XZero771679666304

They weren't trying to win, either. It seems fair to say that after the new CBA was in place and given the state of the roster, they decided that they couldn't put a winning product on the field in 2012 and still serve their larger goal of overhauling the foundation. So, they didn't attempt to. If they felt like they could have won in 2012 and achieved their other goals, they would have attempted to. But as it was, they judged it was too unlikely a scenario to plan for, and I don't begrudge them for it. Things didn't get really ugly (the carousel of retreads) until after the deadline, when there really wasn't much else that could have been done.

Good lord

Thank goodness the Cubs franchise has never had that perception! It's not a matter of perception, but reality. The Cubs actively tried to lose last year. They not only accepted it but sought it out. There may have been a perception of the Cubs as lovable losers, but from at least the mid-80's through a couple years ago they were trying really hard to win. The payroll went from middle of the pack to top of the NL and among the highest in baseball. They just really sucked at what they were trying to do. When you actively take a dive as management and you stay on the ground for a prolonged period of time you risk institutionalizing an acceptance of failure. And it's not about the fans, but the organization itself. This is the definition of absurd. I agree, it's hogwash. If they had been determined to lose as much as possible, to really drive the 2012 season into the ground, their initial plan could have been much, much better, and they could have achieved their other goals as well. The team that broke camp was not a 100-loss team, and it very easily could have been had Garza, Dempster and Marmol been traded before the season. The very easily could have left Rizzo in AAA, too. That said, they didn't assign any importance to winning in 2012, either. Their primary mission seemed to be acquiring as much young talent as possible, preferably in exchange for older players and expiring contracts, as well as assessing the younger talent already in the system. If the team lost a ton, well, so much the better. They didn't care to win in 2012, but to say they tried to put as bad a product on the field as possible is just drama queenery.

Olt would be great, but I'm not sure what we can offer that is expendable on our end that Texas would be particularly fond of. Yeah, I don't see Olt happening. I don't think we have anything they need that badly, nor do I think they have any intent to move him. I think we're looking at Baez or Villanueva as our long term 3B. If things go well for both, I could see Villanueva in 2014 and then him moving to 2B in 2015 to make room for Baez.

And regardless of whether or not this guy is worth it, I hate the blind bid posting system.

There's a difference between overspending to land big talent and spending just to spend. This move reeks of the latter. Jin is young, but he's apparently got a bad body and middling stuff. One of the questions raised is whether or not he can even stick in the middle of a MLB rotation. I'd have been fine with posting 10-15MM for him, but 27.5 is more than most teams bid for Darvish, who was the same age, but more athletic and has huge stuff. I said earlier that I would have had no problem losing out on him to a $20MM bid, so I am obviously not broken up over this development.

Is it still smart if he ends up in the bullpen?

Got 100. I was stumped on Boggs for a second too, but process of elimination got me there quickly. Most of the rest I wouldn't have gotten if I had all day to think about it.

I was thinking the high end would be 15MM, as far as the posting fee goes. Remember, most of the teams bidding on Darvish were (reportedly) well below 30MM, and Ryu-Hyun Jin isn't even a weak approximation of Darvish. While I'm all for being aggressive, if there's a debate about whether this guy is a MOR starter or long man, I wouldn't be thrilled with bidding a whole lot. If the Dodgers were to bid even 20MM and won, I would have zero angst over it.

Yay for self-promotion in a way that is actually, technically, just helping out Dave! http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/11/06/the-cubs-are-one-of-five-teams-showing-concrete-interest-in-korean-lefty-hyun-jin-ryu/ You should know you can feel free to promote any of your content here, but you may need to be prepared to defend yourself if you really are a fan of Kaplan! Haha, thanks, Tim. I would say I am a fan of many things that Kap does well. I just chalk it up to building industry bridges, but your Kaplan praise is easily the most off-putting aspect of your site, which I otherwise enjoy. Kaplan is a neanderthal who happens to be well connected.

I think that's a misleading interpretation of the quote. http://www.sfgate.com/athletics/article/4-A-s-free-agents-now-free-to-go-4005094.php To me, that just reads like she’s reporting that somebody has shown immediate interest in McCarthy, and then she proceeds to list a few teams who are known to be looking for starting pitching. Maybe she did mean to say that those teams were the ones who have shown interest, but that wording doesn't actually say so. I was going off what I'd read on MLBTraderumors and BN: Obviously referencing Slusser's report, it seems there was a misinterpretation, it was theirs, not mine.

So apparently the FO has shown "immediate interest" in McCarthy. This was reported a couple days ago, but I hadn't seen it posted here.

Probably because you're making a lot of things up. Or ignorantly blowing [expletive] out of his ass, whichever you prefer. Semantics. It's like the Cubs fan version of Fox and Friends in here tonight, so I'm out.

There were many more reports after that that indicated that the Rangers actually outbid everyone else by a pretty significant margin and the Blue Jays bid nowhere near $50 million. If you want to stick with the story from December, hey, great. That's not very smart. http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/07/05/the-cubs-were-the-runners-up-for-yu-darvish/ A much later report ESPN from Buster Olney said the Cubs in fact finished second, and all teams were at least $35MM behind the Ranger's bid. Tonight is excuse-central for Jed/Theo. How does that change the fact that they lost out on the bidding, and yet they had plenty of budget to spend if they thought he was worth it? Anybody can make up excuses for failures. Some of you guys/girls are going all out contortionist to twist the moves into a positive for the new front office. So far they have managed to do the impossible, which is to make the team even worse than where Hendry had it. The clear implication is that they thought they were making a competitive bid. Sure, they could have chose to make a massive play like the Rangers, but they didn't place a "token" bid, which is the case some have tried to make. The rest of your post is too stupid to warrant a response.

The article you cited was right after the bidding, when all kinds of crap was being thrown at the wall and much conjecturing was going on, and no one knew anything other than the Rangers won and what they bid. Few of those initial reports agreed with each other, and most were based on what the media perception of what was going to happen, not any real knowledge of what actually happened. Olney's report has not been disputed that I'm aware of (until now, by you), and it was much more recent. He may be a boob, but he's well connected. Believe what you want to believe, but you're looking like an unbalanced, ignorant wacko here.

I really, really hope so. This much we agree on.

Would Theo/Jed sign Upton if it means giving up that pick? I'm not sure.

Whether it was his arm, back or both, that the Cubs pulled their offer, no one else traded for him and the Angels declined his option, it seems bad medicals are a near certainty.

There were many more reports after that that indicated that the Rangers actually outbid everyone else by a pretty significant margin and the Blue Jays bid nowhere near $50 million. If you want to stick with the story from December, hey, great. That's not very smart. http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/07/05/the-cubs-were-the-runners-up-for-yu-darvish/ A much later report ESPN from Buster Olney said the Cubs in fact finished second, and all teams were at least $35MM behind the Ranger's bid.

Man, there is some grade A dumbassery going on in here.

If nothing happens or Haren is dealt for next to nothing, we'll have to assume it was the medicals.

Cashner for Rizzo is looking pretty good right now. Bobby Hill and parts foe ARam and Lofton was a pretty good one, too. As was Choi for Lee. And I'm not sure I would have called this a fleecing, either. It was potentially damaged goods for potentially damaged goods, both expensive with only one year left on their contracts. It would have been a good gamble, but a pretty far [expletive] cry from a "fleecing".

And the Pirates and Brewers probably won't have any good seasons during that time, either. So we tank 3 seasons, then split the division evenly with the Cardinals for the next six. Congratulations, Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer, you just matched Jim Hendry's term. The Brewers are likely to decline. They have holes now, and purged their system over the past 4 years so they don't have the means to fill them. And let's dispense with predicting the number of potential playoff appearances and focus on the number of wins. If the Cubs win 90-95+ games each year for 6-7 consecutive years, that's success. If it leads to only 2-3 playoff appearances in that span, that'd still be a much more successful run than the one Hendry had. You can't control what other teams do, but if you're consistently winning 90+, you're getting it done. Hendry did not do this. First, I find it inconceivable that you are going to win 90+ games consistently for 6-7 years and only make the playoffs 2-3 times in that span. That being said, Theo and Co. were brought in to get us to the World Series and hopefully win it, so I would consider winning teams that don't make the playoffs as a failure after our "rebuild" is complete. It's not inconceivable, just highly unlikely. It was a bit of a counter to davell saying 6-7 playoff appearances. 90+ wins is a fairly successful season, but no guarantee of a playoff appearance. In such a scenario, under the current setup, I'd say a team would get at least 4-5 playoff berths. But a winning season would have to be considered more successful than an abysmal one 100% of the time. Baseball is a fickle sport, and playoff caliber seasons aren't always going to get you into the playoffs. What you have to aim for is to have playoff caliber seasons every year, to maximize your chances. This is where Hendry failed miserably, largely because his management didn't provide contingencies for when "plan A' failed. There were no backups waiting in the minors, everything was free agency, gambles, gambits and guesswork, especially after his trade ammo in the minors went dry.

They do, but Kyle and I were debating how to measure success once you reach the point of being competitive. And for the record, I can reconcile with two lost seasons (because I think they were lost anyway), beyond that I'm not going to be so forgiving.

Umm, no. Let's not do that. Yes, lets. You win as many games as you can, and put yourself in position to win as much as possible. You can't control the rest. Except for when you lose as many games as you can. Yes, because Theo and Jed have intentionally been trying to do that. But that's not the argument we were having, it was about those theoretical 6-7 years, and using playoff appearances vs. annual wins as the measuring stick for success. If you had 2 playoff appearances in those seven years but were bad or abysmal in four of them, would that be as successful as 2 playoff appearances with at least 90 wins in the other five seasons? Of course not. This isn't about contriving a context for the purpose of argument, it's the entire point of their approach, and nearly the entire basis for criticism of Hendry. You keep your team around contention with regularity if you want to optimize your chances. Unfortunately, given what was left over from Hendry's regime and given the new CBA, the most expeditious way to get there is the way it is being done.