KingCubsFan

This interview may explain why Theo and Jed are waiting for Lovullo: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/torey-lovullo-future-big-league-manager/

It seems to be to load up on power, even when it means accepting lower OBP to get it. Other than Schierholz, I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. Rizzo ranks higher in power than he does in OBP. Navarro has a bit more power than OBP. We were 8th in SLG last year and 14th in OBP. None of our draft picks have been OBP monsters. Both Bryant and Almora were said to have good eyes when they were drafted. Bryant led the NCAA in walks IIRC. I think their philosophy has always been to get well-rounded players and, for the most part, OBP is a natural byproduct of that even if they're not OBP monsters.

It seems to be to load up on power, even when it means accepting lower OBP to get it. Other than Schierholz, I'm not sure where you're getting that idea.

I kind of expect him to make it to the majors before Javy and have a more immediate impact. Not that I think the gap is that large. I'm beginning to think the gap is larger than we may have originally thought.

This isn't serious is it? Doesn't seem too far off to me if Trout continues his pace (which would make him one of the greatest players of all-time at the age of 26). It seems extremely far off to me. 15 years for a guy who depends on speed? Don't think so. "Depends on speed"? .400 OBP and 30 HR. Doesn't really depend on speed. Yeah, that's like saying Barry Bonds depended on speed when he left the Pirates.

This isn't serious is it? Doesn't seem too far off to me if Trout continues his pace (which would make him one of the greatest players of all-time at the age of 26).

Elite defense and power, 3 years of team control and entering his prime years, "down" season(and wrist injury) plus Oakland's price consciousness make him available. Basically you take on the injury risk and take advantage of Oakland's small market to get a 3-5 win RF. He's also a Theo/Jed product coming from the Boston system, so the interest would be there if he's truly available. Just what we need, another guy who struggles to keep his OBP above .300.

Yep, I'd bet most guys who reach their ceiling attain a higher level than their "ceiling" was graded out at. Yeah...like nobody was saying Miguel Cabrera might be one of the best hitters in the history of the game when he was the #12 prospect 10 years go or whatever. I remember Adam Wainwright having a ceiling of a #2 or 3 if everything went right.

It was great until they got to Game 6. Then it was just depressing.

It's fun to dream about a bullpen of Paniagua, Vizcaino, Black, Strop and Rivera.

I think it's mostly frame, but maybe some other factors too. Later in the chat, he says Marcus Stroman has starter stuff and sees him as a starter despite the fact he's 5'9". He's never been as definite with Edwards.

They probably see the Bears still getting lots of turnovers and assume the defense is solid. On offense they are probably just basing it of last year's team adding on a slight improvement because they half heard something on NFL Primetime about Marc Trestman. And they're probably pretty confident in their defense, considering they just shut down Dallas.

He's terrifying to look at.

There's a chasm between "just a little input" and "forcing your GM to send a top prospect and several million dollars of a slashed payroll to get a specific manager that most of the bleacher crowd doesn't know by name". Even more so when half the reason that GM left his old job was due to similar power struggles getting in the way of his job. Yeah - I would say a great majority of average Cubs fans couldn't even tell you who the Rays manager was and wouldn't be much more impressed by his hire than any from the Acta, Hinch, Renteria grab bag. Girardi was probably the only one they could hire and possibly get a big reaction due to his being a popular former Cubs player and originally being from the area. I haven't looked into the metrics so it might just be a small sample size from the games I have watched but when I take my kid to the games Maddon seems to sacrifice a lot for my liking and doesn't seem to an overly sabermetric guy. He is not "old school" when it comes to player discipline and general attitude but does not strike me as overly progressive regarding strategy. He did spend a lot of years with Scioscia so maybe he has a hard time letting go of some of those philosophies. I get the feeling he really doesn't want to leave Tampa. I think his laid back attitude fits well in a low pressure market like Tampa and he wouldn't really like going to New York, Chicago, etc where he is under more pressure. Also, the Rays management pretty much gives him freedom to do whatever he wants and I think he likes the arrangement quite a bit. What does that even mean? The majority of Cubs fans know who Joe Maddon is. But they wouldn't care that much if he was hired. He's not a Cubs icon, never won a World Series, and isn't known as a fiery manager. If Ricketts wanted to hire a manager purely to try and bring excitement, he'd be better off hiring Ozzie.

It's not going to happen. That said, Maddon MIGHT be worth giving up something of value for, but definitely not a legitimate prospect. Well, a GM/President is infinitely more important than a manager, and Theo cost us Chris Carpenter. Which means Joe Maddon is worth Gerardo Concepcion.

10 years later, my hatred for Alex Gonzalez has not waned a bit.

While I agree with you, that LD% isn't exactly impressive.

How do you explain situations like the Cleveland Indians where they went from a 90+ loss team one season to a 90+ win without making any major changes other than the manager? They have to be at least part of the reason for that, right? For the record I'm not saying I believe any specific manager will make us 30 wins better but there do seem to be examples where a managerial change makes a big difference. Is it a matter of a bad manager making the team worse as opposed to a good manager making the team better? There will come a time (hopefully) in the next few years where the Cubs will make a huge jump in wins. And the media will probably give a lot of credit to the manager. In actuality, he will probably have little to do with it. There's certainly such a thing as a bad manager (we've all witnessed it firsthand), but I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a universally "good" manager. I think an individual manager's success will depend more on fitting into the right situation.

I don't care if we go 13-3 or 8-8. Just make the playoffs. If we go 13-3, we'll probably get a bye in the first round. So I'll take that.

I feel like we say that every year. I'd still like to see them go out and get a reliable bullpen arm or two.

Of course not. Now, if they stand pat during the offseason and roll out a similar team next spring, then they would certainly be punting.

Well, putting aside the fact that attendance would be higher and we might be more attractive to free agents, it wasn't fated to be 80 wins. Teams projected to win 78-82 games this year (http://www.rlyw.net/index.php/RLYW/comments/the_2013_mlb_projection_blowout) include the Indians, Red Sox and Pirates. You can't just look at a team and say "That looks like 80 wins, why bother?" Does this theoretical increase in attendance and theoretical desire of overpriced free agents to jump at the chance of coming to a team with the worst facilities in baseball ("But hey, they won 80 games last year!) really outweigh concrete things like getting Kris Bryant-type talents, taking risks on guys like Welington Castillo, Nate Schierholtz and Luis Valbuena in full-time roles, and putting the team in a better position when the Wrigley renovations are underway?

They definitely "tried" this year. Were they putting out a team likely to win the division and kick a ton of ass? Of course not, but given what they had to work with I think they did a good job of putting together a team that on paper should have been hovering around .500 for a good chunk of the season. Obviously it didn't work out that way due to some key players really underperforming, but to talk about this season like they set out there shooting for another disastrous run is pretty disingenuous. I agree, but it might have been enough if they hadn't done such a miserable job the year before. For what? 80 wins? Who cares?

Not exactly, but paying 9.5 million for a pitcher who was no longer effective certainly hampered the FO's ability to rebuild on the fly and quickly build a contender. Particularly with the budget constraints in place.

I bet he's talking about Driskell.