Is patience a virtue?

[Guest]

Now that we have started to actually see a glimpse of the future, would you trade this team and its farm system for the unknown of not wasting a few seasons?

 

Yep. If you gave me a chance to do-over with an unnamed, generic, saber-savvy young GM who was interested in a true parallel fronts approach, I'd take it.

 

If the Cubs miss the playoffs this year, and at worst that's an even-money proposition, they're 0-for-4. Coming back from 0-for-4 to a respectable ratio is not at all a gimme putt even with the kind of young talent this team has.

 

A good GM could have had this team humming along with a solid team, a solid farm system and some solid results the last three years (with a non-zero chance of a WS title in one of them) instead of going nutso on 1 of the 3 and now finally starting to see it bubble up in the other two.

Aren't "solid team" and "solid results" kind of redundant?

 

Also, I go back to payroll. If the team was actually constrained to the budgets they've had for the past several years, there was no practical way to do dual fronts. They could have been as good as average while shedding $60M from the payroll, but would have been hard pressed to make the playoffs during that time with that constraint.

 

Now, if the payroll was suppressed in order to lose, that's a totally different story.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What was a realistic offseason the first couple years that couldve put this team in contention?

 

I'm not going to go through three years of alternative offseasons. That'd be lunacy.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Aren't "solid team" and "solid results" kind of redundant?

 

I was thinking of "team" as what we have on paper right now, "results" being what we did in 2012-2014.

 

Also, I go back to payroll. If the team was actually constrained to the budgets they've had for the past several years, there was no practical way to do dual fronts. They could have been as good as average while shedding $60M from the payroll, but would have been hard pressed to make the playoffs during that time with that constraint.

 

Now, if the payroll was suppressed in order to lose, that's a totally different story.

 

If the team hadn't been losing so much, the payroll would have been less suppressed. And they've admitted to underspending their means.

[Guest]

What was a realistic offseason the first couple years that couldve put this team in contention?

 

I'm not going to go through three years of alternative offseasons. That'd be lunacy.

I know I put out a few in the past (not for this past offseason, but the ones before). It involves a tremendous amount of hindsight, though. For example, Puig.

[Guest]

What was a realistic offseason the first couple years that couldve put this team in contention?

 

I'm not going to go through three years of alternative offseasons. That'd be lunacy.

I know I put out a few in the past (not for this past offseason, but the ones before). It involves a tremendous amount of hindsight, though. For example, Puig.

 

And not [expletive] ourselves over with some of the obvious big money targets that were collosal trainwrecks if we were in fact taking that approach

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Can you answer what the true financial position of the team was during those years? It's kind of important to my answer.

 

Let's just say they could have had a $150 million payroll to work with. Inherited the same contracts and team of course.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Now that we have started to actually see a glimpse of the future, would you trade this team and its farm system for the unknown of not wasting a few seasons?

 

Yep. If you gave me a chance to do-over with an unnamed, generic, saber-savvy young GM who was interested in a true parallel fronts approach, I'd take it.

 

If the Cubs miss the playoffs this year, and at worst that's an even-money proposition, they're 0-for-4. Coming back from 0-for-4 to a respectable ratio is not at all a gimme putt even with the kind of young talent this team has.

 

A good GM could have had this team humming along with a solid team, a solid farm system and some solid results the last three years (with a non-zero chance of a WS title in one of them) instead of going nutso on 1 of the 3 and now finally starting to see it bubble up in the other two.

 

Fair enough.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What was a realistic offseason the first couple years that couldve put this team in contention?

 

I'm not going to go through three years of alternative offseasons. That'd be lunacy.

I know I put out a few in the past (not for this past offseason, but the ones before). It involves a tremendous amount of hindsight, though. For example, Puig.

 

As you've noted, it inevitably ends with the person who asked for it going "Well, I don't like that as much as you do because (wrong WAR/too much hindsight/not enough hindsight/butterflies flapping wings/whatever)." and you've wasted all that work.

[Guest]

Can you answer what the true financial position of the team was during those years? It's kind of important to my answer.

 

Let's just say they could have had a $150 million payroll to work with. Inherited the same contracts and team of course.

Then parallel paths were absolutely possible.

[sneakypower]

Now that we have started to actually see a glimpse of the future, would you trade this team and its farm system for the unknown of not wasting a few seasons?

http://reactiongif.org/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/08/GIF-Beyonce-dislike-finger-wag-no-no-no-no-nope-wrong-GIF.gif

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And not [expletive] ourselves over with some of the obvious big money targets that were collosal trainwrecks if we were in fact taking that approach

 

How sure are you that our current approach avoided that fate?

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Can you answer what the true financial position of the team was during those years? It's kind of important to my answer.

 

Let's just say they could have had a $150 million payroll to work with. Inherited the same contracts and team of course.

Then parallel paths were absolutely possible.

 

I just feel like we'd have a bunch of overpriced veterans past their prime to go along with Puig and Soler.

 

Not bad, of course. I still pick the chance of this right now, even though this might not work out either.

[Guest]

And not [expletive] ourselves over with some of the obvious big money targets that were collosal trainwrecks if we were in fact taking that approach

 

How sure are you that our current approach avoided that fate?

 

very sure because the vast majority of this roster is cost controlled for a very long time

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And not [expletive] ourselves over with some of the obvious big money targets that were collosal trainwrecks if we were in fact taking that approach

 

How sure are you that our current approach avoided that fate?

 

very sure because the vast majority of this roster is cost controlled for a very long time

 

So we don't have a big-money target locked up to $165m who is a post-30 pitcher with an ERA near 7 and an iffy arm in ST?

[Guest]

And not [expletive] ourselves over with some of the obvious big money targets that were collosal trainwrecks if we were in fact taking that approach

 

How sure are you that our current approach avoided that fate?

 

very sure because the vast majority of this roster is cost controlled for a very long time

 

So we don't have a big-money target locked up to $165m who is a post-30 pitcher with an ERA near 7 and an iffy arm in ST?

 

learn how to read i guess is the answer to this

[Gmoney08]

Can you answer what the true financial position of the team was during those years? It's kind of important to my answer.

 

Let's just say they could have had a $150 million payroll to work with. Inherited the same contracts and team of course.

Then parallel paths were absolutely possible.

 

As crappy as it was Id choose the total rebuild over parallel paths as well.

 

Going two fronts I dont believe would have set us up nearly as close to the potential longterm dominance that is near now.

 

I just believe our young lineup with this type of potential offense in the run environment right now is a very very good spot to be in.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

And not [expletive] ourselves over with some of the obvious big money targets that were collosal trainwrecks if we were in fact taking that approach

 

How sure are you that our current approach avoided that fate?

 

very sure because the vast majority of this roster is cost controlled for a very long time

 

So we don't have a big-money target locked up to $165m who is a post-30 pitcher with an ERA near 7 and an iffy arm in ST?

 

He said the vast majority.

 

The entire offense of goodness is signed through at least 2020, and Rizzo, Bryant and Russell though 2021.

[Guest]

Can you answer what the true financial position of the team was during those years? It's kind of important to my answer.

 

Let's just say they could have had a $150 million payroll to work with. Inherited the same contracts and team of course.

Then parallel paths were absolutely possible.

 

As crappy as it was Id choose the total rebuild over parallel paths as well.

 

Going two fronts I dont believe would have set us up nearly as close to the potential longterm dominance that is near now.

 

I just believe our young lineup with this type of potential offense in the run environment right now is a very very good spot to be in.

 

90s. yankees.

 

http://i.imgur.com/7drHiqr.gif

[SouthSideRyan]

Can you answer what the true financial position of the team was during those years? It's kind of important to my answer.

 

Let's just say they could have had a $150 million payroll to work with. Inherited the same contracts and team of course.

Then parallel paths were absolutely possible.

 

As crappy as it was Id choose the total rebuild over parallel paths as well.

 

Going two fronts I dont believe would have set us up nearly as close to the potential longterm dominance that is near now.

 

I just believe our young lineup with this type of potential offense in the run environment right now is a very very good spot to be in.

 

90s. yankees.

 

http://i.imgur.com/7drHiqr.gif

 

You stop that.

[Guest]

Can you answer what the true financial position of the team was during those years? It's kind of important to my answer.

 

Let's just say they could have had a $150 million payroll to work with. Inherited the same contracts and team of course.

Then parallel paths were absolutely possible.

 

I just feel like we'd have a bunch of overpriced veterans past their prime to go along with Puig and Soler.

 

Not bad, of course. I still pick the chance of this right now, even though this might not work out either.

I'm thrilled with where the team is right now. I'm loving every minute of this season.

 

But if they could have had a $150M budget the whole time, we could have been watching Greinke, Puig, Cano, Abreu and others the past few years.

[KingCubsFan]

What was a realistic offseason the first couple years that couldve put this team in contention?

 

I'm not going to go through three years of alternative offseasons. That'd be lunacy.

I know I put out a few in the past (not for this past offseason, but the ones before). It involves a tremendous amount of hindsight, though. For example, Puig.

By all accounts the Cubs were very aggressive in trying to sign Puig.

 

And this whole argument has been rehashed many times, and it really comes down to the fact that some people (such as Kyle) believed that the Cubs had some real talent on the team when Theo took over that could be supplemented, while others didn't.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And this whole argument has been rehashed many times, and it really comes down to the fact that some people (such as Kyle) believed that the Cubs had some real talent on the team when Theo took over that could be supplemented, while others didn't.

 

From my POV, it sure seems like those others retcon the talent then lower every year. It certainly wasn't consensus hopeless at the time.

[Guest]

What was a realistic offseason the first couple years that couldve put this team in contention?

 

I'm not going to go through three years of alternative offseasons. That'd be lunacy.

I know I put out a few in the past (not for this past offseason, but the ones before). It involves a tremendous amount of hindsight, though. For example, Puig.

By all accounts the Cubs were very aggressive in trying to sign Puig.

 

And this whole argument has been rehashed many times, and it really comes down to the fact that some people (such as Kyle) believed that the Cubs had some real talent on the team when Theo took over that could be supplemented, while others didn't.

Presumably, they could have been more aggressive with a bigger budget.

[Guest]

to pull off the dual fronts approach in today's MLB while still getting the kind of long term product the cubs are going to end up with, i think you really need to have dodgers money. you really need to be able to absorb bad money. it's kind of the free agency version of the prospect redundancy we shot for. if you tried it with much less than that i think you run into a lot more risk of things not working out.

 

if we had that type of budget, i know for sure it could have been pulled off. otherwise, there's some real risk in strongly chasing winning from 2012-14.

 

that's pretty much all i got.

[SouthSideRyan]

What was a realistic offseason the first couple years that couldve put this team in contention?

 

I'm not going to go through three years of alternative offseasons. That'd be lunacy.

I know I put out a few in the past (not for this past offseason, but the ones before). It involves a tremendous amount of hindsight, though. For example, Puig.

By all accounts the Cubs were very aggressive in trying to sign Puig.

 

My recollection is they were aggressive on Cespedes, not Puig. Puig was thought to be a comical overpay who was going to hurt the Dodgers WAR/$ for years to come.