KingCubsFan

People aren't overreacting like they will never get out of it, they are pissed because they never should have been this bad for this long. It is difficult to be this bad for this long. Every franchise may have bad 4-5 year stretches, but not necessarily this bad. But every one of those franchises deserved and got tons of [expletive] from people who bother to care how much they win for the fact that they lost this year. The notion that people have no room to complain because some other random team had a tough stretch in the 70's, or that it's okay because they weren't even trying to win, or that one day they will actually be good again so it doesn't matter is just flat out absurd. My point is that every franchise has a point in time where they have a severe shortage of talent and are unable do a quick-fix and turn it around in a year or two. AND MY POINT IS THAT THIS DOES NOT MATTER AND IS AN INCREDIBLY STUPID "POINT" TO MAKE BECAUSE WHEN THOSE TEAMS WERE IN THAT SITUATION THEY WERE RIGHTFULLY CRITICIZED. You aren't some hero because you tolerate this losing and understand how long of a struggle it is to rebuild a franchise. People like Arguello(sp?) are not more informed because they understand and tolerate this unnecessarily long process of extreme failure. You said this type of losing should never happen. History proves otherwise, no matter how much you stomp your feet.

The Yankees have never lost 375 games in a four-year span. No, but they did lose 359. Sure there is, but it wouldn't have made a difference, besides costing us one of the best prospects in the game and not allowing us to acquire Anthony Rizzo. Maybe it's a difference of philosophy, but I'm in Theo's camp when he says that, a lot of times, it's better to lose 100 games instead of 88.

People aren't overreacting like they will never get out of it, they are pissed because they never should have been this bad for this long. It is difficult to be this bad for this long. Every franchise may have bad 4-5 year stretches, but not necessarily this bad. But every one of those franchises deserved and got tons of [expletive] from people who bother to care how much they win for the fact that they lost this year. The notion that people have no room to complain because some other random team had a tough stretch in the 70's, or that it's okay because they weren't even trying to win, or that one day they will actually be good again so it doesn't matter is just flat out absurd. My point is that every franchise has a point in time where they have a severe shortage of talent and are unable do a quick-fix and turn it around in a year or two. It's even happened to the Yankees. And it is not difficult to be this bad for this long with the situation that Theo walked into. If this were another team, and that team had (1) one of least talented rosters in the league; (2) one of the least productive rosters in the league, (3) one of the highest payrolls in the league, (4) the smallest front office in the league, and (5) far and away the worst facilities in the league, you would probably laugh if a fan of that team told you they could turn it around in a year or two. But it's an argument that will never be resolved. People like Kyle still seem to believe that signing Pujols and CJ Wilson would have magically turned this team into an awe-inspiring display of mediocrity that would have filled the seats.

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. Pretty much every franchise has had a string of 4 or 5 years where the team was bad. And they probably weren't trying to (at least partially) tank like Theo and Jed have. The apparent lack of money really sucks, but people need to stop overreacting like the Cubs are in some kind of dire situation they'll never get out of. The only thing unique about is the whole Wrigley Field mess, and even that looks like it should resolve itself shortly.

Pretty sure we already have a guy that can put up a .700 OPS with good defense. The Cubs shouldn't be trading assets for guys who aren't good offensive players or good starting pitchers.

Blue Jays and Pirates also may be interested: http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/14/now-the-pirates-and-blue-jays-are-rumored-suitors-for-jeff-samardzija/ Taillon would be a good headliner.

#POORTOMRICKETTS I can't think of any possible reason a general manager would ever want to Scott Boras their budget allows them to do anything they want.

I bet Rizzo could hit more sacrifice flies than Votto. Let's trade.

You can apparently add the Diamondbacks to that list. Schierholtz and Samardzija should be plenty to get a package going started with Delgado and Skaggs. http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/12/rumor-diamondbacks-interested-in-nate-schierholtz/ They are rumored to want Schierholtz because they want a corner OF bat. I guess Parra and Eaton don't qualify as corner OF bats to them. Delgado, Skaggs, and Parra for Schierholtz and Samardzija? I bet they value Parra pretty highly. It would be great if they would include Eaton, though.

There's no way we'd get Cole and Giolito. In fact, I'd imagine Giolito is off limits period. well i'd say then if giolito's off the table then washington can piss off. Cole is pretty good himself. But I'd rather have something like Skaggs and Delgado over Cole. I'm assuming Rendon would also be off the table.

There's no way we'd get Cole and Giolito. In fact, I'd imagine Giolito is off limits period.

Pretty sure he was. But, you know, between being 25 years old, the whole vision problem thing not being resolved, and coming off a .201/.303/.381 slash line combined for AA/AAA tends to keep guys out of organizational top 10 lists. i'd still have him ahead of jeimer and arodys for sure. Especially Arodys, who hasn't pitched in roughly 2 years.

Was Olt not eligible?

Except when we traded Scott Feldman and Matt Garza last year?

Me too. Mostly because of his track record and the fact that he's doing it at such a young age. Combine that with his work ethic and thats a good recipe for maintaining production as one moves up. It remains to be seen whether he can do it, but it was Almora's make-up and ability to reach his ceiling or at least get the most out of his talent that caused him to be taken 6th over more talented or equally talented prospects. People always talk about Almora's makeup and all-around skills but lack of plus tool. I think he has a pretty elite hit tool though. His ability to hit for average gets overlooked.

Higher average and a lower walk rate.

It is absolutely irrational to refuse to trade an inconsistent catcher (a position where the amount of time that one remains productive is quite short) for the #1/#2 prospect in baseball. Sorry, it's not. The opposite isn't irrational, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting to hemorrhage value from the MLB roster, especially when it involved trading the best hitter on the team for a top prospect who had yet to hit AA. We're talking about an 18/19 year old with amazing tools putting up a .918 OPS in A ball with a 73/85 BB/K ratio. Soto had just had consecutive seasons of 387 and 389 plate appearances, and one year of a .702 OPS. Would you trade Javier Baez for Carlos Santana or Salvador Perez? My guess is no, and Trout was a much better prospect than Baez is now.

It is absolutely irrational to refuse to trade an inconsistent catcher (a position where the amount of time that one remains productive is quite short) for the #1/#2 prospect in baseball.

This board also wouldn't trade Soto for Mike Trout. We have a tendency to overvalue our own players. Wait, when was this? Like when Trout was in A ball and wasn't a huge/well known prospect yet? I'm not saying I/we don't have times of overvaluing our own guys but I never recall that conversation. It's when he was the best prospect in baseball: http://www.northsidebaseball.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=58544&p=2532606&hilit=trout#p2532606

This board also wouldn't trade Soto for Mike Trout. We have a tendency to overvalue our own players.

So if that info is correct, and put in context with almost every other mention we've seen about how the team is really trying to add pitching, that almost has to mean something like Skaggs and Holmberg, unless Towers was making Delgado available. Actually, now that I think of it, given how much the FO likes Delgado, that would make some sense. Getting Skaggs and Delgado would be fantastic.

:lol: the thing the bulls still need most is another guy who can create his own shot and score by himself. there aren't many players better at that than carmelo. he had one kind of bad year. durant/westbrook works, and so would melo/rose. I don't think this team is as good with Carmelo at SF over Deng.

They're not done, they're just not going to win a title this year. And that is exactly the jumping to conclusions I'm talking about. How is it jumping to conclusions when we have 3 years of watching the Heat and Bulls to back it up? That's a long, slow crawl to a conclusion. The conclusion is clearly based more off the performance last night as opposed to past years (and does last year even count?)

Thanks. I thought they were somewhere.

Almora was also hitting for a higher average and more power. And I wish I could see the splits, but I believe Almora walked quite a bit more later in the season after he stopped hitting about .700 like he did in the beginning of the season.