I really think their approach to pitching is maybe the thing that sunk it all post-2016. I mean, yeah, I get "horsefeathers pitchers" because of the especially inherent unreliable nature of trying to focus on developing them, but man, you just cannot bomb out THAT horsefeathering bad in terms of developing ANY pitchers, period. They had, what, Carl for a couple of years? It's brutal. And the high velocity/fireball thing seemed to really catch them off guard. Clearly I pay next to no attention to the minors, but with the relatively pitchers they were trying to develop, were any of them projected to be power arm-type guys? It felt like so much of their focus was on trying to develop or sign pitchers that weren't going to be able to blow anyone away. Yeah they went horsefeathers pitchers for a couple years, which made sense given how unreliable they were and how barren the system was on both sides of the ball. But then it seemed like they tried to course correct after, and speed up the timeline, by just grabbing a bunch of "guys who know how to pitch"....college arms that threw 90 mph but had a 5% chance of turning into Hendricks/Davies/etc, and in theory more quickly than the 17 year old walking everyone but throwing 96. Seems like the only real shortcut to pitching is just to pay for it, but who knows what focusing on actually developing high velocity arms would have cost us offensively (see Appel, Bryant). The Cubs appear to have figured out pitching, or at least gotten comfortable enough with their findings to let it drive their decision making, during the 2018/2019 offseason. That's ahead of the curve, but a good 2-3 years behind the Dodgers/Rays/Cleveland. If the Cubs had been one of those super cutting edge teams, that probably is the difference between what we got the last five years and what the Dodgers have had.