I think its ridiculous that the 20-30 million invested in better bullpen arms and a consistent bat in the middle of the line up that didnt shit itself against lefty pitching is such a detriment to fans like you. Playoffs? Neither side of this argument can guess, just speculate. But improvement and more games won than lost? 30 mil makes a different.
It isn't a detriment. I never said it was a detriment. What I said if it's going to ultimately improve the team a handful of games -- which doesn't change the landscape of making the playoffs, then why spend the money? 20-30 million won't make a banner fly. In the grand scheme of things, that's a fairly negligible amount. Sure, the Cubs could've potentially added some bullpen depth and maybe a marginal bat, but I'll keep going back to the point -- it more than likely wouldn't have made a difference between making the playoffs or not. So why just spend money to spend money? Their focus was acquiring assets that were easily tradable to add minor league depth. This was discussed when the offseason started and they followed through. Like it or not, that's what the plan was.
And the Angels reportedly have one of the current worst farm systems after this production.
They do, in large part because they've been trading away all of their young talent on more expensive players. And this has cost them over the last few seasons. If have the seventh highest payroll in baseball, you'd better be making the playoffs, right? Well, they aren't. They're still under .500.
It does. To think Nick Swisher and Eric Chavez instead of Nate/DeJesus and Cody Ransom and Valbuena at 2nd instead of Barney doesn't improve this punchless offensive line up is delusional.
Oh really? Nick Swisher, huh? You would've been comfortable paying him (at 32, mind you) $56 million over four years? This same guy who's batting a blistering .249 right now with 9 homers and average-at-best defense? His only saving grace is that he's a patient hitter who has a decent OBP. You think that would've been money well spent? Okay, cool. Gotcha.
Here's a side-by-side of Nick Swisher versus David DeJesus and Nate Schierholtz this year:
Swisher -- .248/.356/.412 9 HRs, 31 RBIs, 16 doubles, 43 walks
DeJesus -- .260/.318/.445, 6 HRs, 21 RBIs, 15 doubles, 15 walks
Schierholtz -- .275/.330/.510, 11 HRs, 34 RBIs, 19 doubles, 17 walks
That's cool! Yeah, you're right. I'd much rather be dumping all that money into Swisher! Great plan! World Series, here we come! The Chavez comparison is the only worthwhile discussion because third base has been a black hole since Ramirez left for Milwaukee, but again, the production at third between Ransom and Valbuena has been serviceable. I'd be more concerned with having a replacement for Barney. His defense simply doesn't make up for his complete ineptitude at the plate. Unfortunately, the Cubs really don't have an in-house replacement, as Arismendy Alcantara is probably a good season and a half away from being ready. If anything, a second baseman would've been something the Cubs should've went after this offseason.
Newsflash:
the teams I've pointed out: Cards, Giants, Rangers, Phillies; you know--the successful teams--have balanced all three phases of free agency, farm, and trades to make themselves perennial contenders.
Once again; we are OK with building the farm. We dont have problems with that. We're ok with that.
Once again, you misconstrue our points that the MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED. That is our beef. The problem. We're ok with Kris Bryant, Soler, Baez, and the other youngsters. What we arent ok with--is the major league team being ignored for the sake of the farm.
I fully expect you to screw this up again and spout off more nonsense. You have yet to get it right.
What you guys must not understand is that having the infrastructure in place with a minor league system and scouting plan in place is necessary in order for most teams to be comfortable with spending money on free agents. Most fans must forget that, while these ownership teams are billionaires, it isn't monopoly money. They have limits to what they can and what they are willing to spend. And those teams above found a balance in all three phases by concentrating on their farm system FIRST. If you don't believe, go look at each team's rosters. Look at how many guys were drafted by those franchises, or acquired early in their respective careers VIA trade.
None of us who are in favor of how Theo and Jed are building the team don't want them to spend money. Obviously, you have to spend money to win. It's HOW the team chooses to spend that money that's important. The amount of money is irrelevant. I mean, would you guys feel better if the Cubs would've blown huge money on, say, Michael Bourn, your boyfriend Nick Swisher and a guy like Anibal Sanchez, yet we still finish with 79 wins? If you guys keep bringing up winning as the ultimate barometer here, then does it really matter how "winning" is achieved? If the Cubs had a ridiculously low payroll and they were winning, wouldn't you be happy? I feel like you guys just bitch about the team not going crazy with spending because they aren't doing it.
The Cubs did spend money this offseason -- look at all the pitchers they signed. That's turned out pretty well, both in terms of performance (of those players, in particular) and in terms of having assets that can help create a self-sustaining roster. As I mentioned earlier, could they have used an alternate to Barney at second base that was a bit more offense-oriented? Sure. I agree with that. My complaint is that you guys have absolutely no plan. You don't explain anything, other than "SPEND MONEY LOL. DO IT, RICH OWNER!"
If you want to formulate an argument, give us examples. Whoops, you did -- you said Nick Swisher. He's having a fairly shitty year. He's producing on-par or worse than the two Cubs players you mentioned, and he makes about three times as much money as those two guys. Again, would you feel THAT much better if they were spending the extra money but it wasn't yielding results? So, again -- what do you want the Cubs to do? Here, I'll break down my questions. Answer them, if you want to actually debate why you oppose what ownership and the front office is doing.
**What route do you want them to take in free agency going into 2014?
**Do you think it's more paramount that they concentrate on spending money on pitching or position players?
**Should the Cubs scale back their draft and international funds next year in lew of spending more in free agency?
**In regards to this year, should the Cubs trade Matt Garza, Alfonso Soriano, James Russell and David DeJesus? Which players? All of them? None of them? A combination of them? Why or why not?
**Is Garza, in particular, more valuable to the Cubs as a trade asset or a rotational building block? What about Shark?
**Should the Cubs singing of Kris Bryant have any bearing on them going after a third baseman in the offseason or in a trade?
Again, if you guys actually want to talk about what's happening instead of having your periods in every thread, then answer some questions that board members are posing to you so an actual discussion can be created. I'm all for it. I enjoy talking about this kind of stuff. Otherwise, its' just you and a few other people swinging your dicks and complaining.
opcorn:
