Backtobanks

I agree that the Pythagorean method should be looked at to try to analyze the weaknesses of your team, but it shouldn't be used to placate fans into believing that the team is far better than what it shows on the field. Also, it's going to be hard to project next year's team based on this year's numbers because of the large turnover of players.

For our purposes, pythagorean wins mean more than their actual record. Soriano is not very good and Garza was here for 10 starts. Maybe for your purposes, but not mine. I don't want the Cubs to be a 95 pythagorean win team, I want them to actually win 95 games. Of course, that's the end goal. So let me ask you this...why do you think the Cubs have under performed their pythagorean win record? Is it luck, is it the result of a bad bullpen, or is it something else in your opinion? I really don't have an answer except that the bullpen would obviously be at least part of the problem.

Who cares how many games they win in the regular season? I want them to build a team that can win in the playoffs. BOOM. Meatball one-upped! In the pythagorean playoffs or the actual playoffs. :yahoo:

Except right now this team has been about a 78 win team and the only thing lost is Garza (and Soriano's below average production) while adding players with the salary off the books and one can pretty reasonably expect better production out of Castro and Rizzo next year as well as a likely better bullpen. Right now they are on a pace to win 74 games (with Garza and Soriano), so a below 70 win season is very likely. I would expect better production out of Castro and Rizzo, but there's a very real possibility that players like Schierholtz, Valbuena, and Wood might be less productive. Obviously it depends on the FAs signed (in your scenario) and hoping that Olt is productive enough to play 3B everyday. For our purposes, pythagorean wins mean more than their actual record. Soriano is not very good and Garza was here for 10 starts. Maybe for your purposes, but not mine. I don't want the Cubs to be a 95 pythagorean win team, I want them to actually win 95 games.

Except right now this team has been about a 78 win team and the only thing lost is Garza (and Soriano's below average production) while adding players with the salary off the books and one can pretty reasonably expect better production out of Castro and Rizzo next year as well as a likely better bullpen. Right now they are on a pace to win 74 games (with Garza and Soriano), so a below 70 win season is very likely. I would expect better production out of Castro and Rizzo, but there's a very real possibility that players like Schierholtz, Valbuena, and Wood might be less productive. Obviously it depends on the FAs signed (in your scenario) and hoping that Olt is productive enough to play 3B everyday.

I think you're being pretty optimistic about 82-84 win projection unless the FAs (OF & SP) really produce.

Sveum did say Garza would pitch tonight, so it's possible. :lol:

luke jackson PROS throws hard, strikes out lots of guys CONS walks lots of guys, suffers from early 2010s white man tool hair/hat malady mike olt PROS looks like a power hitting third baseman, used to hit like a power hitting third baseman CONS currently hits like [expletive] neil ramirez PROS currently striking out everyone in aa CONS is 24 in aa, is in aa because last year he was sort of a disaster at aaa, first name won out over last name and therefore is white ON THE WHOLE this would be okay i guess because i really don't think we are considering re-signing garza at all, but it would be nice if there was one prospect here without an "uhhh, this will need to change completely for him to be a real major leaguer" red flag attached. That doesn't look too exciting to me. I was hoping we could get a real "top" prospect and a couple of "interesting" prospects.

Not only is Soriano's hot streak not a sure thing, but impending trades certainly will have an effect on W-L record.

There's not as much out there through FA as there used to be because teams are extending their young stars. There are differnce makers out there in the trade market, but they will be expensive in terms prospects to be traded in exchange. Obviously timing is important because the FO needs to assess which prospects to keep and which to trade.

You think there seems to be tons of money because there is money to spend on cheaper things than a lot more payroll? Are you just saying you'd prefer the money allocated to IFA (which is relatively miniscule) and that other [expletive] to have gone into the MLB payroll? All I'm saying is the Cubs continue to be very profitable (according to all sources) and continue to tell the fans that there's no money to spend on payroll. There's money for what they choose to spend money on and they choose not to spend it on payroll. thanks for weighing in, jim. how's that position with the yankees treating you? My name isn't Jim, but if you're referring to Hendry I assume he's doing well. Why are you still obsessed with Hendry since the rest of us have moved on?

Personally, I think the only people scammed in this mess are the fans. There seems to be a ton of money for Wrigleyville real estate, training camps in Latin America, and paying 16 year-olds while pocketing a big profit.

And that's before we trade Garza, DeJesus, etc.

There's not much in the FA TOR market for the next few years, so I'm not sure it's worth it unless we get an awesome haul for Garza. Any future trade for a TOR starter will really cut into the progress made in the minor league system. Yes, we wouldn't want to cut into the waves and waves of prospects in order to acquire a good player. One of them might turn out to be a good player. I certainly would be more than willing to trade some prospects for a really good player, but unfortunately we have to wait for some of these prospects to get to the ML level so we can assess what really good player to go after. Right now there are too many holes to fill by acquiring one really good player.

There's not much in the FA TOR market for the next few years, so I'm not sure it's worth it unless we get an awesome haul for Garza. Any future trade for a TOR starter will really cut into the progress made in the minor league system.

Our motto has changed from "Wait until next year" to "Wait until next decade". I wish that wait until next decade would be your motto with respect to how frequently you post here. In case you haven't noticed, you post 9 times more frequently than I do. I don't think the sentiment was based on post volume alone. Maybe you need to look up the word "frequently".

Our motto has changed from "Wait until next year" to "Wait until next decade". I wish that wait until next decade would be your motto with respect to how frequently you post here. In case you haven't noticed, you post 9 times more frequently than I do.

Our motto has changed from "Wait until next year" to "Wait until next decade".

The FO better not wait too long on Gregg because I think the magic is going to start wearing off soon.

He's been here for 2 offseasons and found one each offseason. I'd say just looking at his Cubs track record alone says yes and expanding it to the Boston track record only helps. This has as much to do with other GMs as it does Theo, but I tend to think it's pretty likely that Theo will be able to. There was too much smoke last offseason to think there's simply no interest in Soriano out there, it's just whether the offers match our demands. That's somewhat a question only Theo can answer, but I'd guess there will be more urgency to deal him this year. This is 100% on Ricketts. If he allows the money to be spent and Theo values Choo enough, yes. If Ricketts doesn't make the cash available, no. Unless Choo has non-monetary motivations, if the Cubs (read, Ricketts) want him bad enough, then we can outbid other teams for him. Probably, but I trust Theo enough to believe he can manipulate the roster enough to get a few guys who can outperform their norms for a season. I question whether the totality of Tim's scenario would play out that way, but each individual aspect of it isn't particularly far-fetched. The thing I'm worried about the most, probably, is getting everything to work together to net Choo. Even if all of these happen, it's still pretty optimistic to think that they could win 85 games. Right now hey're on a pace for 66 wins and that's before any possible trades of Garza, Soriano, DeJesus, Gregg, etc.

Color me an optimist. Growth from Castro + Rizzo + Castillo would help a lot as a foundation. Replace Barney's offense so far this year with a bit of a breakout from Alcantara. Swap Soriano for Choo. Add in the next round of Maholm & Feldman's. Add a competent bullpen. I could see 85+ wins for that team. I do think you are being pretty optimistic. Growth from the three you mentioned certainly would help, but can Theo find another Maholm/Feldman? Will they find a buyer for Soriano? Will they be able to outbid others for Choo? Will Scherholtz/Wood/Sweeney settle back to their norms?

I guess I should have said in the second quote that it looks like his plan is to keep acquiring dumpster-diving players and hope that some of them work out which dosen't bode well for an end to the mediocrity at the ML level.. In any case, I've learned from the FO with quotes like "building on dual fronts", "every season is scared", and "we're going to put a team on the field that you can be proud of".

What might be the big flaw in the plan is if other teams outbid us for the "right guy(s)" or if some of our "can't miss" prospects flame out. It looks to be a smart plan assuming everything (or at least 90%) goes right, but leaves little room for error. this front office is smart enough to know that "can't miss" guys don't really exist. and i'm not sure what the "right guy" stuff is about, unless you're complaining about the fact that they want guys that they think are good. the cubs goal so far has been to find assets through volume. they aren't relying on a few select prospects. they are adding them in every way imaginable (short term tradeable contracts, big spending on the draft and IFA) and hoping they get average luck and find some guys that end up being good. you know what's more risky? signing a few high priced 29 year-olds and then praying that every one of them works out. The "right guy" is the guy that the FO will hopefully spend so money on when the time comes that we might be contenders. Are you saying that Theo's "plan" is to just keep acquiring players and hope that some of them work out? That certainly doesn't sound very scientific and doesn't bode well for an end to the mediocrity at the ML level. We've been patient and now it's time to start building a respecttable team for 2014 in order to be a solid contending team for 2015 and beyond. As for signing 29 year-olds, at least they have a track record in which we can have reasonable expectations.

What might be the big flaw in the plan is if other teams outbid us for the "right guy(s)" or if some of our "can't miss" prospects flame out. It looks to be a smart plan assuming everything (or at least 90%) goes right, but leaves little room for error.

I realize that and I would hope that we could get a few players that could be productive at the ML level for 2014. As I've posted before, 2014 is the year to start showing something at the ML level before the influx of super-prospects in 2015. I'm as excited about Baez, Soler, etc. as anyone, but we can't afford three seasons in the toilet while we are waiting.