A couple throw away seasons turning into sustained long term success...........

[Boobaby1]

So are you telling me that Doughnut Jim >Jed Hoyer?

Until Jed takes the Cubs to the playoffs and wins.......Yes!

 

[The Bandit]

Until Jed takes the Cubs to the playoffs and wins.......Yes!

Jimmy didn't win... bounced out of the 1st round. We made it to the NLCS once. Elaborate for me please?

 

[dabynsky]

It takes more than the results to equal tanking.

God your reading comprehension fucking sucks. I've said twice in the posts you responded to that the Cubs didn't tank 2011 and yet you are still arguing with me that no that weren't tanking.

There was a legitimate effort to make the team better, the results were not what anyone was hoping for, but at least they made a legitimate effort to bringing in quality players.

Seriously this didn't make it clear that I was arguing with Boobay that 2011 wasn't a tanked season:

Well if we are going by "tanked" seasons than Almora wouldn't count since his draft pick was based on a Jim Hendry led team the year before. Unless Jim Hendry was tanking the 2011 season, but as I've understood your argument Theo Epstein is the first President/GM to ever tank a season in charge of a "big market" club.

or

Carlos Pena was supposed to replace Derrek Lee, that was a tanking move?

or

So by your response you agree that the 2011 Cubs was not a tanked season and therefore the pick of Albert Almora was not the result of tanking?

The following offseason there could have also been legitimate efforts made to make the team better without giving up the Albert Almora pick which many seem to think is the key to the entire franchise. The could have signed Prince Fielder and Albert Pujols and still kept that pick. Not that in any way would have been feasible, but just used to illustrate how bringing in talent wouldn't have had much impact on the building of the organization that most have been brainwashed to believe.

This has nothing to do with the post you quoted, and yet another example of how much you suck at reading. Futhermore, what a nice strawman you've built since I have never said that the signing Fielder or Pujols would have cost the Cubs their 2012 first round pick.

 

[Boobaby1]

Jimmy didn't win... bounced out of the 1st round. We made it to the NLCS once. Elaborate for me please?

Sorry to disappoint, but making the playoffs is far greater than 101 loss season. Like I said, when Hoyer gets there, then this will be re-opened for discussion.

 

[dabynsky]

But you can wave your hand and say that these moves would have been a big setback for the franchise despite no statistical support??

If or when Vizcaino or Villenueva become regular, at least league average major league players you can say it took away from the future. Because retaining Dempster and Maholm would have left the Cubs with regular, at least league average major league players.

You continue to assume the lottery tickets will pay off.

Again what a strawman you've built. I've never said that everyone would pay off, but I love how decreasing the number of prospects that the Cubs would have at this point would have zero effect on the future of this team. But even beyond that point I love how you continue to ignore the very reasonable question I've posed to you. Assuming that Ricketts is to blame for the decrease in major league payroll, which we agree on correct? What team has managed to make the postseason, the measure of success we are both going by, in three years without either being a good team prior, have minor league talent to infuse into the major league roster or increasing payroll?

 

[Boobaby1]

God your reading comprehension fucking sucks. I've said twice in the posts you responded to that the Cubs didn't tank 2011 and yet you are still arguing with me that no that weren't tanking.

Seriously this didn't make it clear that I was arguing with Boobay that 2011 wasn't a tanked season:

or

or

This has nothing to do with the post you quoted, and yet another example of how much you suck at reading. Futhermore, what a nice strawman you've built since I have never said that the signing Fielder or Pujols would have cost the Cubs their 2012 first round pick.

I believe that was in response to someone else, and I think the player was Hamilton. Might have to check.

 

[dabynsky]

I believe that was in response to someone else, and I think the player was Hamilton. Might have to check.

Then why quote my post about 2011 not being a tanked season?

 

[The Bandit]

Sorry to disappoint, but making the playoffs is far greater than 101 loss season. Like I said, when Hoyer gets there, then this will be re-opened for discussion.

I was asking for clarity, you said when he makes the playoffs and wins, however, Jimbo got us to the playoffs and didn't win anything except once... All I asked was for you to clarify not try to be a smartass.

 

[Boobaby1]

I was asking for clarity, you said when he makes the playoffs and wins, however, Jimbo got us to the playoffs and didn't win anything except once... All I asked was for you to clarify not try to be a smartass.

Not trying to be a smart ass at all. Jim did win. I will gladly take any time of being 6 outs away in game 6 with a 3-0 lead from the first WS in almost 60 years as a win. I will also gladly take back-to-back playoff appearances and home field advantage throughout in 08' because of their 6 month performance as a win. 04, and 06' were injury plagued years to Wood and Prior. Other than that, he would have had a nice little run there.

I don't look at getting to the playoffs as complete failures regardless of the outcome. However, some people do I guess.

 

[The Bandit]

Not trying to be a smart ass at all. Jim did win. I will gladly take any time of being 6 outs away in game 6 with a 3-0 lead from the first WS in almost 60 years as a win. I will also gladly take back-to-back playoff appearances and home field advantage throughout in 08' because of their 6 month performance as a win. 04, and 06' were injury plagued years to Wood and Prior. Other than that, he would have had a nice little run there.

I don't look at getting to the playoffs as complete failures regardless of the outcome. However, some people do I guess.

Not saying failures, however, you said getting to the playoffs AND winning, getting bounced in the first round without winning a game doesn't define that, by your definition Hendry did that 1 time over the course of 9 years, so Jed Hoyer has 7 years to make the playoffs and advance once to be ranked better or?

 

[Boobaby1]

Not saying failures, however, you said getting to the playoffs AND winning, getting bounced in the first round without winning a game doesn't define that, by your definition Hendry did that 1 time over the course of 9 years, so Jed Hoyer has 7 years to make the playoffs and advance once to be ranked better or?

Technically, he has 7 years to make it to the WS because that is the only way to better Hendry's 03' team.

And fair enough. When Hoyer gets there, I will gladly concede that he has done better. Won't hurt my feelings one bit. But then and only then.

 

[Willrust]

And they also had another 26 years missing the playoffs before those back to back 100 loss seasons you seem to have conveniently left out.

Whoops.

And yet you posed the argument that the Cubs having three different owners in 5 years made it impossible for them to be successful, yet now you point out the Nationals were able to do it.

Hmmm......

Actually, I posted that info on the Nationals as to what can come from rebuilding once solid ownership is in place. It doesn't happen overnight, but if given a window of several years (ie the 3-5 that has been mentioned numerous times) an organization can go from bottom to contender.

Glad that you agree with me on that.

 

[Willrust]

Let me re-phrase. In my opinion, he would let them play themselves out or trade them at the deadline like he did with Lilly, Maddux, Lee and others.

I doubt very seriously that he would have given Zambrano an extension, and he could have done no worse than obtaining Volstad. A-Ram he possibly would have possibly extended. Dempster, I don't know.

As far as being a veteran GM, I don't buy into that. Throughout his tenure, he consistently did both of having young rookie players or Arb-eligible players to go along with free agent veterans. Just go back and look starting with the 03' team.

What did Jim Hendry get back in the trades for Lilly, Maddux and Lee? Hell, based upon those deals, if Hendry had to trade Zambrano, he might have actually traded for that 1 armed midget and bucket of balls from the old joke.

i tell you what, when Jim Hendry wins 2 World Series titles; like Epstein and Hoyer did, then you can go ahead and say Hendry is better than those 2.

 

[Boobaby1]

What did Jim Hendry get back in the trades for Lilly, Maddux and Lee? Hell, based upon those deals, if Hendry had to trade Zambrano, he might have actually traded for that 1 armed midget and bucket of balls from the old joke.

i tell you what, when Jim Hendry wins 2 World Series titles; like Epstein and Hoyer did, then you can go ahead and say Hendry is better than those 2.

And until they do it for the Cubs, your point is moot.

 

[patg006]

There are numerous examples of teams "throwing away" a couple seasons and then having success. I don't know what your point is, but I usually don't follow what you are saying.

His point is just because the cubs are doing the "trendy" plan, doesnt guarantee it will work, and that they have to do that BOTH thing of signing good free agents and building through the draft. And executing smart trades as well. He was looking for examples of teams with sustained success (more than 2 years) of the "build the farm system" route.

And before some of you all go on a tear complaining that "we want to sign free agents too," we get that. Some people dont want to open the pocketbook because Josh Hamilton is struggling right now, Pujols did early last year, and some of the best players are "too big of risks" to sign, or "will show signs of slowing down because Prince Fielder is too fat." We would have done things differently to "rebuild." No harm in disagreement.

We like some of jedstein's players. We dont like how were missing bats and inconsistency in the line up to drive in RISP. This thread is a response to those who keep beating the company meat to blindly believe what theyre doing now will equal "sustained success," even though in history, no such event has happened. We see 2-3 year windows at best, then regression. And great teams like the Cards come back quickly, Yankees too. That is not "sustained success" bullshit being spoonfed to appease the stupid part of the fanbase.

 

[KBisBack!]

but I love how decreasing the number of prospects that the Cubs would have at this point would have zero effect on the future of this team.

But you refuse to acknowledge that the decrease in the number of prospects would be the result of keeping major league players.

But even beyond that point I love how you continue to ignore the very reasonable question I've posed to you. Assuming that Ricketts is to blame for the decrease in major league payroll, which we agree on correct? What team has managed to make the postseason, the measure of success we are both going by, in three years without either being a good team prior, have minor league talent to infuse into the major league roster or increasing payroll?

You whine and cry about others reading comprehension and have clearly missed the entire point of this thread.

I have pointed out that no teams, except Oakland, have been able to make this turn around you feel will happen in short order with the #Theospankfest in charge.

 

[KBisBack!]

Its kind of stupid to think that a rebuilding plan has to result in sustained long term succes because 1) it doesn't happen that often, and 2) many factors can curtail sustained long term success that wouldn't necessarily be a weakness of the rebuilding plan itself.

But that is exactly what many people have said will be the result of this rewarding journey. Sustained long term success which is why I have pointed out that it doesn't happen that often.

Clearly you missed all of that in your haste to whine and cry about what I wrote, that you clearly didn't even understand.

For example, the mid-80's Pirates jettisoned most of the guys who had made them successful in the late-70's and early 80's (Dave Parker, Johnny Ray, Tony Pena) and instead went with young guys like Bonds, Bonilla, Drabek, LaValliare, etc. They had some losing seasons right away, but eventually became arguably the best team in the NL in the early-90's. They didn't have great long term success because the team chose not to sign their players to big money contracts.

The Pirates weren't all that successful in the late 70's and early 80's. They had the one season they won the World Series in 1979, but outside of that there were no playoff trips between 1975 and 1990.

Stargell was basically done after the 1979 season. He had a couple injury plagued seasons, but after the World Series they were more often a bottom half of the division team than a competitive team.

And it was ten seasons between the 1979 Championship and their next trip to the playoffs in 1990.

More than the short time frame most think it will take the Cubs to be successful.

The mid-80's Twins were kind of the same. They stuck with inconsistent young players like Viola, Gaetti, Brunansky, etc. when most teams would have benched them. They had some bad seasons, but eventually became consistent contenders in the late-80s' and early 90's and won two WS.

Actually they were not consistent contenders in the late 80's and early 90's. They won the two WS, but those were their only 2 trips to the WS and before the first WS, it had been 17 seasons since their previous playoff appearance. A bit more than just a couple seasons wouldn't you say?

The 70's-80's Royals were basically built through the draft, having some tough seasons in the early-mid 70s before becoming contenders/champs. Same with the early-70's A's.

Ok, the Royals are a good example. They were a model franchise in the mid 70's and made the playoffs in their 8th year of existence.

But even then 8 years is longer than what most people are expecting to happen here.

The early 70's A's were great teams, but it had been 40 years since they had made the playoffs. Quite a bit more than just a couple seasons.

There are numerous examples of teams "throwing away" a couple seasons and then having success.

No there aren't.

 

[KBisBack!]

which has happened several times already.

Not really.

 

[KBisBack!]

So he has no historical perspective on baseball and/or is unable to access the baseball reference site? I just named a few examples off the top of my head. It wasn't that difficult.

And completely ignoring the long period of no success prior to your examples when I was asking for examples of a few seasons of no success, not long extended periods of losing which most of your examples contained.

You act like there is no historical precedent for what the Cubs are doing...have you followed baseball prior to 2012? Just asking.

We have come up with 2, maybe 3 examples in the entire history of baseball that have been successful in what the Cubs are trying to do, and even then those examples show it will likely be at least another 4-5 years without the influx of serious FA additions which you have consistently argued against.

 

[KBisBack!]

But thats almost beside the point. Yes, sustained long term success doesn't happen that often...period. Its like you are arguing its hard to keep together a great team after drafting them because of salary issues...so you are better off not putting together a great team. You want the Cubs to jump from Point A (rebuilding) to Point C (sustained success) while skipping Point B (getting good players), while not really telling us how this is supposed to happen.

I have said what my idea for Point B so many times that the entire CBS group can probably sum it up in one word. Maybe you haven't been paying attention.

Point B is definitely build the farm system while also using the teams considerable resources to try and field the best team each and every season.

BOTH, not entirely one way or the other.

And? How is that really relevant? The Pirates went into rebuilding mode in the mid-80's, and it paid off. The fact that the Pirates didn't win more World Series after the 79 title somehow changes this?

They went into rebuilding mode right after the 79 season with the end of Stargell's career. They gave it a go for 1980 but when that didn't go well the process started. Still ten years till the team made the playoffs in 1990.

Royals were an expansion team playing in an era where only 2 teams from each league made the postseason.

And I said it was a good point.

Yet you still want to whine and complain.

So you honestly think the A's had the same rebuilding plan for 40 years prior to 1971?

Seeing as the reserve clause wasn't eliminated from baseball until 1975 essentially creating the modern FA era, I would say yes there really was only one way to build a team.

Why did people even bother talking to you on your old site? Is that why the forum died? You drove everyone away?

Funny, I thought I was the 'leader' of the CBS group.

People 'bother' talking to me because I provide a lot of information if you care to look at it honestly and with an open mind.