Front Office Thread

[ctcf]

Needed to share these somewhere. They are gifts. His feed is recommended in general.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

The Red Sox years don't count, apparently.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Hairyducked Idiot]

*settles in for a fun thread*

 

Remember: Any amount that the Cubs fail in the present or recent past can be balanced out by exaggerating how bad their position was when Epstein took over. If 30th-ranked farm system (not true, of course) wasn't bad enough, start going lower even though there's only 30 farm systems.

 

*If* they don't make the playoffs this year, as they are currently not in a position to do so, Epstein's path to have a better 9-year run than Jim Hendry did is starting to get pretty narrow if you define success by playoff appearances (because the playoffs themselves are a crapshoot).

[Guest]

i define success by regular season win totals. you can't control what happens beyond that.

[Guest]

This guy can't be a real person.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Hairyducked Idiot]

i define success by regular season win totals. you can't control what happens beyond that.

 

I don't think you're going to like where that one takes you.

 

First, it leaves no room for valuing evaluation of your league and division status. You don't think a GM should act differently if he thinks the division is relatively weak or strong?

 

Second, the hole that Epstein has dug himself with the Cubs is going to be awfully hard to dig out of by that metric. He currently stands at 256-333 (.435). He's going to need four 90-win seasons just to get back to .500 after this year.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Hairyducked Idiot

[davell]

I want to see the alternate universe where Hendry inherited Hendry's mess, with the restricted payroll, and for Kyle to have to watch THOSE seasons forever.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I want to see the alternate universe where Hendry inherited Hendry's mess, with the restricted payroll, and for Kyle to have to watch THOSE seasons forever.

 

I want to see an alternate universe where Epstein treats the Cubs like he would have treated the Red Sox in the same situation. Or at least one where we hired someone else.

[Guest]

i define success by regular season win totals. you can't control what happens beyond that.

 

I don't think you're going to like where that one takes you.

 

First, it leaves no room for valuing evaluation of your league and division stance. You don't think a GM should act differently if he thinks the division is relatively weak or strong?

 

As opposed to what? No, not really. I think a GM should put together the best team he can and try to win the most games he can. If he's not trying to win as many games as he can, what is he opting in favor of?

[Guest]

Also, 90+ win seasons are my benchmark. 95 for bonus points. 100 for extra extra bonus points.

 

Arbitrary numbers and I don't give a [expletive] what you think.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

i define success by regular season win totals. you can't control what happens beyond that.

 

I don't think you're going to like where that one takes you.

 

First, it leaves no room for valuing evaluation of your league and division stance. You don't think a GM should act differently if he thinks the division is relatively weak or strong?

 

As opposed to what? No, not really. I think a GM should put together the best team he can and try to win the most games he can. If he's not trying to win as many games as he can, what is he opting in favor of?

 

If you've got the best team in the division on paper by four games, you can afford to stop adding. If you've got another team right there with you, you can't. We saw it play out in those epic arms races with the Yankees that made me think "Man, I'd love to have *that* guy as our team-runner..."

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Also, 90+ win seasons are my benchmark. 95 for bonus points. 100 for extra extra bonus points.

 

Arbitrary numbers and I don't give a [expletive] what you think.

 

And here we see these conversations in a microcosm:

 

Cubs fan lays out his criteria. Realizes Epstein is in trouble by those criteria. Changes criteria immediately. All within a couple of posts.

[davell]

I want to see the alternate universe where Hendry inherited Hendry's mess, with the restricted payroll, and for Kyle to have to watch THOSE seasons forever.

 

I want to see an alternate universe where Epstein treats the Cubs like he would have treated the Red Sox in the same situation. Or at least one where we hired someone else.

 

With a shrinking payroll and definitely less than league average talent-I think you'd have seen the Amaro's and Stewart's of the world choose a different path than Theo took, that's it.

 

MAYBE Beane, but if the first year started out poorly, he'd have retreated and done the same.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

With a shrinking payroll and definitely less than league average talent-I think you'd have seen the Amaro's and Stewart's of the world choose a different path than Theo took, that's it.

 

MAYBE Beane, but if the first year started out poorly, he'd have retreated and done the same.

 

Yep. Those were our choices that offseason. Epstein, Beane, Amaro and Stewart. The only four on the table.

[Sammy Sofa]

http://images1.tickld.com/live/337466.jpg

[sneakypower]

oh god kyle's f5 button is going to be broke after this thread

[Guest]

Also, 90+ win seasons are my benchmark. 95 for bonus points. 100 for extra extra bonus points.

 

Arbitrary numbers and I don't give a [expletive] what you think.

 

And here we see these conversations in a microcosm:

 

Cubs fan lays out his criteria. Realizes Epstein is in trouble by those criteria. Changes criteria immediately. All within a couple of posts.

 

not really, no.

 

those have been my benchmarks for good teams for a long time and they still pretty much apply.

 

doesn't mean i don't want an 88 win team to sneak in

 

just means i like 90 much more. and 95 and 100 even more more. which is why 08 was the pinnacle of my cubs fandom (not 03).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

oh god kyle's f5 button is going to be broke after this thread

 

I've been mostly avoiding post-binges this summer and I've got three hours until I have to go pick up my kid. So much pent-up spew.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

doesn't mean i don't want an 88 win team to sneak in

 

just means i like 90 much more. and 95 and 100 even more more. which is why 08 was the pinnacle of my cubs fandom (not 03).

 

So you didn't mean "regular-season wins" when you said "regular-season wins." You just meant you like it when your baseball teams win a lot of games, but also when they win fewer games but get in the playoffs anyway?

 

Thanks for chiming in, I guess.

[davell]

With a shrinking payroll and definitely less than league average talent-I think you'd have seen the Amaro's and Stewart's of the world choose a different path than Theo took, that's it.

 

MAYBE Beane, but if the first year started out poorly, he'd have retreated and done the same.

 

Yep. Those were our choices that offseason. Epstein, Beane, Amaro and Stewart. The only four on the table.

 

Now who's changing his criteria to fit his needs? I'm implying no smart GM would have went a different direction than what was chosen. Name some guys you think would have.....Maybe Hahn?

 

They did win 85 his first year.....Missed the playoffs, won 63, 73, and are a bit under .500 this year, without a great looking future.

 

Which is likely the same general area of where anyone would have navigated us as well trying it that way.

 

Wait. There is one GM I'm forgetting.....Kyle Hindsight, who would have had us with a top 5 system, have averaged 88 wins during these 4 seasons, trending upwards, with a 75 mill payroll and no bad contracts.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Wait. There is one GM I'm forgetting.....Kyle Hindsight, who would have had us with a top 5 system, have averaged 88 wins during these 4 seasons, trending upwards, with a 75 mill payroll and no bad contracts.

 

I don't think *any* other GM would have done what Epstein did, and I think many of them would have had better results.

 

The pointless personal shots are, as usual, noted and given their due relevance.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Guest]

doesn't mean i don't want an 88 win team to sneak in

 

just means i like 90 much more. and 95 and 100 even more more. which is why 08 was the pinnacle of my cubs fandom (not 03).

 

So you didn't mean "regular-season wins" when you said "regular-season wins." You just meant you like it when your baseball teams win a lot of games, but also when they win fewer games but get in the playoffs anyway?

 

Thanks for chiming in, I guess.

 

I guess I didn't realize simply using the phrase "regular season wins" definitively laid out my parameters, you jackass.

 

90+ wins is the point at which I start to feel like a team "should" be in the playoffs and if they aren't it's shitty luck. obviously more is better. and obviously, it's arbitrary and there is nuance and all that. that's pretty much the case when it comes to benchmarks, in general. the near misses obviously aren't much worse.

 

i'm satisfied with any team that either wins 90+ games or makes the playoffs. is that better?

[sneakypower]

these threads are a good litmus test for if a poster has any credibility

 

expressing the general sentiment "i think 2012 was in play" renders the poster a total obvious fool / intellectually dishonest troll and should thereby be roundly dismissed in all arguments henceforth

[Hairyducked Idiot]

i'm satisfied with any team that either wins 90+ games or makes the playoffs. is that better?

 

OK.

 

Theo Epstein is currently on pace to make it 0-for-4 by that benchmark.

 

Jim Hendry made it 3-for-9 (or 8 or 10, depending on how you want to split partial season).

 

Does the fact that Epstein needs to go on a tear just to be slightly better than Jim Hendry make you suspect that at the very least, the success of his term with the Cubs should be questionable?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

these threads are a good litmus test for if a poster has any credibility

 

expressing the general sentiment "i think 2012 was in play" renders the poster a total obvious fool / intellectually dishonest troll and should thereby be roundly dismissed in all arguments henceforth

 

Virtually every poster on this site thought 2012 was in play at the time. They only changed their mind after the fact.

 

The only guy who didn't think 2012 was in play was davearm, more or less.

[Guest]

Every poster was also under the impression the payroll wasn't getting slashed by 25 million.