SaorsaDaonnan

I don’t agree. I respect the fact that people want their claims to be verifiable and therefore treat outcomes as referendums on earlier calculations of probabilities, but I think you’re carrying the idea of outcomes as revelations too far. The underachievement we saw by some individual players IMO represents more of a talent development/maintenance/clubhouse psychology failure than a revelation of a lesser degree of talent than we thought. And as for the teams generally, 2018 was lost because of Addison’s off-field implosion and the org’s decision to just let it fester unaddressed. And even so, with just a little bit of our terrible pitching Iuck removed, we’d still have avoided the embarrassing exit we ended up taking. After that, by 2019 we had a bad feeling hanging over the team, a do-nothing manager and toxic player who needed to go, and instead of turning the page, we managed to make the situation worse by doing nothing...and even so, without a spate of injuries mostly shortly after the deadline, the team likely would have clinched. Any of those decision points in 2018 or 2019 could have avoided the disaster. So could better development of Schwarber (several years) and maintenance of Contreras (2018) and Baez (2020). And of course last year was a legit chance too, albeit with highly stressed players unlikely to be at their best. I’m not saying we didn’t overestimate anybody. Heyward and Almora are two super obvious cases of that. Kimbrel may be another, and maybe Quintana. Certainly Russell’s hitting was coming along slowly before we found out about his crimes. But Bryant declined or was hurt,Baez and Contreras just had off years at different points. Rizzo played in too many games and could have been in a little better shape. The basic story of the last few years is waste due to bad sustainment, bad vibes, offseason indolence, and failure to dump toxic people rapidly, not the revelation of any lack of ability relative to expectations.

Seems like the Cubs community divides into three camps in interpreting this: 1) It’s genuine passion + disgust 2) It’s the above plus specific personal or professional injury 3) It’s just about specific personal or professional injury, because everyone’s basically about money and ego, and you don’t take the money and ego hit unless you’re really pissed Of course, 3) is more of personal confession on the part of anyone maintaining it, either that they’re like that (all about money and ego) or that they’ve gotten so cynical as to preemptively give up on every other person on the planet. So it’s down to 1) vs 2). 1) is sufficient to explain the situation, and it fits the information we have, so it’s the best explanation unless we have actual evidence of something more. All I’ve heard is some gibberish about suits or a third wheel, which I don’t buy. So unless someone has video of Todd burning his car and screaming that there’s more like that coming for every Dem-o-crap like him, why postulate it? I mean, what else is there to do, just start a rumor that Ditka or Bobby Knight gave him a wedgie and nobody did anything?

SUPERTHREAD WARNING: So you think the Cubs had a better core in 2015 than the White Sox do now? I didn’t think that would be too controversial (particularly on a Cubs board). You had two top 5 prospects in the game (Bryant and Russell), Rizzo, the #4 pick in the draft who had destroyed the minors (Schwarber), another top 25/top 50 prospect (Javy), Soler, Contreras in the pipeline, Arrieta and Lester at the top of the rotation, plus Hendricks. And, all of that power in a time before the HR explosion. That was not something that had been seen very often, all at once and so young. That said, these Sox are damned good.

If you just stipulated that the very early 90s were effectively still the 80s, and that Sammy’s out because cheated, then I can easily call the 90s garbage, or rather garbage plus Ryno’s brief return and Kerry’s emergence. Everyone would certainly be right to think I’m insane if they think I’m calling the 93 or later Cubs interesting outside of a few players. Edit: just occurred to me that some might be averaging or summing over a decade, whereas I’m think of where the classics were, the best Thomas/Ventura years, Kerry and Sammy, Sandberg/Dawson/Maddux

You deny the interestingness of Kerry’s emergence or the Sandberg/Dawson/Maddux years? (Admittedly the latter’s best run was ‘89, but still...)

The most provincial big city in the world? What the hell are you talking about? Has been drinking, looked in thesaurus, accidentally used antonym for cosmopolitan when he wanted a synonym? But the broader point he was making is very target, imo.

I did think you were only talking about the 90s, so my bad for missing that you also mentioned their Series victory and some of the good players from that time like Konerko. I also screwed up in not mentioning Mark Grace and some others like Rod Beck in his first go-around. But those things said, I was absolutely suggesting that teams with lesser records and no real contention drives can be even more interesting and fun than really good teams. One of my favorite teams ever was the ‘01 Cubs after most of their planned starters & stars went down to injury and a bunch of vets mainly seen as bench players ran with the division for quite a while. As far as I’m concerned, those few months were as cool as even 2007 or 2008. IMO, interestingness is a broader concept than contention or elite skills.

I wonder how much, if at all, Len regrets his "Future MVP Addison Russell" declaration from the ring ceremony. Of course he couldn't have known what would happen with Russell in the subsequent years, but that statement even felt like a reach at the time. Again, not faulting Len at all, but it kind of sucks that Russell turned out to be an all-time jackass, and one that couldn't play baseball well either. And that he not only torpedoed 2018, but also 2019 too. Two years of essentially our championship team. I can’t see Len focusing on his own statement rather than the awfulness of what Addison did, but it had to suck to be around him and an org doing so little about it for so long. Ah, I missed that, thanks. Best of luck to him, and kudos to him for being open about it and almost certainly helping others.

The White Sox were the far more interesting team in the 90s and the first to crack the longterm WS drought in 2005 and never came close to overcoming the Cubs in popularity in any meaningful sense. They lost a lot of games in recent years and have a long run of sub 2 million attendance seasons as one of the worst teams in the worst division. They'll have to go on quite a run and keep the team together for the long haul and have the Cubs go back to a White Sox level of postseason droughts to make a dent. As a 90s kid I must protest. The 90s Sox were pretty cool, though you’d never have caught me admitting it back then. Frank Thomas, Robin Ventura, Ozzie, Ray Durham a little later...and they even had Carlton Fisk, one of the better catchers anyone will ever see. Bo Jackson and Tim Raines at times, Harold Baines, though none at their best by then. Ellis Burke, Jack McDowell, Julio Franco and John Kruk kind of randomly, among many others. These were good teams that could have gone far, and if not for the strike, really might have. But the best Chicago baseball in the 90s was absolutely the Cubs in the early 90s. Ryno, Andre, Greg Maddux, Rick Sutcliff, Shawon Duston, Frank Castillo, more journeyman 3bs than you could shake a stick at. George Bell too for a short time. Harry and Steve in their primes in the booth. A terrible beach boys self-parody on the telecast, Arne Harris getting shoutouts so often you felt like you knew him. And then the best moments later in the decade too, with Kerry’s emergence and 20 strikeout game, plus I guess Sammy’s rivalry and chase with McGwire for those more comfortable PEDs than I. Kerry was the bridge from the Ryno/Harry years through the letdowns in 03 and 04 and 07 and 08, all the way through to Rizzo and the rise of the generation we’re Joe starting to see move on. And not just that, but a damn good pitcher and example of perseverance too. I will freely admit to incrementally inching toward being a White Sox as well as a Cubs fan of late, abs listening to Len on Sox radio every now and again will only increase that. But no, as amazing as Frank Thomas was, and despite the powerhouse that those Sox teams were, they never held a candle to what was going on in Wrigley in the 90s...

They’re probably waiting to see whether Rudy will be available in February...

Stone and Benetti are an amazing team on tv. Every day they teach Hawk anew what a good broadcast should look like.

I completely believe Len when he says he always dreamed of baseball radio, and in that sense I’m really happy for him, even though I’m also really sad for us. However, I also find it hard to believe that having to rep a team that helped Trump, did little about Russell, or made deals with Sinclair was something that sat well with him. So while I tend to think the Cubs have probably been decent to Len as an individual, at a certain point, just the facts of who they are or what they tolerate have likely made it a bad fit. Just the idea of walking away from all that, getting it the hell out of your life, probably sounds like a huge weight off his shoulders. And I may be wrong, but at times I’ve also wondered about Len’s mental state. He seems like a wonderful and very sharp guy, but he sometimes gives me vibes that he may suffer from depression and anxiety, and like might not like being on camera that much. I tend to think his inclination towards radio, while authentically about passion for that medium and for history, may also be a workplace comfort issue for him, one he can certainly manage well enough to do tv, but that might still be a downside for him. And it has to have been even more depressing for Len to watch the org not only waste so much in these last few years, but do so while helping the worst segments of society play down corona or violence against Black people. At all times but maybe especially this year, I think that has had to weigh on Len and a lot of others in the org too. So to me the fact that he’s moving on to a less awful employer, in a job that may be a better fit and is definitely a dream come true, with a fantastic young team still in the same city he probably loves by now, and getting to work with great other broadcasters like Jason Benetti and Steve Stone...that sounds like a great deal to me. While I get that the fact that it’s a departure from a standard career arc will seem discordant to some, personally I feel like someone I’ve come to care about has just had something great happen to him...and better still, has arranged it for himself. But of course I also hate that he won’t be doing any more Cubs games, above all for the same reasons many of you are saying he wouldn’t dream of accepting Pat’s job. It’s basically the same feeling as when a friend moves away. He’s someone we know and like, and have lots of great memories with, but he’s also someone we respect and trust. And now he’s going away... ...unless, I guess, we all just relax a little about the Sox, and focus on hating the Cards. I can confess that I was feeling nostalgic about the early 90s Cubs and Harry and Steve earlier this year and tuned in to a couple Sox games, wanting to see Steve again and see whether Benetti lived up to the hype, and I have to say, it was kinda fun...and after all, isn’t it better to be a fan of the game first, and a fan of a particular org only secondarily to that? I admit it’s easier after some time has passed, but next year, Len will still be there if you want to tune in. This year especially, that’s saying a lot. Anyway, thanks for everything Len, and best of luck! PS I liked the mention that he’s leaving after the same amount of time as Harry too. A+ to whoever noticed that.

Maybe they could sweeten it with a player opt-out in a year or two in case the market recovers?

Sad to see. Always seemed likely, of course, but sad to see. One more reason to hate covid, and one more reason to be shocked at all that extra construction expense, particularly that giant hotel/office complex across the street from Wrigley... Anyway, thanks Kyle, we’ll always remember 2016 and the Schwarboard, and best of luck wherever you end up! (Including here of course, but I think we’re gonna nickel & dime this offseason too much for that...)

So in case anyone missed it, yesterday’s press conference put to rest any remaining debate about what the offseason strategy is: try to win the division while adjusting to the new financial reality, keeping one eye on a future a little more than normal while also being opportunistic Or in so many words, 1) not a teardown, 2) not keeping everybody even if better to, 3) not signing anybody big, 4) probably gonna move slowly

Here’s a shorter version of my expectation: “First we tanked, then we spent, now we’re the Tribune”

Yeah, I completely agree that they hoped to avoid painful choices by having great prospects ready to step in at multiple positions right about now, if not over the past couple years. But lacking that, faced with a choice between tanking, raising payroll, or being out of contention but not tanking, with a couple marketable stars but no real playoff shot, I think the family has always leaned toward #3. Not sure about that, hope I’m wrong, but I always suspected it, and despite the fact that I’ve been arguing that the writing seems to be on the wall about big payroll cuts, I’m also skeptical that the org would choose to tank. Since terms like teardown may be interpreted differently by each of us, the concrete thing I’m expecting is that the team keeps Rizzo, Darvish, Hendricks, and perhaps Baez to give a lowball extension offer to at some point, but does approximately zilch over the next few years to add anybody from the FA market. If Hoerner/Alzolay/Marquez/Davis/any trade returns turn out to be useful in, say, 2022, we could be looking at a reasonable team still built around Baez/Rizzo/Darvish/Hendricks, but like my projected 2021 team, still one gradually built up through existing young assets rather than blowing it all up and bringing in a ton of new, low minors youth. I can see the argument that the approach I’m describing might be worse than tanking, but predictions should be based on observed trends rather than ones own value judgments, and IMO this is where the rhetoric has been pointing for a while. I also have a question for everybody: if Jed goes to Tom and says he wants to sell off literally every good player we have, do the rest of you expect that Tom would ok it?

No, don’t think so. My memory is that he and Laura did not, and they certainly aren’t in the pictures. Jed did, but wore a blue tie. Maddon did, but said it was out of loyalty to Tom and “out of respect for the building”. Rizzo did, but said it wasn’t a political endorsement and wore blue, having worn red (burgundy) when meeting Obama. KB wore light blue. Contreras went, but I don’t think Javy did. Heyward, Strop, Edwards, and Russell did not. Lackey was almost the only one who skipped Obama but went to see Trump. Fowler and Chapman didn’t but were on different teams at that point. Rondon skipped both visits and said he just wanted to stay in his room and prepare for the game. Arrieta skipped both as well, while Lester went to both. Ross and Hendricks I don’t see in the official pic, but don’t really remember either way. Edwards had the best response, saying he was going to visit the dinosaur museums instead. EDIT: I was wrong, Lester actually missed the Obama visit due to a family funeral. Sorry I got that wrong.

From Jed’s point of view, I would guess the schedule looks like this: Now - Dec 2: Make a decision on Schwarber, decide on whether you’re bringing in or promoting a front office #2, set up any interviews, have first round of talks if applicable Second week of Dec: Finalize any FO personnel decisions and very proactively survey market for Bryant and Kimbrel, plus Schwarber if tendered. Also listen on anyone else. Winter Meetings through Jan: Deal KB if a remotely acceptable deal materializes. Schwarber and Kimbrel for whatever you can get. Contreras for great prospects if you get good offers, but no pressure to move him yet if not. Feb and Mar: The main time for talking about Darvish or Hendricks trades, hopefully after having moved enough salary that you make the decision purely in baseball ops terms without pandemic or construction overage money problems interfering. Also the time for any extension talks and any of our probably tiny FA signings. No reason you couldn’t still talk Contreras too, unless he’s already dealt. ***************** So obviously you make a trade whenever you get an offer you really like — the schedule is just to organize your own process and not a roadblock to addressing aggressive early offers from other teams. And yes, if you want a particular cheap innings eater FA who is likely to get snapped up quickly, sure, you act as soon as you can... ...but generally, the additions would wait until late, and again, you would be making any Darvish and Hendricks moves after moving the money. At that point you would also have a clearer idea of what the divisional competition is doing, and since that probably won’t be a lot, you will probably be looking at increased confidence that you can run with the pack in 2021 and hope for some good breaks. And if you do go into the season with Bote and Caratini and a lesser, cheaper outfield but otherwise basically the same team, then even if you get bad breaks and suck, in all probability Darvish and Hendricks would still be great trade chips at the deadline, so you become a popular phone call at that point instead, with the ability to hold out until the following offseason if teams won’t meet your price.

I always got the impression PTR wanted to evolve the franchise according to a specific plan: 1. Tank and invest in infrastructure 2. Have a massive crop of prospects appear and be really young and good 3. Spend big money to complement that crop and get a title 4. Transition to a new, permanent future of mostly 85-90 win teams based on a budget comfortably below the LT threshold and an a priori commitment to never tanking again IMO our moves this offseason will be determined by the extent to which Ricketts is or isn’t interested in revising the “no more tanking” approach in light of the money problems, and by the extent to which other teams’ baseball ops departments could get authorization from their owners to add salary like Darvish or Hendricks. If only half of teams are closing their checkbooks and we’re the only one dumping, we may get particularly great offers on those two. If not, like others have said, our division is competitive in the sense that it should be a many-horse race, but it’s wide open in the sense that nobody is looking like a probable juggernaut. Bottom line though: with neutral luck, we should still have a divisionally competitive team if we dump KB, Schwarber, and Kimbrel to fix the financial problem. If the market offers good value for Contreras, Darvish, Hendricks, we can take advantage of it if Ricketts ok’s a teardown, but if we get bad offers or Ricketts says no, we’re still ok. The bad part about this offseason is that it’s about loss and decline, but the good part is that all the future scenarios involve plausibly okayish baseball in the future.

Personally I predict a 2021 team like the following: Darvish Hendricks 3-4m veteran Mills 2m veteran plus Alzolay up to innings limit Contreras Rizzo cheapness (Hoerner playing every day in minors) Bote Baez Happ / cheap filler cheap filler / Happ Heyward Caratini as DH Trade Deadline Dealable reliever Assumptions/expectations: * They’ll talk at length about Darvish, Hendricks, Contreras deals but not get offers that combine enough $$$ with enough prospect/young controllable player value * They’ll talk about Baez but get offers that are cautious because of his bad year, and just keep him ‘til the deadline. If the team is good, keeping his value/upside for a half season and then adding a QO later is fine if you can’t work out a long term deal; if the team isn’t good, at least hope he had a good first half so that the positive recent work raises his value about as much as the half-season’s worth of service time use lessens it...and/or that someone is very excited about contending and overpays * That KB is dealt for a low-A, 50-ish pitching prospect but mostly salary relief for payroll reduction, while Schwarber is nontendered or traded before the season for primarily salary relief. Maybe the Cubs could pull a Strop and steal a good player somehow, but under this plan that’d mostly come as a bonus * That Kimbrel is dealt for a bag of balls but 2/3 of his salary picked up by another team, which we use to sign a lower ceiling but higher floor reliever on a 1 or 2 year deal, someone we could either keep or deal at the deadline * That the team will spend the offseason talking about its desire for controllable SPs but not find anyone interested in trading that kind of player in these times * Outside shot of long term deal for Baez, Rizzo, etc in Spring Training, but I am probably just wishcasting here

Sure, if your aim is simply to describe a good plan. But many posters are trying to make predictions about the actual future of the franchise and then say how they would operate as baseball ops guys within the limits of their predictions... ...but their predictions are silly, based on the idea that the owners’ overriding goal is to win, and the false idea that the owners believe they have the wherewithal to spend. If they write that the Cubs will not build around the Caratinis and Botes of the world because those players aren’t good enough, or that the Cubs won’t choose to save money because that wouldn’t be good for fans, they’re misunderstanding everything about the causal processes they’re trying to describe.

In other words, for those who TL;DR -ed my post the other day: The Cubs had a 500m construction budget but spent 1b on construction prior to covid, and now on top of that HALF A BILLION DOLLARS IN OVERAGES, they have covid losses PTR has described as “biblical”... ...as well as economic uncertainties of many kinds on the horizon...next year’s attendance figures, the upcoming CBA negotiations and the possibility of a lockout, somewhat unfavorable-to-fatcats electoral results, the possibility that the interest rate might rise, etc. Logical arguments can be made about maintaining a high payroll to keep fans happy and revenues high; certainly a few million now would be a tiny slice of the overall picture & could mean a lot of revenue in the future, and the Ricketts do have deep enough pockets to do that if they wish. But they have been clear that they will make a financial plan first, and then merely let Jed do whatever he can with the leftovers that constitute his slice it. Debt retirement is the goal; competitiveness is the (to them) trivial afterthought.

Behold:

Thanks for everything Theo, there’s no question that, somewhere, Branch Rickey’s raising a glass... :flythew: