Sammy Sofa

Who was arguing for the team to just hold on to all of the older players and not trade any of them?

I agree with pretty much all of that; I was never arguing for keeping the vets like it was some kind of salvation from sucking. And yeah, I don't think they went into 2012 thinking they were going to compete, but I don't think they were expecting/shooting for losing 100+ games.

It's like now that he actually has (at least for the time being) that mythical "leadoff hitter" he's always wanted it broke his brain.

I don't know if any of that is directed at my points, but I was never arguing for the idea that they should cling to older players from the previous FO just for the desperate long shot of trying to compete. As soon as Hendry was out I was expecting most of the players on the major league team from his time would be gone, either via trade or simply not held on to. I just don't agree with the idea that they HAD to be terrible because they were dismantling the older team as if it were were blocking or hindering them from starting to rebuild, or as if taking the steps to rebuild were hinged on trading those players; the Cubs simply did not have enough valuable assets for that to be the case (plus I don't think the FO went out there both years with the intention of being this bad). Someone saying that they expected the Cubs to be bad for 2-3 years because they had to get rid of the old team is seemingly saying that they were bad in 2012 in large part because they got rid of Dempster and Marshall and Byrd and Soto, when that simply isn't the case. Yeah, Marshall would have certainly helped, but that bullpen was catastrophically bad and he couldn't have somehow carried it himself. Byrd and Soto had horrendous years, and Dempster was fantastic and the team still stunk. Same thing this year: the team was bad with or without Garza, Marmol and Soriano. Too many key players simply underperformed in both seasons; (I don't think) it wasn't some kind of intentional tank job or something that was the result of shedding older players. Just expecting that the Cubs were going to get rid of a ton of players from Hendry's time vs. expecting that the Cubs "needed" to be terrible for years because they were getting rid of those players; there seems like a clear difference in those opinions to me.

No, I said I'm REALLY mad.

Hey, it's very cool and awesome when imb gets all flustered and sputtery and starts insulting people over a baseball discussion, but not anyone else.

You want some of this, too? I'm way mad and emotional right now.

REALLY mad. Scary mad. I'm warning you just the once.

Yeah, I'm super pissed right now. SO mad. You better not mess with me, bro.

I'm using the term "fire sale" because when I asked Beer Kase to clarify what he meant by "unwinding the old team" he described what I consider to be a fire sale by listing a bunch of players who were traded. He didn't go on about players who had been released or not re-signed; he listed a bunch of trades. That's what I was responding to. Then you stumbled in like a jackass and decided you were going to be this week's jerkoff who can't stand to hear people bemoaning the woes of the Cubs despite the fact nobody was actually doing that and now you can't figure out a way to pull out that foot that's jammed so far inside of that [expletive] you call a mouth because you decided to randomly defend the dumbest post of the week like you actually give a [expletive].

To me a fire sale is trading off what valuable assets you have in a short timeframe, typically to avoid budget issues. The Cubs clearly have budget issues, but they didn't engage in a fire sale. What the Marlins have done is what I think a fire sale is. The Cubs didn't do that, and didn't have to do that on that scale to engage in their main avenues of rebuilding. Just dumping useless players for nothing or next to nothing isn't a fire sale to me; a fire sale is done with the idea of trading a bunch of guys quickly to help turn the team around because they'll bring a good return. I don't consider players being released or not signed as part of a fire sale; even if the FO had bizarrely inherited a good team you still would have seen a bunch of players released or not signed. That you hink I don't know players are released is asinine. Dumping Bobby Scales isn't the same as burning off your valuable assets via trade ASAP.

undoubtedly Hey, so be it. Moving 7 players over 2.5 seasons just doesn't strike me as a fire sale, especially when the return on 4 of them was practically nothing. And the whole "they had to get rid of the old guys before they could rebuild for some reason or other" is just ridiculous. NOTE: this isn't me saying they should have held on to anyone or that this is why they've sucked or God knows what else. Having Carlos Marmol on the team until he was traded wasn't preventing the FO from rebuilding.

Hey, I guess my concept of a fire sale or whatever the [expletive] an unwinding of the old team is has been completely wrong.

Of the top 15 pitchers in the system, more than half have come through trades. .... I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Well, I think I was originally pointing out that you didn't know what your were talking about. Then, I was pointing out that you weren't acknowledging that you completely missed the point. I know they've gotten a bunch of their pitching prospects via trades. I also know it's been repeatedly stated here by multiple posters that until pretty recently the Cubs' pitching prospect selection was horrendous. And again, I never was arguing against trading older players; my point is that the Cubs didn't acquire those traded-for prospects via a fire sale of the "old team." Trading Dempster in 2012 and Garza in 2013 when they are at the end of their contracts isn't a fire sale. Isn't that obvious?

72 percent of 2012's cubs roster is no longer on the 40-man. if that doesn't count as a purge to you, well, i dont know what to say. This whole thing started because a guy said that he expected the team to be bad for years because they had to "unwind the old team" ie-they had to divest themselves of the major league players inherited by the current FO to move forward. The 2012 team was constructed by the current FO; claiming that moves made after 2012 are part of the "unwinding" of the previous regime's team makes about as much sense as when Beer Kase included players like DeJesus and Maholm as part of the "unwinding" despite having been signed by the current FO. Again, I'm not saying the Cubs shouldn't have moved on from older players, or saying that's the reason why they've been bad. Moving players or moving from them when the time is right is what we all want them to do; my issue is with the idea that the Cubs had to effectively burn things to the ground to move forward when that simply didn't happen. Trading those 7 (forgot that Marshall was traded by the current FO; definitely a good big move a la Dempster and Garza)players didn't free up anyone who was blocked, and only two of the trades really brought back anyone of real note. The main thrust of their rebuild has been through the draft and international FA signings and rearranging those 7trades over the last two years really wouldn't have had a ton of impact on that path. They simply didn't have a fire sale of valuable players from the previous regime because ultimately they really didn't have many.

Of the top 15 pitchers in the system, more than half have come through trades. .... I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

Wait, so I've missed some other trades beyond those 6 trades of players from the "old team?" Ah, so we're counting players being released or zilches who would have been gone regardless of whether the team was good or not as part of the fire sale. Good to know.

lmao Please, show me this dramatic blow up of the "old team." Byrd, Soto and Dempster traded in 2012. Soriano, Garza and Marmol traded this year. My God, it's like the post-WS Marlins in here, what with all of the flames and all.

Which mostly speaks to how crappy the system was in regards to pitching prospects. And again, where am I saying that they shouldn't have made these trades? My point is that saying they blew up the team is clearly incorrect, and that the Cubs haven't sucked for two years because of that mythical blow up.

I'm not even arguing what the FO should or shouldn't have done in terms of winning; my point is this discussion always has been that the Cubs never had to blow up an older team, nor could they have really done so since they didn't have much in the way of valuable assets, nor did they ever actually blow up the team. What is their primary way of rebuilding the farm system? It should abundantly clear that that's being done mostly via drafting and international FA signings. Most of the trades of players from the "old team" have been largely incidental or for lesser role players/long shots/bodies. Now, in no way am I saying the Cubs shouldn't have moved these players; it makes all the sense in the world that they move them. My point, again, is that they were never moved as part of a fire sale or a blow up or whatever you want to call it. It's been a prolonged, piecemeal process that's taken two full seasons. That's not a fire sale. The team has been bad because players have underperformed, not because the Cubs were suddenly without older players. Yes, you had obvious big trades like Dempster and Garza, but to point to guys like Soriano and Soto and Marmol as being parts of a fire sale is just nonsensical; they were simply at the end of their Cubs careers (and possibly baseball careers altogether) and the Cubs got bare minimum return for them. In no way was moving them critical for the team to rebuild and move forward. The current FO moving guys they signed isn't part of a blow up of the old team. Trading Cashner wasn't the move of a blow up; that's just a smart trade that a good or bad team would have done when a player like Rizzo was available (especially given his history with the current FO).

Ugh. They didn't need to blow up the team and they didn't actually blow up the team. It's been a staggered process and the team has stunk in that time because too many players have played badly, not because they intentionally tanked or blew it up or whatever other nonsense.

Very promising.

i know you don't really believe in what you post when you say something like this, that is understated and not filled with a bunch of over the top absurdity I really don't understand what you're being so defensive about here; for once none of us were going on and and on about the Cubs sucking, needlessly or otherwise. Some of us took issue with his idea that he expected the Cubs to be bad for 2-3 years because they had to clear the slate of the major league players inherited by the FO before they could start moving forward. That's simply a faulty conclusion: the rebuild is taking time because the focus is on rebuilding the farm system. That was going to occur regardless of who was on the major league team and when. He phrased it like they had to bide their time while they got rid of guys like Marmol and Soto and Soriano and Dempster, and that's simply not the case; the rebuild was going to go down largely how it has and when it has regardless of when and if players from the "old team" were traded or released (seeing as the focus has been on drafting and international signings). That he topped that off by also listing players signed by the current FO as part of the "old team" just made it even more ridiculous.

Nah. It was just picking on a silly opinion.

There's that weird obsession with Valbuena again.