Backtobanks

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.

It's amazing how some of you can't respond to any of my posts without bringing up Hendry. I haven't mentioned his name in over 6 months, but maybe some of you are starting to doubt what Theo is doing too. Yep. And the team has a .500 pythag currently (with Castro being as bad as he could ever dream of being). And there will be money to spend this offseason. But nope, contention next year is out of the question. If the team was at .500, they would be 11 games back in the NL Central (not exactly contending). As for Castro hitting well below what was expected, we have Scherhotlz, Sweeny, and Navarro producing much more than expected offensively and Feldman, Wood, and Gregg all pitching much better than expected. This really doesn't work like you think it does. Plus I like how you think a team should just go into firesale mode if they're not in first or second in a tough divison, regardless of their record. Some of you need to make up your mind as to what you think I'm in favor of doing. One minute you think I'm against building the farm system and only signing veterans and now you're accusing me of wanting to go into a "firesale mode". I've accepted the fact that Theo is going to follow his plan which means he will be trading some of the players I mentioned and receiving prospects. Building up the farm system will eventually make for better ML talent (either by using those prospects or trading some of them). I'm not as confident as most of you as to whether this plan will produce a WS winner or when, which was the point of hiring Theo. And finally if they were playing at .500, they would still be 5 1/2 games out of the 2nd wild card spot (which is still not exactly contending).

Yep. And the team has a .500 pythag currently (with Castro being as bad as he could ever dream of being). And there will be money to spend this offseason. But nope, contention next year is out of the question. If the team was at .500, they would be 11 games back in the NL Central (not exactly contending). As for Castro hitting well below what was expected, we have Scherhotlz, Sweeny, and Navarro producing much more than expected offensively and Feldman, Wood, and Gregg all pitching much better than expected. There's money to be spent this offseason with very few options in the FA market to spend it on.

I'm glad this is already a certainty. I guess it's not a certainty, but it's pretty darn close. With Garza, Feldman, Marmol, Russell, Soriano, DeJesus, Barney, etc. as possible trade chips, there seems to be a lot of holes to fill on a team that headed for 94 losses with those players.

Yea, if I'm making 2 mill with no pressure I'm not bitching. He's behaving like the typical spoiled athlete. I don't know why the Cubs wasted a pick on Bryant when they have Stewart waiting to be called up. :lol:

At the right price; say 12MM, 15MM max. We need someone in the OF until Soler and Almora are ready. Beyond Ellsbury, the FA market doesn't offer much, and now that we've drafted Bryant over pitching, a pick that I do like, I'd prefer use our trade chips toward pitching. And at 3-5MM/year, even if he does end up a platoon guy, he's on the right side of the platoon and should be very tradable if one of the internal options proves ready to take over. I'm not in favor of giving Sweeny $15 million over 3 years.

He certainly is a decent option as a platoon OF/4th OF, so as long as he's reasonably cheap I see no reason not to like/keep him.

It doesn't really matter what any of us would do because this FO is going to sell in order to coninue on with "the plan".

In about two days, I would argue that our farm system will be borderline top 5. Whether or not you should want to "decimate" it for a trade, that's an entirely different conversation. Borderline top 5 still means that there are about 5-6 teams that can probably offer more when a potential superstar becomes available. As for "decimating" the farm system in a trade, it's easier when you have a solid ML team (like the Cards) as opposed to a team that is in desperate need for their youngsters to come up and fill in their many holes on their roster (like the Cubs).

The only way we would have a shot at Stanton is if the Marlins really valued players like Baez, Soler, or Almora specifically as to what they want, otherwise teams like the Cards have more to offer. Unfortunately we're still stuck kind of in-the-middle land with a good (and improving) farm system, but not good enough to outbid some teams for a potential superstar without totally decimating the farm system.

The secret is to start the season with low expectations.

I was going to post something similar to yours because it's obvious that the plan is still to trade off assets at the deadline. Obviously some of the biggest reasons for our positive variance numbers will be traded (Feldman, DeJesus, Garza, Gregg, Russell, etc.), so we can only hope that the return for any player(s) traded will be solid prospects for the future. With that many players possibly being dealt, it's hard to make any predictions about next year based on the variance numbers for this year.

Miguel Cabrera became the first player in history to go 4-for-4 with 3 HRs, 5 RBIs and 4 runs scored in defeat. There have been 7 other players with 3 HRs in defeat: Johnny Mize (4 times); Babe Roth, Ernie Banks, Dave Kingman, Glenn Davis, Joe Carter, and Sammy Sosa each doing it twice. Seems to be a lot of ex-Cubs on that list. :-k

The more I watch this team, the closer I think they are, to be honest. Take away the bullpen and some stupid errors and I think the Cubs' record would be pretty good right now. And that was with a tough schedule. The problem is you can't "take away the bullpen and some stupid errors" and leave only the good things about the team. Hopefully they can minimize some of the stupid errors, but everything else goes in cycles (pitching is great/ offense sucks, offense picks up/pitching slacks off, etc.)

Is it really any worse than being bombarded by the commercials blasted over the loudspeaker or the constant "music and entertainment" that blares at about 100 decibels between innings?

The team is making a ton of cash in Chicago. Again, no way the Cubs move because the mayor, the city council, and the neighboring community (including land baron Ricketts) won't let it happen because of the financial devestation it would cause to everyone involved.

Ricketts isn't going to move the team out of Wrigleyville and watch his real estate investments crash and burn.

Being good (or better) "on paper" doesn't seem to carry over to the play on the field. Look at how many times the Cubs were one of the better teams "on paper" during the last 10 years and then look at the results.

I posted when Theo came that he had no experience in making a bad team better or tearing apart a roster and starting over by building through the farm system. That doesn't mean he can't be successful at it. As you stated he took a solid 89 win (average over 5 years) team and turned them into a consistent 93 win team (over his reign as GM). That is impressive, but nothing similar to the Cub situation. He did extremely well with draft and picking up discards from other teams, but the new CBA has and the increased use of sabermetrics by other teams has certainly affected the advantage that he seemingly had over other teams. Lastly he had a huge payroll to sustain the winning ways of the Red Sox. I don't know how many people expected 90 game winners right away, but I don't think anybody expected 100 loss teams either. The frustration comes from knowing that this could go on for longer than even Theo planned, especially if Baez, Soler, or Almora don't reach their potential.

What "pass?" What changed is their effort to try and get city/state funding for the renovations. What, they weren't supposed to even try? I'm sure they were hoping they'd be able to work something out and their rhetoric reflected as such. Why are you so pissed at them saying they wanted to try and get outside funding? My "pass" is using some common sense and not sulking like a petulant child just because they gave trying to get public funding a shot and it didn't work out. And quit talking like you (or any of us) have any clue as to the detail of the Ricketts' money and what's tied up where and what's changed along the way. I'm annoyed with how things are going, so quit it with your tiresome board cop bull [expletive] where you think everyone is just slobbering all over the Ricketts and Theo and never thinking they do anything wrong. I'm not "pissed" about trying to get outside funding. My point is that Ricketts knew the state of the economy when he bought the team. He spent the money on the purchase, has invested tons more on real estate investments, has made a lot of profit in the last year, and the product on the field sucks.

So they somehow have convinced many of us that it's worse...than the plethora of terrible things you yourself just listed. Gotcha. I keep reading posts about Theo saying that "things were worse than he thought", "it might take longer than we hoped", etc. Ricketts and Theo are extremely smart and both of them walked into this situation knowing exactly what they were getting into, so I'm saying I'm tired of reading posts saying we might be terrible again next year and Theo should be considered successful if 3 years from now we're still under .500 and some of his prospects are producing at the ML level. Running/owning a baseball team isn't a static process; there are going to be changes or developments that cause a plan or an expectation to change. To say that they're "smart enough" like they should have known everything and been able to predict everything about running the team is a pointlessly ridiculous expectation. There you go giving Ricketts a pass. He is an extremely successful businessman and owning a business isn't static either. So exactly what has changed drastically from what he knew (or should have known) when he bought the Cubs?