitt?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

i don't even know who the few nice guys are! castro and, i guess, garza (who was still 28). plus samardzija, but he wasn't transitioned to a starter until 2012. which other young stars am i missing? tony campana? casey coleman? blake dewitt?

 

Why wouldn't Samardzija count?

 

Or Welington Castillo for that matter?

[TruffleShuffle]

gio gonzalez was an inferior pitcher to matt garza?!? i feel like i'm taking crazy pills.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

gio gonzalez was an inferior pitcher to matt garza?!? i feel like i'm taking crazy pills.

 

In 2011, one put up a 4.9 fWAR and one put up a 3.3. Bit of a difference there.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

So what would your plan have been? Assuming you have this old, deteriorating roster with a few nice young guys -- none of whom are really superstar caliber -- and a pretty lousy farm? And you are working with an owner that is strapped for cash. And you are saddled with Soriano's albatross of a contract hanging around your neck for three years. And the prospects that do come up suck, for the most part. Spend on a couple of average veterans like Edwin Jackson? Waste money on a guy like Darvish, who would languish on a 75-80 win team for three years? Money that you might not even have access to spend anyway? Try to get hit it big later in the draft... and still wait three years anyway? How does that team get better without trading away assets, getting younger, and waiting it out?

 

The only way you could conceivably get better is by winning a bunch of trades. And Theo has done pretty good on the trade front, in my belief.

 

Go back to read the 2011 archives. All the people here, now proclaiming that they had zero chance whatsoever not to suck, had some pretty good plans.

 

Despite the painting of this is a monolithic plan they've had since the beginning, the Cubs have gone through several different plans under this regime.

 

In 2011-12 offseason, they seemed to be pretty content with tanking. They could have gotten much better results with some simple tweaks (replacing what they took out of the bullpen when they removed Marshall and Samardzija, picking anyone besides for the love of god Ian Stewart for 3b) and not making some very bizarre roster decisions early in the year (Volstad over Wood, Clevenger over Castillo). They should have taken the season seriously. But if they weren't going to, then they needed to trade Garza that offseason. He was coming off a career year in which he relied heavily on breaking balls, and that's never a good long-term bet. Compare that with the A's selling Gio Gonzalez (who was under more control but an inferior pitcher) that offseason and setting themselves up for their turnaround.

 

In the 2012-13 offseason, they absolutely did try to win, and failed. They gave out a lot of free agent contracts, and other than the bizarre decision to let Sveum give a job to his good friend Lillibridge, they seemed to mostly be trying to fill out the roster credibly with an eye toward giving themselves a chance that year and setting a foundation for 2014. Unfortunately, they got some bad luck and it turned out several of their multi-year bets went wrong. Which is on them. Edwin Jackson being the biggest, of course.

 

So in the 2013-14 offseason, they changed plans yet again, and that was when there started being rumors and published reports that they'd pushed their plans back and started re-targetting for 2016. They then decided they had so little regard for the upcoming season that they didn't care if waiting for an admitted long-shot in Tanaka meant probably blowing off the entire offseason and the 2014 season with it. And that's exactly what happened.

 

So in summary, a better plan would have been to try every year instead of just one of the three, and even the year they had the right plan, their execution was subpar. Better decisions needed to be made.

 

 

But trying to paint this losing as something they've been planning all along and something they had no choice but to do is wrong on both accounts.

 

I think the only plan that was wrong was the 2012-2013 off-season plan. The Jackson signing was stupid. We were in too big of a hole to dig out of, at that time. I would have rather have signed Liriano to the Maholm-like contract he signed (except with the two years both guaranteed). I didn't want any contract given out to be for more than two years. And I believe Jackson's was the only one, so they were only marginally trying to win; we were still kinda scraping the bottom of the barrel for free agents. But, if you can sign Liriano, then you can pull the ole' July flip for something when things turn sour. Maybe try the same with a hitter on a short deal, also. You can still attempt to be decent, but knowing that you probably won't be. Then the Lillibridge thing wouldn't have bothered me at all. Try to pick up a package like the Arrieta/Strop one -- although, admittedly not expecting the revelation that is Arrieta. Then maybe you go into this past off-season and hand out a few four-year deals on free agents in a higher echelon.

 

I think the main problem was that they made that slight push a year early. This year was a correction on a mistimed push for improvement. The 2012-13 off-season was bungled, though, I agree, but for different reasons.