Hypothetical on Rebuild Going Back 3-4 years...Worth it in hindsight?

[David]

So, I was getting all sappy and remembering Theo's comments about the payoff of following guys up through the minor league system for a few years and then suddenly seeing them be awesome in the big leagues and becoming a national story and all that. (I can't find the quotes, so if someone wants to help me out with that, that'd be cool.)

 

But anyway, before I gave up, I was looking for the quotes in this thread

 

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=61092&start=75&hilit=theo

 

And I noticed we were all freaking out about it taking 5 years (holy [expletive], can you imagine two more years of irrelevance and terribleness?). This was mid 2012.

 

We've had plenty of debate over Theo's time here as to whether we should've gone with this full tear down/rebuild or attempted to do both (which, IMO, presumably would involve, barring some really good luck, some sacrificing of the long term potential and *how* good you could be in x amount of time to at least some extent, in order to get good sooner...)

 

So, basically, my question is if you were back in 2011 and we knew we could be THIS good with this many really talented young players with "only" 3 tanked seasons (one of which - last year - was actually sort of fun by the end) - rather than the five (or more) we were fearing + the understadable uncertainty of whether it'd work out -, would you take that deal? Now that we are where we are, was the tanking (and the fact that it took less of it than we feared) worth it to you, personally, in hindsight?

Edited September 9, 2015 by David

[Guest]

One more question - this one mainly directed at Kyle...

 

If I asked you if you think Theo has done a good job, I pretty much know what your answer is...something along the lines of "no, he's had 3 terrible seasons and one good one."

 

What if I were to just ask how good a job you think he and the front office have done at what they set out to do the way they did it? The hit rate on prospects, the trades, etc. If you take as a given that it was going to be done this way, how do you grade them at doing it this way?

[Guest]

I think for me it all depends on whether their hand was forced for budgetary reasons or if they chose to go this way.

 

I doubt we'll ever get a complete answer to that question.

[Guest]

I think for me it all depends on whether their hand was forced for budgetary reasons or if they chose to go this way.

 

I doubt we'll ever get a complete answer to that question.

 

That's fair. But I think if you told me we could be this good and this stacked with young talent this fast (not to mention fun dongsmith type talent), I might still take that over a $150-200M payroll trade/free agent "patch" job. For what they did, I feel like they did it really well and really fast. It's kind of amazing.

 

Like I think it worked out so well that I might still prefer this outcome over having gone nuts spending right off the bat in 2011. This is a weird hypothetical as it is because we now know a lot of those signings would have turned out disastrously and I'm proposing that we wouldn't know that...because otherwise it would be a no brainer.

[SouthSideRyan]

One more question - this one mainly directed at Kyle...

 

If I asked you if you think Theo has done a good job, I pretty much know what your answer is...something along the lines of "no, he's had 3 terrible seasons and one good one."

 

What if I were to just ask how good a job you think he and the front office have done at what they set out to do the way they did it? The hit rate on prospects, the trades, etc. If you take as a given that it was going to be done this way, how do you grade them at doing it this way?

 

I don't know how the answer could be no. They set out to be terrible and accumulate prospects and the prospects thus far have hit at a great rate.

[SouthSideRyan]

But what exactly was fun about the end of last year? Baez and Alcantara were inescapable balls of sadness.

[Guest]

One more question - this one mainly directed at Kyle...

 

If I asked you if you think Theo has done a good job, I pretty much know what your answer is...something along the lines of "no, he's had 3 terrible seasons and one good one."

 

What if I were to just ask how good a job you think he and the front office have done at what they set out to do the way they did it? The hit rate on prospects, the trades, etc. If you take as a given that it was going to be done this way, how do you grade them at doing it this way?

 

I don't know how the answer could be no. They set out to be terrible and accumulate prospects and the prospects thus far have hit at a great rate.

 

Yeah, I just want him to concede at least that much. Maybe he has already, though.

[Guest]

But what exactly was fun about the end of last year? Baez and Alcantara were inescapable balls of sadness.

 

We won a lot and Soler was a beast...plus Rizzo became a superstar and Castro was really good. The very end with those two not so much fun because of the injuries, but yeah. I enjoyed it a lot after what the last few years had been. Felt like stuff was starting to come together.

[Gilby]

Looking at the players that were acquired as a direct result of sucking - Bryant, Russell, Schwarbs, and Arrieta - and how good they are and how long they're under control, I don't see how anyone can say the last 3 years weren't worth it.

[SouthSideRyan]

Arrieta likely could've been acquired for scraps the offseason after he was acquired.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think for me it all depends on whether their hand was forced for budgetary reasons or if they chose to go this way.

 

I doubt we'll ever get a complete answer to that question.

 

Yeah, for me it's all about the money. If they basically had no choice but to go relatively cheap, then yeah, ultimately this is a better option than trying to patch together a decent team that likely isn't going to have any kind of real sustained success. If they chose to go cheap then that's still a bit frustrating to me regardless of how things are working out right now. With a FO like this they should have been able to utilize money to improve in the short run and draft and sign smart to build for the long run, even if they're not getting the push from having draft picks like Bryant or Schwarber.

 

That said, even though we don't have the full picture it does appear that everyone's hands were tied when it came to money, so, yeah, what other real option did they have? This was the way to go, for better or for worse.

[Sammy Sofa]

Arrieta likely could've been acquired for scraps the offseason after he was acquired.

 

Yeah, and they very well could have still ended up with Russell if that season hadn't gone well, too, or if talks with Sharks had still broken down like they did; could easily see them still not wanting to pay him what he was looking for.

[Guest]

From the last page of that Theo Speak thread (which for some reason is in Social). July 30th, 2014.

 

Jim Bowden and Theo:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=11282088

 

Not a whole lot there. Said they had a good return for Garza but it was a volume deal. With Shark they wanted to bring back an elite player that would change the landscape of the franchise. Expected it to be a pitcher(s) but when Russell became available they couldn't pass it up.

 

Talking about the position switches gave the usual lines. Said they saw Javy play 3B in the fall league but they see him being a 2B rather than 3B if he has to move off of SS.

 

Bowden asked about when the Cubs will be contenders/buyers and he said "365 days from now there will be impact talent on the field. It's gonna be young but any time you have impact talent, you catch a few breaks, get some career years from some veterans, have health and solid starting pitching and anything can happen. There will be impact talent here and it's up to us to shape it and grow it and make sure we win not just once but consistently."

 

He undersold it, didn't he?

[Guest]

Arrieta likely could've been acquired for scraps the offseason after he was acquired.

 

Yeah, and they very well could have still ended up with Russell if that season hadn't gone well, too, or if talks with Sharks had still broken down like they did; could easily see them still not wanting to pay him what he was looking for.

 

Could have? Sure. Would have if they were actually trying to be good? Much more doubtful.

 

For Shark to get traded for Russell, it almost had to be the way it happened. Billy Beane isn't doing that in the offseason.

[SouthSideRyan]

Arrieta likely could've been acquired for scraps the offseason after he was acquired.

 

Yeah, and they very well could have still ended up with Russell if that season hadn't gone well, too, or if talks with Sharks had still broken down like they did; could easily see them still not wanting to pay him what he was looking for.

 

Yeah, I didn't want to go down that wormhole because people start freaking out about what was the point.

[SouthSideRyan]

Arrieta likely could've been acquired for scraps the offseason after he was acquired.

 

Yeah, and they very well could have still ended up with Russell if that season hadn't gone well, too, or if talks with Sharks had still broken down like they did; could easily see them still not wanting to pay him what he was looking for.

 

Could have? Sure. Would have if they were actually trying to be good? Much more doubtful.

 

For Shark to get traded for Russell, it almost had to be the way it happened. Billy Beane isn't doing that in the offseason.

 

You could trade Shark if you're trying to be good, but 2014 is lost. The A's have been reshaping their roster on annual basis while trying to win games.

[Guest]

I think for me it all depends on whether their hand was forced for budgetary reasons or if they chose to go this way.

 

I doubt we'll ever get a complete answer to that question.

 

Yeah, for me it's all about the money. If they basically had no choice but to go relatively cheap, then yeah, ultimately this is a better option than trying to patch together a decent team that likely isn't going to have any kind of real sustained success. If they chose to go cheap then that's still a bit frustrating to me regardless of how things are working out right now. With a FO like this they should have been able to utilize money to improve in the short run and draft and sign smart to build for the long run, even if they're not getting the push from having draft picks like Bryant or Schwarber.

 

That said, even though we don't have the full picture it does appear that everyone's hands were tied when it came to money, so, yeah, what other real option did they have? This was the way to go, for better or for worse.

 

Knowing what we know now, if you were to tell me we'd have a lineup with these guys, including 3-4 substantially contributing rookies, and it's on pace for 95 wins in mid September and it took 3 years of being shitty (the last one of which was at least mildly entertaining, especially later) if we tank, or we can try to win in 2012 and they have a $200M budget to do it with, I think I can't pass this up.

 

Or maybe I can't help myself and still pick spending lots and dual fronts.

 

I just think it's turning out well enough quick enough that it's hard to argue against it. This is [expletive] great.

[Sammy Sofa]

Arrieta likely could've been acquired for scraps the offseason after he was acquired.

 

Yeah, and they very well could have still ended up with Russell if that season hadn't gone well, too, or if talks with Sharks had still broken down like they did; could easily see them still not wanting to pay him what he was looking for.

 

Could have? Sure. Would have if they were actually trying to be good? Much more doubtful.

 

For Shark to get traded for Russell, it almost had to be the way it happened. Billy Beane isn't doing that in the offseason.

 

I agree with the last part, which is why I see them still moving in like they did. Not being able to come to an agreement with Shark and his agent would still have been a very likely scenario, even if the team was doing well, so I could see the FO easily looking to maximize on him. I think moving Hammel would have been a much bigger question mark than Shark, actually.

[jersey cubs fan]

Don't look back, you can never look back

[Sammy Sofa]

I think for me it all depends on whether their hand was forced for budgetary reasons or if they chose to go this way.

 

I doubt we'll ever get a complete answer to that question.

 

Yeah, for me it's all about the money. If they basically had no choice but to go relatively cheap, then yeah, ultimately this is a better option than trying to patch together a decent team that likely isn't going to have any kind of real sustained success. If they chose to go cheap then that's still a bit frustrating to me regardless of how things are working out right now. With a FO like this they should have been able to utilize money to improve in the short run and draft and sign smart to build for the long run, even if they're not getting the push from having draft picks like Bryant or Schwarber.

 

That said, even though we don't have the full picture it does appear that everyone's hands were tied when it came to money, so, yeah, what other real option did they have? This was the way to go, for better or for worse.

 

Knowing what we know now, if you were to tell me we'd have a lineup with these guys, including 3-4 substantially contributing rookies, and it's on pace for 95 wins in mid September and it took 3 years of being [expletive] (the last one of which was at least mildly entertaining, especially later) if we tank, or we can try to win in 2012 and they have a $200M budget to do it with, I think I can't pass this up.

 

Or maybe I can't help myself and still pick spending lots and dual fronts.

 

I just think it's turning out well enough quick enough that it's hard to argue against it. This is [expletive] great.

 

It is, but so much of it could have still happened without tanking. Getting Fowler and Montero, trading for Russell and Arrieta; plus they already had Baez.

 

Obviously, Schwarber and Bryant are big gamechangers, but who knows what they would have done if they had real "[expletive] you" money like we hoped?

 

I just think that if they had had the spending we wanted we'd still be pretty damn happy right now.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Sammy Sofa

[Andy]

Theo and Jed certainly deserve a ton of credit for this stuff, but it's worth acknowledging that there are some things that have gone far better than could reasonably have been anticipated, which has accelerated our timeline.

 

Like we all knew Rizzo was great value for Cashner, but him turning into what he is, which is an MVP type talent (especially while Cashner has been underwhelming at best for SD) is probably in the top 5-10% of all possible outcomes of that deal. Same for Arrieta becoming a top 3 pitcher in the whole NL in exchange for essentially nothing of value, and for Schwarber being able to come up here and be an excellent major league hitter less than a year after being drafted. By the same token, who could've guessed that Billy Beane, the poster child for valuing years of control on good players and getting as many bites at the apple as possible, would go insane last year and trade us a guy like Addison Russell? Or that Houston would take the pitcher that Theo/Jed were rumored to like ahead of the guy who was actually (we assume) the best option at #1 in Kris Bryant? Meanwhile (knock on wood) very few things have gone very badly - in terms of the talents people were talking about as cornerstones when (or soon after) Theo got here, the worst thing that's probably happened has been...? Almora not being that great in AA?

 

I don't know if you call it luck, but that very few things have gone very badly - while a few things have gone as well as we could've ever hoped - certainly is part of the reason we are already as good as we are in year 4.

[Brian]

Somebody can (and probably will) make a good deal of money writing a book on what has happened with the Cubs since Theo came to town. It could be great if that person was able to get access to Theo, Jed, Crane and Ricketts. I mean just off the top of my head there is

- the scenario that led to Theo being available and his courtship,

- the near complete overhaul of the minor league and big league team,

- everything surrounding the upgrades to Wrigley,

- the complete overhaul/creation of the front office,

- getting new spring training and Dominican facilities,

- basically creating the international free agent loophole (as fallout for the new system),

- the scenario that led to Maddon being available and his courtship,

 

It just needs an ending: crash and burn, World Series victory(s), or the moneyball ending of getting close but not being able to get it done

[SouthSideRyan]

I think for me it all depends on whether their hand was forced for budgetary reasons or if they chose to go this way.

 

I doubt we'll ever get a complete answer to that question.

 

Yeah, for me it's all about the money. If they basically had no choice but to go relatively cheap, then yeah, ultimately this is a better option than trying to patch together a decent team that likely isn't going to have any kind of real sustained success. If they chose to go cheap then that's still a bit frustrating to me regardless of how things are working out right now. With a FO like this they should have been able to utilize money to improve in the short run and draft and sign smart to build for the long run, even if they're not getting the push from having draft picks like Bryant or Schwarber.

 

That said, even though we don't have the full picture it does appear that everyone's hands were tied when it came to money, so, yeah, what other real option did they have? This was the way to go, for better or for worse.

 

Knowing what we know now, if you were to tell me we'd have a lineup with these guys, including 3-4 substantially contributing rookies, and it's on pace for 95 wins in mid September and it took 3 years of being [expletive] (the last one of which was at least mildly entertaining, especially later) if we tank, or we can try to win in 2012 and they have a $200M budget to do it with, I think I can't pass this up.

 

Or maybe I can't help myself and still pick spending lots and dual fronts.

 

I just think it's turning out well enough quick enough that it's hard to argue against it. This is [expletive] great.

 

It is, but so much of it could have still happened without tanking. Getting Fowler and Montero, trading for Russell and Arrieta; plus they already had Baez.

 

Obviously, Schwarber and Bryant are big gamechangers, but who knows what they would have done if they had real "[expletive] you" money like we hoped?

 

I just think that if they had had the spending we wanted we'd still be pretty damn happy right now.

 

Probably could've found a way to get Fowler, but it almost certainly wouldn't have been for Valbuena, who wouldn't have been able to accumulate PAs we were otherwise throwing away.

[SouthSideRyan]

Theo and Jed certainly deserve a ton of credit for this stuff, but it's worth acknowledging that there are some things that have gone far better than could reasonably have been anticipated, which has accelerated our timeline.

 

Like we all knew Rizzo was great value for Cashner, but him turning into what he is, which is an MVP type talent (especially while Cashner has been underwhelming at best for SD) is probably in the top 5-10% of all possible outcomes of that deal. Same for Arrieta becoming a top 3 pitcher in the whole NL in exchange for essentially nothing of value, and for Schwarber being able to come up here and be an excellent major league hitter less than a year after being drafted. By the same token, who could've guessed that Billy Beane, the poster child for valuing years of control on good players and getting as many bites at the apple as possible, would go insane last year and trade us a guy like Addison Russell? Or that Houston would take the pitcher that Theo/Jed were rumored to like ahead of the guy who was actually (we assume) the best option at #1 in Kris Bryant? Meanwhile (knock on wood) very few things have gone very badly - in terms of the talents people were talking about as cornerstones when (or soon after) Theo got here, the worst thing that's probably happened has been...? Almora not being that great in AA?

 

I don't know if you call it luck, but that very few things have gone very badly - while a few things have gone as well as we could've ever hoped - certainly is part of the reason we are already as good as we are in year 4.

 

Well, Starlin Castro did become awful, but yeah.

[Sammys Boombox]

It's absolutely worth it. Even doing a patch job with the supposed restrictions they had I at most see them maybe getting into the playoffs one time in the last 3 seasons.

 

No Bryant. No Schwarber. Most likely no Russell. Maybe stuck with a crappy Samardzija extension.