Brilliant comment of the day

patg006

New member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
1,413
Liked Posts:
986
Location:
Chicago
This is ultimately what I think both sides fail to see. There isn't a right or wrong in this circumstance. Managers make the wrong decision, based on all empirical evidence, and it works out for them. Baseball is so different from every sport in the North American landscape it is hard to accurately appreciate it. As much as people want to make it either about completely accepting or rejecting what the current front office has done, neither answer is truely correct. The front office is going to make mistakes like every front office has made. Hopefully they make fewer than others which is how the consisently successful teams have managed to do that. I have a few reasons to believe that will happen, but what they are doing right now could very well fail. So ultimately you are right on some things and others not so much. As are we all.

You say this as if all teams are on an even playing level with exactly the same resources; so everybody can just make mistakes because thats what team A would make.

The Dodgers and Padres dont have the same resources. Same with the Yankees and Rays, Angels and Athletics. A mistake for the Dodgers would be if Grienke were out injured for 2 years or just blows ass with his big deal. A mistake for the Athletics is getting Clayton Mortenson and Brett Wallace for Matt Holiday and neither lottery ticket live up to 1/4 of their potential. That's the difference and reason I think you're wrong trying to find "middle ground."

Sveum makes constant mistakes I'm sure he's told to make (Marmol as the closer for so long to keep his trade value up.) And I know theres some he makes (Benching his hottest hitter Schierholtz for the sake of a lefty pitching.) Overall, hes been a shitty manager with a shitty team.
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
And what did they do to replace JD Drew??

Sit back and wait for a prospect to take over in RF or give the RF job to a prospect??

Or did they sign a veteran 36 year old to play RF??

Whoops.

They didn't trade Jason Marquis either. He was allowed to leave via free agency. He was replaced not by a prospect, but by a FA signing in Kip Wells.

Whoops.

And Eli Marrero was a utility guy. A throw in to Atlanta. Not some core player.

I'm convinced you are just making shit up. I never called Marrerro a core player. I said he was a proven MLB player. He was. And again...how is adding a veteran like Reggie Sanders to a team that won 90+ games 3 of the l4 previous seasons at all relevant to the Cubs in your mind going out and spending big after losing 100 games? The two situations aren't even remotely comparable. Signing Kip Wells is again not comparable to the Cubs going out and over spending. Adding piece parts to a team like Sanders and Wells to round out a contending roster is not the same thing as the Cubs needing to go out and basically build a roster out of FA.

I had high hopes for the Cubs forum after reading some other people's posts...you've seriously killed that hope.
 

dabynsky

Fringe Average Mod
Donator
Joined:
May 17, 2010
Posts:
13,947
Liked Posts:
3,118
You say this as if all teams are on an even playing level with exactly the same resources; so everybody can just make mistakes because thats what team A would make.

The Dodgers and Padres dont have the same resources. Same with the Yankees and Rays, Angels and Athletics. A mistake for the Dodgers would be if Grienke were out injured for 2 years or just blows ass with his big deal. A mistake for the Athletics is getting Clayton Mortenson and Brett Wallace for Matt Holiday and neither lottery ticket live up to 1/4 of their potential. That's the difference and reason I think you're wrong trying to find "middle ground."

Sveum makes constant mistakes I'm sure he's told to make (Marmol as the closer for so long to keep his trade value up.) And I know theres some he makes (Benching his hottest hitter Schierholtz for the sake of a lefty pitching.) Overall, hes been a shitty manager with a shitty team.

Way to miss the point. The Cubs are not the A's or the Dodgers in terms of revenue. They are in between. The Cubs at this point in time have neither the resources on the major league roster or the minor league level that the either of those teams had when Theo took over. At this point in time Theo's tenure has been a mix bag just like every major league GM. The fact that I give him more time given his starting point than you do is the main difference.
 

patg006

New member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
1,413
Liked Posts:
986
Location:
Chicago
Way to miss the point. The Cubs are not the A's or the Dodgers in terms of revenue. They are in between. The Cubs at this point in time have neither the resources on the major league roster or the minor league level that the either of those teams had when Theo took over. At this point in time Theo's tenure has been a mix bag just like every major league GM. The fact that I give him more time given his starting point than you do is the main difference.

As of about a month ago via Forbes, Dodgers are 2nd, Cubs are 3rd; not far behind. Thanks for stating the obvious about resources then and now.......I'm sure that was difficult to find about the Red Sox a decade ago versus the Cubs a year and change ago.

Mix bag? And I missed the point? Mixed bag has some good to it. Lottery tickets and a half of a year of .285 hitting Anthony Rizzo doesnt equate for good. Nate Scheirholtz is great for now, there you go. 90 percent shit, 10 percent nice. .......farm system means nothing while the major league team suffers and a top revenue team is forced to be like the Oakland Athletics......if the farm system produces its different. But they're talking 2016. Didnt know the 3rd best revenue team has to wait 4 years to be competitive.
 

dabynsky

Fringe Average Mod
Donator
Joined:
May 17, 2010
Posts:
13,947
Liked Posts:
3,118
As of about a month ago via Forbes, Dodgers are 2nd, Cubs are 3rd; not far behind. Thanks for stating the obvious about resources then and now.......I'm sure that was difficult to find about the Red Sox a decade ago versus the Cubs a year and change ago.

Mix bag? And I missed the point? Mixed bag has some good to it. Lottery tickets and a half of a year of .285 hitting Anthony Rizzo doesnt equate for good. Nate Scheirholtz is great for now, there you go. 90 percent shit, 10 percent nice. .......farm system means nothing while the major league team suffers and a top revenue team is forced to be like the Oakland Athletics......if the farm system produces its different. But they're talking 2016. Didnt know the 3rd best revenue team has to wait 4 years to be competitive.

The point is that the team you guys want to construct is no more guaranteed a championship in the next five years than the one that is being constructed now. You, in particularly, bring up the model of the Cardinals, but the free agent signings that team has made over the past decade has been errily similar to the type that this front office has done with signing players hoping for a bounce back year like Berkman, or guys coming off injury like Chris Carpenter or guys they thought could thrive with a chance in St. Louis like Kyle Lohse. The Cardinals of the past two decades have never gone out and signed a big time free agent.

The Cardinals have not been afraid of lottery tickets. Lottery tickets have provided key cogs for the Cardinals. Lottery tickets are going to have provide key cogs for the Cubs just like every other team that has won a championship recently.

The rest of your rambling post consist of things that are outright lies, e.g. the front office has never given a year that the team would be competitive, half truths, e.g. the Cubs are being the Oakland A's when their payroll is barely half of the Cubs, and the other various points that your side has tried to use to say that there is no other possible way to interpret what has happened the past two years besides your cadre's interpretation.
 

Boobaby1

New member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
2,236
Liked Posts:
1,180
As of about a month ago via Forbes, Dodgers are 2nd, Cubs are 3rd; not far behind. Thanks for stating the obvious about resources then and now.......I'm sure that was difficult to find about the Red Sox a decade ago versus the Cubs a year and change ago.

Mix bag? And I missed the point? Mixed bag has some good to it. Lottery tickets and a half of a year of .285 hitting Anthony Rizzo doesnt equate for good. Nate Scheirholtz is great for now, there you go. 90 percent shit, 10 percent nice. .......farm system means nothing while the major league team suffers and a top revenue team is forced to be like the Oakland Athletics......if the farm system produces its different. But they're talking 2016. Didnt know the 3rd best revenue team has to wait 4 years to be competitive.

It's good to know that the Cubs spent 4 years and 52 million on Jackson who pitches every 5th day. Did they have to do that and if they did, then why to the people who said that the Cubs are not ready to compete?

Why spend a single dime if anyone can answer that?

2016, Jackson would be in the last year of his contract. How is that not wasted money but Fielder or Hamilton would have been?
 

AmericanFlyer1

New member
Joined:
Apr 22, 2013
Posts:
81
Liked Posts:
97
It's good to know that the Cubs spent 4 years and 52 million on Jackson who pitches every 5th day. Did they have to do that and if they did, then why to the people who said that the Cubs are not ready to compete?

Why spend a single dime if anyone can answer that?

2016, Jackson would be in the last year of his contract. How is that not wasted money but Fielder or Hamilton would have been?


Dammit!! There you go using their logic again!

How many times do I have to tell you....their logic only works when it fits their agenda. This doesn't, so it won't work.
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
It's good to know that the Cubs spent 4 years and 52 million on Jackson who pitches every 5th day. Did they have to do that and if they did, then why to the people who said that the Cubs are not ready to compete?

Why spend a single dime if anyone can answer that?

2016, Jackson would be in the last year of his contract. How is that not wasted money but Fielder or Hamilton would have been?
Who says I was in favor of the jackson signing? I'm not. But even still 4 yrs 52 is a bargain compared to 8yrs and 185(Fielder) 10-210(Pujols) 5-125(Hamilton) Who are either all twice the length of the jacksons contract or twice the yearly average salary. Both IMO would have been wastes of money but obviously Jacksons would always be the smallest waste. You're making comparisons that are WAY WAY far apart
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
Dammit!! There you go using their logic again!

How many times do I have to tell you....their logic only works when it fits their agenda. This doesn't, so it won't work.

I guess I don't see how a 4 year 52 million dollar deal(13 mil per season on average) can be used as an excuse to go to an average of nearly 8 years around 25 million dollars per season.

I don't really care for the Jackson signing at all but...you're really reaching.......like a lot.
 

patg006

New member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
1,413
Liked Posts:
986
Location:
Chicago
The point is that the team you guys want to construct is no more guaranteed a championship in the next five years than the one that is being constructed now. You, in particularly, bring up the model of the Cardinals, but the free agent signings that team has made over the past decade has been errily similar to the type that this front office has done with signing players hoping for a bounce back year like Berkman, or guys coming off injury like Chris Carpenter or guys they thought could thrive with a chance in St. Louis like Kyle Lohse. The Cardinals of the past two decades have never gone out and signed a big time free agent.

Carlos Beltran isnt big time? Ok.

The rest of your rambling post consist of things that are outright lies, e.g. the front office has never given a year that the team would be competitive, half truths, e.g. the Cubs are being the Oakland A's when their payroll is barely half of the Cubs, and the other various points that your side has tried to use to say that there is no other possible way to interpret what has happened the past two years besides your cadre's interpretation.

Cubs are being the Oakland A's, and the small market team. #3 revenue teams dont ignore the major league roster, build large hotels, ok 500 million dollar rennovations. They wont spend, they ship proven talent away. They dont care about making an effort to win.

Here's what I've interpreted the last two years, and no--this isnt supernatural, or wierd, or downright uncanny. I see a shit major league team. I see a front office smart enough to turn profits on a 100+ loss team. And the only bright side I can come out of the other side of the tunnel is now I have prospects to look forward to. I see a clueless, borderline Special person manager. I see undisciplined batters, decent starting pitching efforts erased by Special person relief pitchers not named James Russell.

When they start winning, this goes away. But whens that going to be? I was told 3 years. Now its 4. And when they ship away pieces for more prospects, it will be five. But if you throw enough shit against the wall, something is bound to stick, right? Where's our Allen Craig?
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
Carlos Beltran isnt big time? Ok.

Carlos Beltran signed a two year 26 million dollar deal. He's making the same amount on average as Edwin Jackson. He was 35 years old. I wouldn't really consider that a "big time signing" relative to the types of players and contracts that are being discussed here(Fielder, Pujols, Hamilton)

Come on.
 

Boobaby1

New member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
2,236
Liked Posts:
1,180
Carlos Beltran signed a two year 26 million dollar deal. He's making the same amount on average as Edwin Jackson. He was 35 years old. I wouldn't really consider that a "big time signing" relative to the types of players and contracts that are being discussed here(Fielder, Pujols, Hamilton)

Come on.

Of course, again look at only what you want to see. Sure it looks like a bargain, but 14 million a year for a guy who takes the mound every 5th day sounds relevant, but a guy like Hamilton who would be playing in a 130 plus games, providing offense and protection in the middle of the line-up is a waste. Good logic there!
 

dabynsky

Fringe Average Mod
Donator
Joined:
May 17, 2010
Posts:
13,947
Liked Posts:
3,118
Carlos Beltran isnt big time? Ok.
35 fucking years old Carlos Beltran? That was the big time free agent in the 2012 offseason? He got the biggest deal? Give me one year that the Cardinals went out and signed the premier free agent available in that offseason.



Cubs are being the Oakland A's, and the small market team. #3 revenue teams dont ignore the major league roster, build large hotels, ok 500 million dollar rennovations. They wont spend, they ship proven talent away. They dont care about making an effort to win.
Then why sign anyone this year? They spent more than half of the teams in baseball on major league payroll. That is about the only figure that we can reasonably confident in given everything else is just guesswork, like the Forbes figure.

Here's what I've interpreted the last two years, and no--this isnt supernatural, or wierd, or downright uncanny. I see a shit major league team. I see a front office smart enough to turn profits on a 100+ loss team. And the only bright side I can come out of the other side of the tunnel is now I have prospects to look forward to. I see a clueless, borderline Special person manager. I see undisciplined batters, decent starting pitching efforts erased by Special person relief pitchers not named James Russell.
Wow you see a shit major league team. You mean a team like the one the year before Theo took over or the year before that?

You see undisciplined batters? Why what fucking scouting because I've seen undisciplined hitters for the past decade and beyond from this organiztion.

And the bullpen is bad. Yeah that is shocking given the fact that relievers not named Mariano Rivera tend to fluctuate between being good and bad. I'll admit that I thought that the bullpen would be better this year. I was wrong on that count. I bought into Marmol's second half, Camp's season, and Fujikawa's NPB numbers and scouting. That hasn't worked out, but it isn't exactly shocking either. Theo's front office is hardly the first front office to build a bad bullpen, and the team's that have consistently built good bullpens are few and far between.

When they start winning, this goes away. But whens that going to be? I was told 3 years. Now its 4. And when they ship away pieces for more prospects, it will be five. But if you throw enough shit against the wall, something is bound to stick, right? Where's our Allen Craig?
By whom? Who told you when this would go away? The quotes I've read from Theo has been that there is no timeline and there are no shortcuts. Allen Craig is exactly the fucking point your side wants to continue to ignore. Allen Craig was an eighth round pick and Albert Pujols was a 13th round pick. Good scouting and development are important, and the moves that you and others have suggested limit the number of those chances whether you want to acknowledge that is important or not.
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,145
Of course, again look at only what you want to see. Sure it looks like a bargain, but 14 million a year for a guy who takes the mound every 5th day sounds relevant, but a guy like Hamilton who would be playing in a 130 plus games, providing offense and protection in the middle of the line-up is a waste. Good logic there!

The hell are you talking about? I'm seeing only what I want to see? I've already said twice that the Jackson signing was something I didn't agree with. I've also called it a waste of money. Not only are you not even quoting the right post you're not even reading what I've said. The Jackson signing was/is a waste. But that doesn't make it alright to waste on average nearly twice the amount of years and twice the amount of money.

How is that so hard to understand?
 

dabynsky

Fringe Average Mod
Donator
Joined:
May 17, 2010
Posts:
13,947
Liked Posts:
3,118
Of course, again look at only what you want to see. Sure it looks like a bargain, but 14 million a year for a guy who takes the mound every 5th day sounds relevant, but a guy like Hamilton who would be playing in a 130 plus games, providing offense and protection in the middle of the line-up is a waste. Good logic there!

And he cost a draft pick, twice as much in cash, and is two years older, but none of that matters because you only want to see what you want to see.
 

Boobaby1

New member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
2,236
Liked Posts:
1,180
And he cost a draft pick, twice as much in cash, and is two years older, but none of that matters because you only want to see what you want to see.

Twice as much in cash but plays in 4 times as many games. Good one!
 

KBisBack!

New member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
1,497
Liked Posts:
1,424
I'm convinced you are just making shit up. I never called Marrerro a core player. I said he was a proven MLB player. He was. And again...how is adding a veteran like Reggie Sanders to a team that won 90+ games 3 of the l4 previous seasons at all relevant to the Cubs in your mind going out and spending big after losing 100 games? The two situations aren't even remotely comparable. Signing Kip Wells is again not comparable to the Cubs going out and over spending. Adding piece parts to a team like Sanders and Wells to round out a contending roster is not the same thing as the Cubs needing to go out and basically build a roster out of FA.

I had high hopes for the Cubs forum after reading some other people's posts...you've seriously killed that hope.

I am sure no one will miss you then as you have added nothing to the conversations with your Cardinal bias and refusal to see the facts
 

Top