pccubfan

I think the start forces Jed to try to win where I don't know that the motivation was there to do that before. That alone should increase the number of likely wins. It may not be enough to qualify for the playoffs, but it certainly should place them above .500 for the year.

One is that it doesn't make much sense for them. They just invested a zillion dollars into Wrigleyville and the gameday experience, and while the Cubs have a high base of support there's a demonstrable difference in that potential revenue when the team is good or not good. Attendance has varied from 400k-600k/year depending on the relative badness or goodness of the team in the Ricketts era, and that's stated attendance which is going to underrate the real revenue impact of people who don't bother to use tickets when the team is bad, and further compounded by having so much revenue generated from Wrigleyville outside ticket sales. Moreover, this type of FUD is rarely specific or taken to its logical conclusion. If cost controls uber alles were the best profit maximizing lever to pull, then wouldn't the Ricketts want to drop the payroll to the bottom of the league? Even the most pessimistic folks don't seem to think(or say out loud) that the Cubs are about to become the Marlins, so they seem to intuitively understand there is a level of spending that is necessary for the overall moneymaking venture. But I rarely(ever?) hear what folks think or fear that level is, so it's impossible to speak to how likely that outcome is, or if accurate how damaging that would be to the original conversation about the Cubs' competitive timeline, which grinds that conversation to a halt. No they wouldnt go as far as to drop to the lowest payroll in the league. Tom is very image conscious and seems to take criticisms personally. No amount of profit is worth being an all-time villain, and I'm not sure the league would allow them to continue owning the team if they ran out a $20m payroll every year. My belief is that they are willing to spend to a point, but if you try to cross that point, winning becomes secondary to profits. Even if they have to bail on a 6+ year window halfway through, forcing the team to sign Descalso and wait to see how long Zobrist is going to be gone from the team before signing Kimbrel. Did Theo and Jed overextend their line of credit in 2018? Did the Ricketts family allow them some temporary flexibility to get out of the mess they built? No, they werent allowed to make any moves until they cleared payroll and it mostly stayed that way as the Cubs looked less and less like a championship contender in 2019 and 2020. Don't forget that to get that window open we purposely lost for 3+ years with a payroll resembling a small market team. I don't disagree, but that was before they spent all the money around Wrigley. They have to have fans there to cover the expense of that capital outlay. If the fans' perception is that ownership is not trying, it isn't only the team that is going to lose.

I went from 26,372 to 1,975. That doesn't seem possible. Same email but different account number.

I don't disagree with what you say about the NPB and understand that $20 million is a far cry from what they were expecting, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that it isn't a lot of money. If he can leave for nothing in two years, he's getting posted. The question is will it be this year or next.

Uh.... Yes? Wasn't Kyle the one who said picks in the top 3 or top 5 are valuable, and the rest of the draft is pretty much a crapshoot? Also this whole idea leaves out player development. It matters little who, when or how a young player was acquired if the organization sucks at developing players. Would Baez be the current player if the old regime was still in charge? Good point. The prior regime was abysmal at developing talent. Theo and Co have a very good track record in this area, but with different players down on the farm. I'm probably more negative than most on this site, I still want to see some success at the major league level with guys developed under this regime with the Cubs. I believe that what is happening in the minors is great but the proof is how they perform once they reach the big leagues. It's not the FO's fault that we haven't seen these success stories yet because of where the team started. I'm just in the I'll believe it when I see it mode. Being a Cubs fan for as long as I have been has made me that way.

Uh.... Yes? Wasn't Kyle the one who said picks in the top 3 or top 5 are valuable, and the rest of the draft is pretty much a crapshoot? I think it was Kyle and he probably isn't too far from being correct. I think the one thing that Theo has proven in his career is that he has been able to do really well picking at the back end of the draft. I don't follow the draft that closely, so I don't know how much of that was the result of being able to sign over-slot under the old rules, but he didn't have the advantage of picking early. edit I do realize that your point was Kyle saying we wouldn't be too much worse off even though the Cubs would have been picking in the middle of the draft if the Cubs had won more.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to see it before I give them credit for it. well, he took over a roster and a minor league system largely bereft of talent, and the owner yanked payroll down by $30-40m per year when most clubs in the game have been rolling in dough. i'm not too sure what you expected was going to happen. You're the one giving the FO credit for something they haven't accomplished yet. I won't have any problem giving them credit when they actually accomplish that winning part. And if they can do it without the constraint of a mid-market payroll, I'll give them credit anyway.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to see it before I give them credit for it.

My problem all along with this rebuild has been that it has been one-sided. If a very high percentage of the top guys don't work out, then the last couple years have been wasted not trying. I'll err on the FO's proven ability of being able to develop players on that one. But I understand anyone else's hesitancy. I understand the FO's track record and that does give one hope. However, four or five years of 90+ losses is inexcusable. I don't care if it is the FO's fault, ownerships fault, or some combination, it should never happen.

My problem all along with this rebuild has been that it has been one-sided. If a very high percentage of the top guys don't work out, then the last couple years have been wasted not trying.

Yea, those better players Rizzo needs to be surrounded by comes to mind, but why try to understand that when there is no way a team can compete with a guy putting up an .820 OPS and batting third.

How is Boston competing with Pedroia's numbers? It's been made very clear to you by every other poster that the team needs better players in order to compete. Pedroia proves a player batting third with an OPS less than .820 can be competitive if there are good players surrounding that player. Can we just let this arguement end?

Is there a single person here arguing otherwise? I'm not sure. I asked how long it should take to rebuild a big market team but no one replied. Toon made a statement that he hoped the Cubs could compete in 2015 but things would all have to go right for that to happen. I really didn't see anyone address that point. Instead, it seems that we're having a battle between things are going great vs. we've fallen off the organizational cliff. I think one more year of "young talent acquisition mode" should be enough. If the team isn't at least around competition in 2014 my patience will have run out. Thanks, I'm feeling the same way. I'm okay with no playoffs in 2014, but think that we need to see signs in 2014 of the next few years being very good years for the Cubs.

Is there a single person here arguing otherwise? I'm not sure. I asked how long it should take to rebuild a big market team but no one replied. Toon made a statement that he hoped the Cubs could compete in 2015 but things would all have to go right for that to happen. I really didn't see anyone address that point. Instead, it seems that we're having a battle between things are going great vs. we've fallen off the organizational cliff.

Well a big reason there is teams being able to draft and develop impact guys who compile high WAR for low initial costs. The Cubs don't have a whole lot of those, but are trying to get them. Guys like Starlin Castro, Darwin Barney, Jeff Samardzija, Welington Castillo? {b]that's 10 [expletive] wins! basically our whole entire foundation is essentially worth one [expletive] Mike Trout*![/b] ah...in the first few months of their tenure, Theo & co. should have shrewded their way into a good 30 extra wins; i see what you're saying *or 2.5 Jon Jays/David Freeses (who both outproduced the best player on our team last year) Truly, Hendry left a treasure trove for Theo and Jed to build upon. One star, a middle infielder whose value may or may not have been a defensive metric fluke, a pitcher with talent but no consistency (prior to 2012) and a decent catching prospect. And don't forget the coin flip of a top prospect and Javier Baez, who is years away. Never mind the total absence of minor league pitching talent, it isn't important in light of the aforementioned glut of talent. And of course we know Hendry would have made all the same trades to infuse the system with young talent (since he did such an admirable job of that in the past), so let's not give the FO credit for that. Hendry no doubt left the Cubs in terrible shape. It just seems odd to me that Theo's moves seem above reproach because of the low bar Hendry set. I don't care how bad the organization was when Hendry left it is unfathomable that the Cubs shouldn't be expected to compete in Theo's fourth year running the show.

Not necessarily. The teams like Tampa Bay and Oakland who contend with small payrolls have been at work, building their foundations for years. Epstein and Co. came into a massive, graffiti covered, piss-stained colosus and are tearing it down, and at the same time attempting to build something similar to what those teams have in it's place. I'm not saying that this is what the Cubs need to do, but if you're looking it at it from that point of view, the Cubs are essentially the Devil Rays of the early/mid '00s. Long way to go. The difference is, once we do get there, we have a lot more cash to supplement the home grown assets. That isn't the only difference but I'll leave it up to you to figure that out.

You're right, all plans must start succeeding and show immediate results from day one with no time to allowed for adjustments and a foundation to be built all while changing an entires organizations paradigm from the top down. Well, yes. It's a results-oriented business. If they didn't think they could operate on parallel fronts, then someone else should have been hired. Sooo adding all the good young players over the last 10ish month Theo has been here, reorganizing the entire FO/coaching staffs/scouts etc. with guys that will teach and preach what you want to your players (hiring/firing of guys, adding more positions), bringing in new technology throughout the minor league and major league parks to better analyze players, getting the new baseball academey started in the DR, signing your best young player to a long term extension, adding another young potnetial impact player at the ML level (Rizzo), and make smart, non-wasteful, signings on the ML roster isn't an example of operating on parallel fronts in about a 10 month period? Theo is executing his plan. He is getting to make all of these decisions and build the team the way he wants to build it. If in 2015 we are competing and we continue to compete on a regular basis for ten years, he'll be judged as being successful. If in 2015 we aren't competing, in my mind, he will be judged as unsuccessful.

You're right, all plans must start succeeding and show immediate results from day one with no time to allowed for adjustments and a foundation to be built all while changing an entires organizations paradigm from the top down. How is four years, if all things go well, showing immediate results? Christ, how patient do people have to be. How many years is sufficient for a big market franchise to be turned around?

Somthing is wrong with the plan if you are looking at competing four years into the plan, if all things go well.

Isn't the key word in his statement valuable or value? You aren't going to find too many values when signing a free agent, especially one of the top free agents in the class. He's obviously going to participate in free agency as he did so last year. I think the idea is to participate by obtaining the best values available relative to the free market as a whole.

Are you trading Baez for that very solid rotation piece? It would probably have to be him to offset our lack of near-major league ready arms that another team might be able to offer. Again, after 2014 some of the arms currently in the low minors may have impressed enough people that a trade or two could take place.

Pwrsonally, I think next year is the last year we really suck. Although losing some value in a Garza trade stings somewhat. I totally expect a decent young team playing in 2014, with some guys we've traded for as cost controlled young guys being a part of it. And tons of flexibility moving forward. You are much more optimistic than I am. I think a lot would have to go right for the Cubs to be a decent young team in 2014. Baez is the only guy currently in the minors that I could envision in Chicago able to make a difference, and he'll be a rookie. Pitching is god awful in AA and AAA, and only average at A+ with Whitenack and Wells getting hit by the injury bug. I understand you think that some trades could be made for MLB guys with Cubs prospects, but don't know that this can happen that quickly as the majority of pitching talent the Cubs could offer would be below AA at that time. Jackson, Vitters and Castillo would almost all have to work out to some extent for this team to turn around by 2014.

So sucking is its own reward because you get higher draft picks and more money in both the amatuer draft and the IFA market. How many years of sucking is too many? At what point does everyone get fed up getting a top five pick? Is there a point where everyone would say this front office isn't getting it done? I'm not turning on Theo and Co. as I understand this is a process, but how many bad years would it take for you to say this isn't working? If 2015 isn't pretty dang promising, I'd wonder if the plan was ever going to work.

Five Ks in two innings! Begs the question, why did the slacker let the one hitter put the ball in play?

First game was 8/16/77. Cubs jumped out ahead of the Pirates and lost the lead late. Came back with a run in the bottom of the ninth to take to extra innings against Goose Gossage. The Cubs won it in like the 15th inning. Got out of the game and got on the bus to head back home and heard that Elvis Presley had died.