Epstein: "We haven't accomplished anything yet"

[Mongo_76]

Here is my question to you can you acknowledge that it would have taken longer to develop the farm system by not focusing so many resources to developing the farm?

Again. I understand why he is tanking. I get that he feels that by throwing away seasons to move up in the draft, he'll have better luck with talent.

What's actually happening is not in dispute.


Whether it's the only way to achieve the goal (Goal being winning) is what I'm challenging.

 

[Mongo_76]

Agree but those would come at the cost of developing future assets.

Disagree. Again, look at net revenues. That gap could be put to use. Instead it's being put into Rickets pocket.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Again. I understand why he is tanking. I get that he feels that by throwing away seasons to move up in the draft, he'll have better luck with talent.

What's actually happening is not in dispute.


Whether it's the only way to achieve the goal (Goal being winning) is what I'm challenging.

Of course there are other ways, but the other ways carry a lot more risk and a lot more finance. It is high risk lower reward possibility. You end up going against the odds.

 

[dabynsky]

Again. I understand why he is tanking. I get that he feels that by throwing away seasons to move up in the draft, he'll have better luck with talent.

What's actually happening is not in dispute.


Whether it's the only way to achieve the goal (Goal being winning) is what I'm challenging.

So you disagree that moves to win now would cost the future?

 

[Mongo_76]

What official records of those things are available to us?

http://www.forbes.com/teams/chicago-cubs/


Profile

The Cubs are among the most profitable teams in baseball every year despite being losers on the field. The team posted a winning percentage of .392 the past two seasons yet drew an average of 2.7 million fans to Wrigley Field in 2012 and 2013. A big television payday may be is in the cards for the Cubs, who are in talks with Fox about their broadcasting future, working on a deal that would end the WGN connection that built the team’s national brand and potentially lay the groundwork for a second regional sports network in Chicago. The Cubs are locked into WGN for one more season, and Comcast SportsNet Chicago has exclusive cable rights through 2019.

 

[dabynsky]

http://www.forbes.com/teams/chicago-cubs/


Profile

The Cubs are among the most profitable teams in baseball every year despite being losers on the field. The team posted a winning percentage of .392 the past two seasons yet drew an average of 2.7 million fans to Wrigley Field in 2012 and 2013. A big television payday may be is in the cards for the Cubs, who are in talks with Fox about their broadcasting future, working on a deal that would end the WGN connection that built the team’s national brand and potentially lay the groundwork for a second regional sports network in Chicago. The Cubs are locked into WGN for one more season, and Comcast SportsNet Chicago has exclusive cable rights through 2019.

And Forbes has been wrong in the past.

 

[Mongo_76]

So you disagree that moves to win now would cost the future?

Completely disagree.

That's the heart of the issue.

You can win now, AND win later AND win long term.

There is no way you can dispute that.

 

[dabynsky]

Completely disagree.

That's the heart of the issue.

You can win now, AND win later AND win long term.

There is no way you can dispute that.

If there was no way to dispute you could give me that example I keep asking for. Instead you point to organizations that were built successful in a previous era that has continued to be successful. Again this is pointless since you've made your mind up, but you really can't see how not trading players when seasons get away from them costs them future assets as just one example of lost future by focusing solely on winning at the MLB level?

 

[Mongo_76]

If there was no way to dispute you could give me that example I keep asking for. Instead you point to organizations that were built successful in a previous era that has continued to be successful.

Those organizations ARE the example.

I'm sorry you want to dismiss them, but 40 pennants and 27 WS Championships can't be dismissed.

 

[dabynsky]

Those organizations ARE the example.

I'm sorry you want to dismiss them, but 40 pennants and 27 WS Championships can't be dismissed.

Right agree they are the example, but unfortunately they had quite the head start which you want to dismiss.

 

[Mongo_76]

Right agree they are the example, but unfortunately they had quite the head start which you want to dismiss.

What does that even mean?

They had a head start?

Gotta hear this... Please explain.

 

[dabynsky]

What does that even mean?

They had a head start?

Gotta hear this... Please explain.

The Cubs have been a terrible run franchise for an extended period of time which has either prioritized one aspect of organization building over another. The Cardinals when this front office took over had both a good farm system and a good major league roster. So they've won and maintained a quality farm system under this environment of hard slotting and limited draft picks. You have yet to provide an organization that has done both rebuilt the major league roster and farm system at the same time under these circumstances.

 

[Mongo_76]

The Cubs have been a terrible run franchise for an extended period of time which has either prioritized one aspect of organization building over another.

They won the division 3 out of 6 years between 2003 and 2008....

The Cardinals when this front office took over had both a good farm system and a good major league roster. So they've won and maintained a quality farm system under this environment of hard slotting and limited draft picks. You have yet to provide an organization that has done both rebuilt the major league roster and farm system at the same time under these circumstances.

This is the first time I was asked to - so using the word "yet" is a bit premature.

Giants
Athletics
Mid 90s Yankees

 

[dabynsky]

They won the division 3 out of 6 years between 2003 and 2008....

Good for them. They also won 90 games just once during that stretch, and also saw that pipeline of young talent that provide the initial fuel for that run to whither up and die out almost completely.

This is the first time I was asked to - so using the word "yet" is a bit premature.

Giants
Athletics
Mid 90s Yankees

First I will apologize because I was confusing this narrative you've provided with another aptly named poster that I asked for that example. So you are correct that was my mistake this is the first time I have asked you for that example.

Now for your example the Athletics (26) have one of the worst farm systems in baseball right now. The A's were last ranked above the lower third of baseball in 2012, right after they were finishing up a run of 5 years at .500 (1 season) or below. The Giants (20) aren't much better, and they haven't been ranked any higher than that since 2010. Seems like they haven't managed to win and maintain that farm system.

The Yankees example fails on a number of levels. First of all you are making an apples to oranges comparison between teams built under the old CBA versus this system. Second of all the Yankees farm system was great starting in the early 90s, and yes they maintained that good farm system. But it was not built while they were winning. The Yankees dropped out of the top 10 once all the way down 12 in 97, but that is the point that I was trying to raise about the difference between those organizations and the Cubs. While they were winning they still kept the farm system going instead the Cubs did very little to add to the farm while they were "winning" under Hendry.

 

[Parade_Rain]

One might also translate that "every season is sacred", doesn't necessarily mean at the parent level.

This ^^^^

 

[Mongo_76]

Good for them. They also won 90 games just once during that stretch,

"Once you get in in October there's a legitimate chance to win the World Series." - Theo Epstein

First I will apologize because I was confusing this narrative you've provided with another aptly named poster that I asked for that example. So you are correct that was my mistake this is the first time I have asked you for that example.

Now for your example the Athletics (26) have one of the worst farm systems in baseball right now. The A's were last ranked above the lower third of baseball in 2012, right after they were finishing up a run of 5 years at .500 (1 season) or below. The Giants (20) aren't much better, and they haven't been ranked any higher than that since 2010. Seems like they haven't managed to win and maintain that farm system.

The Yankees example fails on a number of levels. First of all you are making an apples to oranges comparison between teams built under the old CBA versus this system. Second of all the Yankees farm system was great starting in the early 90s, and yes they maintained that good farm system. But it was not built while they were winning. The Yankees dropped out of the top 10 once all the way down 12 in 97, but that is the point that I was trying to raise about the difference between those organizations and the Cubs. While they were winning they still kept the farm system going instead the Cubs did very little to add to the farm while they were "winning" under Hendry.

This is why the other person you asked probably didn't want to answer this question. There is just too much room for inane debate - which was assured no matter what team I named.

We don't agree - probably won't no matter how much we go back and forth on this.

 

[dabynsky]

"Once you get in in October there's a legitimate chance to win the World Series." - Theo Epstein

This is why the other person you asked probably didn't want to answer this question. There is just too much room for inane debate - which was assured no matter what team I named.

We don't agree - probably won't no matter how much we go back and forth on this.

Agree this is a pointless debate. I could show how teams either had a period of losing which proceeds when the farm system got good like the A's and Giants or rather how teams just continued it under the old CBA. But you are right we are both entrenched in our beliefs here and there is no way to do a controlled experiment to prove beyond a doubt either side. Either way we are fast approaching the time where both of us will be judging this front office by the same measure (wins at the major league level).

 

[Mongo_76]

But you are right we are both entrenched in our beliefs here and there is no way to do a controlled experiment to prove beyond a doubt either side.

Just to be clear, what is your belief? Is it that the only way to win is to lose first?

Or is it that once Theo took us on this path, there was no going back?

 

[Mongo_76]

Either way we are fast approaching the time where both of us will be judging this front office by the same measure (wins at the major league level).

Let's hope....

 

[Mongo_76]

Cubs win!