Sammy Sofa

Would have preferred Friedman, too. Definitely someone used to having to deal with these limitations for a sustained period of time. Part of my excitement over the Theo hire (and subsequent frustration) was it seemed to signal the Cubs were going to act like big boys while fixing things. But isn't Friedmans approach basically also to just suck and stockpile prospects? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Lowered expectations, plus I'd rather have someone used to doing it as opposed to the GM equivalent of 1%-ers deciding to slum it for kicks. You bring in a Friedman or a Beane and of course there's the hope of "oh yeah, let's see what these guys do with money," though it makes more sense/hurts less when it becomes obvious that they're just doing their same ol' thing.

Would have preferred Friedman, too. Definitely someone used to having to deal with these limitations for a sustained period of time. Part of my excitement over the Theo hire (and subsequent frustration) was it seemed to signal the Cubs were going to act like big boys while fixing things.

Agreed. I think from the standpoint of, "hey, we want to build a team 'the right way,' but we're gonna have some serious money issues while it's happening" I think most people here would rather have Beane.

Fair enough. It's not like I actually clicked the link or anything.

And again, hand-waving away all the ways the FO has managed to add value to the franchise as both meaningless and easy understates the job they've actually done. I do suppose, though, if they hit on every successful FA over the past 3 years, the team would be better. Course, the worst case for that scenario puts the team in far worse shape than they are now. What am I hand-waving away? They deserve credit TO A POINT for what they've done. It's incredibly hard to have the sustained playoff success people seem to just assume the Cubs will be having, so it's not like being the worst team in baseball is just going to be cancelled out by some kind of baseball juggernaut.

The problem is that as a Blackhawks fan, I've noticed over the last five years how many other teams' fans thought they were about to be the next Blackhawks. None of them so far have done it. None of them have 2 of top 10 players in the league who are both under 27. Of course, the Cubs don't either...... We might have two of the top 25-30 under 25, though. With more of that level of talent on the way. Maybe. Weren't people just laughing at a top 20 prospect list from several years ago earlier today?

Yup. Our 2015 starting rotation right now includes: Jake Arrieta (massive health red flags) Kyle Hendricks (failed to hit 90.0 in his last start) Edwin Jackson Left-handed Edwin Jackson That's it. Teams with good starting pitching depth get sunk by runs of injuries. We're going to have to do an *amazing* job this offseason just to have OK starting pitching depth. I feel like you'd argue either side of this particular debate depending on who you decided to argue with in a given conversation. Come on, the pitching isn't a huge question mark? Are you that confident in Bosio?

And I swear to Christ, the first person to come in her complaining that they thought there was some big trade because of all the discussion... http://wearable-technology.co/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/b4084_LJJcT.gif

What does a bandwagon have to do with anything? There's instantly going to be no stink is my point. If the team is popular, winning, making money, etc., who is sniffing up this metaphorical stink? Damage to fan psyche? Again, this only matters in debates (like the one the past few pages) about how the FO's or ownership's tenure ultimately gets perceived, but why do we really care about that? I don't give a damn about legacy; I give a damn about a super lopsided approach to building a team and being too in love with their prospects. I'm still hugely wary that we'll see them bother to try and make any kind of major trade using these guys before it's maybe too late to do so. And how about just establishing the precedent that this is an acceptable way to run a [expletive] baseball team?

I'm not predicting it, either, but I also wouldn't be surprised by it happening. I'm thinking/hoping more in the 80-83 realm.

I'm just saying the stink (which seems to be mostly a matter of perception, no?) won't take long to go away once they get to where they look like they're headed. I realize there's going to be underperformance and busts. I feel like we are really well positioned for success even taking that into account. There's just so much talent that is so close. So much offensive ability in an era where that is really at a premium. How is the stink a matter of perception? They've punted multiple seasons and have been the worst team in baseball. The kids that pan out are likely going to have to go through periods of adjustment and growing pains and they're coming up at different times. Some people talk like it'll largely be like flipping a switch, but honestly, it would not be surprising at all to be under 77 wins again next season and then struggling to hover at .500 the season after that. They're obviously heavily lopsided in terms of offense, and we're seeing right now what happens with the whole "who gives a [expletive] about pitching approach." Relying on Bosio to just be magic and for them to land the big FA's, much less the right ones, when they've actually been pretty shitty with that for years now doesn't seem like a great recipe for sustained success. It's a very realistic proposition for it to take a while for it to click, and when it does for it be something well below the level of expectations some seem to have here.

Being set-up to become awesome and being awesome are very different. It's going to take a hell of a lot of winning to wash the stink off regardless. The stink will be washed off as soon as they're winning lots of games with a lineup full of 24 year olds, as far as I'm concerned. I'm pretty sure the bandwagon won't take long to form, either. What does bandwagoning have to do with anything? All it takes is something totally realistic like one flame out and one major injury from the core group for this suddenly to start looking a LOT shakier. It's hardly like this is set in stone, so maybe hold up when you're talking down to people like they're idiots for not being on board with this without any reservations. Everyone here wants it to work, but acting like it's a sure thing seems more than a tad premature.

The quote runs through my head basically every day here. For a couple of reasons, true, but it's still so apt.

If.

i could be misremembering, but i thought the implication was that benny was old and washed up now, relegated to only pinch-running and probably backup of duties. the play where he steals home is him harkening back to his glory days, both in his mlb career and at the sandlot. Yeah, I think you're right. I love how much he looks like Palmeiro.

Travis Wood's starts are far more heartbreaking than Jackson's.

Certain comments he's made in the past keep me from not believing it. I still think the money just wasn't there, though. Just kinda going "[expletive] it" and diving into that once it became obvious that the Ricketts have the business acumen of a chalk-white dog turd when it comes to running a baseball team in Chicago I can kinda deal with.

I am positive that you're wrong.

I tend to agree that the past three years has been more on Ricketts than Theo, but I don't completely rule out the idea that Theo saw an opportunity to do a complete ground-up rebuild and try his all home grown talent fantasy. I think I simply refuse to accept that because if it's true I'm going to have a rage-stroke and die.

Question: does Benny basically become Tony Campana? Doesn't he pitch run in that final scene? If so, is The Sandlot actually a heartbreaking drama?

EXCELLENT.

This year is the only year when that's been the case. Disagree.

They money thing is mostly on the Ricketts; I'm firmly convinced that Theo and co. were sold on the idea of an influx of resources based on the new signs and advertising and renovations and whatnot as part of the rebuild. All of that is, what, a good two years behind schedule? The whole baseball mogul theory is funny, but I just still can't believe that Tom Ricketts was all like, "hey, you can come here and have carte blanche to do WHATEVER just long as you don't spend any dollars. That cool, bro?"

http://ramblingrooby.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/ham.jpg That kid is now 35 and a scientologist. He was a Scientologist then, too.

I don't think the FO was expecting to be as tied up for as long as they have been financially, but at the same time they've pretty clearly chosen to not spend a lot of the money they do have available to them. There's a middle ground beyond it simply being voluntary or not.