Beer Kaese

They needed to blow up the team, it takes time, the best return is at the trade deadline and . . . that's what they did. I saw some stuff on the net last night about trading Lake while is value is high. In the world I live in, there are no 8 year old general managers.

This is so far removed from what I posted that you just . . . look stupid.

See, I am an outsider. Tell me what could have been done, with the benefit of hind site, to compete and build the farm. I'll give you till 3/1/14.

I know how message boards work. To answer the question, does a club need to tear down their existing roster to build a farm system? No, they don't. But the Cubs did not have a core of players to build around while they built the farm. The pitching alone tells the story. Zambrano's career was over and Dempster was on the wrong side of 32, in the final year of his contract. That leaves Garza (whom management knew well from the AL East and determined was not a core piece), Cashner (who had never pitched 112 innings in a season in his pro career) and Shark (a converted reliever). I guess you could count the junk we got for Z but not with the clarity of hind site. We know Maholm could have been signed and that Marshall could be traded for Wood to round out a rotation. On the position side we would have needed to resign Ramirez and sign DeJesus. That would have left a hole at first. Leaving aside Pujols and Fielder, the best option would have been to trade Cashner for Rizzo. So, we have a rotation of Garza, Maholm, Wood, Shark and Junk (he left such an impression I can't remember his name) and a lineup of DeJesus, Castro, Rizzo, Ramirez, Soriano, Colvin, Soto and Barney. Even if that lineup surprised, you'd still need to sign a top flight free agent pitcher if that team is to be taken serious as one that could finish with 81 or more wins. A second option would have been to trade Castro with a package of minor leaguers to get a quality arm, move Barney to short and bring up LeMayhew (sp?) to play second. Personally, I don't see the point of trying to make something like that work. The Cubs have a rabid and loyal base, they are not the White Sox. The fans will return as soon as they smell something' cooking. The advantage to blowing up the team and selling everything that isn't nailed down for anything you can get is that what you get is more players back than you traded away and, even if they are not elite prospects, they are better than most of the players in the system. It's all about competition. Make it as tough as possible to get at bats and innings. I can't say that it will make the elite prospects better, as I doubt it will have a big impact on them, but the second tier players will have to produce to keep their at bats and innings and to keep advancing through the system. It's logical, the more difficult it is to advance the better you must be to advance. I really believe the upward trajectory will begin in 2015. That's not to say the team won't improve it's win total next year, it should. It's that, I believe it will be difficult to watch the 2015 team, know what is a year or two away in the system, see that low payroll and still be pessimistic about the team's future. Of course, I could be wrong. They might enter and win the Matt Schezer sweepstakes after next season. Now, return to building your post totals.

The Cubs are, in reality, a financial asset. Like stock in a company or a piece of real estate. The Cubs are a company and Wrigley Field is the store where they sell the product. You can purchase it live, on TV, the internet or the radio. We use sabermetrics to determine wins over replacement. What this measures is the performance of one player relative to other players at his position, correct? How is that different than the market share of a product? The performance of a team is determined by the market share of it's mix of 25 products. One way to maximize value is to have inexpensive products that out perform the market which allows for increased investment in products which can dominate their product category.

The team that won in 2007 and 2008 had run it's course. It was expensive, old and in decline. The farm system offered no quick fix and the impact players that could have kept the team above .500 would have come at a great cost over a very long period of time. The Cubs are a piece of land. The land had a house on it. The foundation was crumbling and the structure was rotten. So, you tear it down and build new. The Cubs are not a piece of land. You can build a good baseball team and still have a couple of players from the old team. If the Cubs were an investment I would have sold 2010 and I would be buying now. On a cost per win basis (price to earning) the team was over priced. Now they have costs under control. They are investing in new equipment and have a exciting products in the pipeline with some nearly ready for the market.

The fact the team didn't net high ceiling prospects in return for what they were trading away speaks volumes about the quality of player they traded. When you do a one for three deal you add two players that are better than two players you have. You are elevating the level of play at every level. I don't see how that could be a bad strategy.

Why? I mean, it didn't even play out that way. It did play out that way. Zambrano, Soto, Maholm and Dempster last season. Marmol, Harriston, Feldman, Garza, Soriano and DeJesus this season. While not 24 months, it took nearly two complete seasons to trade six core players from the old team. What is the "old team?" How do Maholm, Hairston and Feldman fit into whatever that is since none were on the team before 2012 and none lasted an entire season? The rest of those players all had very different legths in terms of their time with the Cubs, so, again, what exactly is "the old team (DeJesus was only on the team for a year and a half and was signed by the current FO, so how is he a "core player from the old team?")?" Why would it have been necessary to "unwind it?" What is "unwinding" in the first place? Maholm (and Johnson) were moved because the team liked the package and Dempster balked. Marmol had no value because there was zero chance he'd be with the team beyond his contract. Harriston . . . we actually got something for him? I'm still in shock. Feldman was signed to replace Maholm whom they intended to trade this season and they found a taker. All of these deals bring back multiple minor leaguers who create greater competition in the minors allowing management to cull the herd, so to speak.

The team that won in 2007 and 2008 had run it's course. It was expensive, old and in decline. The farm system offered no quick fix and the impact players that could have kept the team above .500 would have come at a great cost over a very long period of time. The Cubs are a piece of land. The land had a house on it. The foundation was crumbling and the structure was rotten. So, you tear it down and build new.

Why? I mean, it didn't even play out that way. It did play out that way. Zambrano, Soto, Maholm and Dempster last season. Marmol, Harriston, Feldman, Garza, Soriano and DeJesus this season. While not 24 months, it took nearly two complete seasons to trade six core players from the old team.

This is playing out very much the way I expected. I assumed it would take two years to unwind the old team and then they'd tread water for a season. Next season, I do not expect the team to be big sellers and I see no reason why they would have another big drop off after the trading deadline. The important thing to keep in mind is that the good things that happen will come from cheap young players under team control. Once a few cheap young players breakout, other prospects become expendable. Some prospects become players on the 25 man roster while others are only working capital used to acquire players that fill specific needs which cannot be found in free agency or in the farm system.

He wrote "waive after waive" (twice now) Lots of Brett Jacksons, I suppose. padding your post total while offing nothing . . . priceless Feel free to use that as your signiture.

Waive after wavie does not mean star after star. It means that we will no longer be sifting though other peoples trash to field a team. We will have a group of kids getting their first shot at the major league. Think about it, since Kerry Wood how many exciting prospects have we had? Cruz, Prior, Zambrano, Patterson, Hill, Choi, Pie and Castro. Did I miss anyone? That's about one guy every other year. I see it setting up as two or three guys a year for year after year (though not next year). If you're not talking about stars, the quartet of Guzman/Hill/Marshall/Marmol all got some buzz. Soto definitely did by the time he came up. Cedeno, Gallagher and Cashner. I can give you Guzman and Hill but I take back Zambrano. With the hype on Cruz, Z was an after thought. I not talking fan hype. BA had three prospects in the top 20 at mid season. I've never seen that. Reading between the lines, Kris Bryant is our #1 prospect. I've never seen the two combined. Guys like Z, Cedeno and Cashner belong in the Lake, Rusin and Alcatara file.

That's why you run with a low payroll and loaded farm. You can take advantage of the dumps to fill needs. There are always sellers and prospects are cash.

Waive after wavie does not mean star after star. It means that we will no longer be sifting though other peoples trash to field a team. We will have a group of kids getting their first shot at the major league. Think about it, since Kerry Wood how many exciting prospects have we had? Cruz, Prior, Zambrano, Patterson, Hill, Choi, Pie and Castro. Did I miss anyone? That's about one guy every other year. I see it setting up as two or three guys a year for year after year (though not next year).

The top prospects are not factors until 2015 so I don't care about 2014. I have no problem with an outfiielder and pitcher and bumping the payroll back to 100m.

Yes, wave after wave. Instead of sorting through other teams garbage, we will have our own. They will be cheaper and better. Mathis anyone?

Don't let me stop you.

Exactally. We have not seen this volume of talent in the minors since the 80's. We are going to have waive after waive. Dallas Green had to bring the fans back and rebuild the farm system (84&89) while the Jedi only need to build farm. In March of 2011 the Cubs prospects ranked about 27th . . . in March of 2013 the Cubs prospests ranked about 12th . . . look at the draft and trades . . . I've been a Cubs fan for more than 40 years and . . . I'm jacked.

Seriously, the Cubs are tossing 300 million into the ballpark but they can't pay players? Next year we will draft between 4th and 6th. We will sign a couple intermediate pieces and trade a player or three but it's the last time for a long time. In 2015 the first wave of real prospects arrive.

I haven't seen anything credible so I don't buy it.

The Cubs are not in a precarious financial position. They are not going to spend money to lose draft position in the short term.

Only a short two and a half years ago, the Cubs were an old team in decline with nothing in the farm system that offered help and they had a high payroll. Today, it's the exact opposite. The Cubs are a young team on the rise with a loaded farm system and a low payroll. We have reached the transition point. I suspect the Cubs will be sellers for one more year, albeit minor, then they will use the depth of the farm to fill positions of need. 2015 is going to be exciting. 2016 is going to be awsome.

I am encouraged by what I have seen of late and I hope it continues.

Neither Wood nor Villanueva will be traded. Also, either DeJesus or Scheirholtz will not be traded. And I doubt Soriano is moved this year.