I want to talk about roster construction in general.

[CSF77]

I'll look into that year.

I was looking at Chris Paddock. Miami 8th round 2015. Same year they drafted Happ #1.

Now I know you are on this Almora love affair ATM and that is cool. I did say I disagree and that is fine. He turns into a MLB avg hitter with plis D then I will agree with you that he was a good pick. As of now I see a plus and a minus value which equals neutral return.

But getting back to Paddock as a case in point. Talent exists through out the whole draft. When your track record is miss 49 times per year there is a core problem.

 

[CSF77]

You didn't address my point. Epstein and Hoyer have proven their ability to repeatedly win in spite of this "deficiency," so why does it matter? It's like you're complaining that Babe Ruth was a shitty baserunner. Who the **** cares?

You are wrong. The goal was sustained success. That is their by-line.

When you have 0 talent in your farm and you are strapped financly it bodes poorly in the said by-line.

I believe that Joe made what they did legit. With out him this is a failed venture. Up to Joe many conviently forget

 

[fatbeard]

You are wrong. The goal was sustained success. That is their by-line.

When you have 0 talent in your farm and you are strapped financly it bodes poorly in the said by-line.

They had sustained success in Boston and have had it here. That is not arguable. The core of the team is still entering its prime years and they have enormous financial resources on the horizon. Your argument essentially boils down to, "The Cubs might be in trouble in the future if everything goes wrong because of 'reasons'". Name me a team you can't say that about.

I believe that Joe made what they did legit. With out him this is a failed venture. Up to Joe many conviently forget

Remind me again who it was that hired Maddon?

 

[CSF77]

They had sustained success in Boston and have had it here. That is not arguable. The core of the team is still entering its prime years and they have enormous financial resources on the horizon. Your argument essentially boils down to, "The Cubs might be in trouble in the future if everything goes wrong because of 'reasons'". Name me a team you can't say that about.



Remind me again who it was that hired Maddon?

You keep ducking the core issues.

1. They built up then destroyed the farm. Which is not a sustained success issue. The Astroes have shown us that the key to sustained success is drafting and promoting while winning. They have lost talent but still are bringing up talent.

So don't try to duck the core of their mission statement. Sustained not mortgage the future for now. Which was another part of their building plan manta.

Getting to that it feels 100% sales pitch to keep the fans coming. After they started winning they went 180 on everything they were selling. Then they started selling sustained for current success.

I can go on with this but I really don't want to honestly. This is a fixable issue honestly.

1. Gamble on high end pitching. Stop drafting safe picks.

2. Stop selling any pitcher with value for a short term gain. They are set with hitting and that is what they are gearing up in retention. Excess value becomes trade depth. I was really never against Eloy etc by nature. I was against selling Cease when they had nothing in the pipe that could turn into a answer.

3. Re-evaluate your development staff. Even if it means hiring ex-staff from teams with successful development history. It is not a crap shoot. Sucessful practices produces successful results.

 

[fatbeard]

You keep ducking the core issues.

No, it's just that the default position is the two guys with a fistful of World Series rings over the last 15 years are pretty good at their jobs, and the burden of proof is on you to explain why they're not. I keep asking you how they are failing in a substantive way and all you keep telling me is that Babe Ruth wasn't a good base stealer. Your criticisms are superfluous; your "core issues" are not core issues.

1. They built up then destroyed the farm.

Because they were in position to do so after hitting on so many of their young players. They reclaimed Rizzo's production. Bryant was an instant MVP. Schwarber was an immediate impact. Russell was getting comp'd to Barry Larkin. Contreras was instantly productive. Baez became an MVP candidate. Of course they traded talent for other pieces; you say that like it's an accusation, and it's bizarre. They won the fucking World Series. And they didn't fall into oblivion afterwards, either. They stayed damned good.

The Astroes have shown us that the key to sustained success is drafting and promoting while winning. They have lost talent but still are bringing up talent.

I really think we should all take a moment and appreciate how you're holding up the Astros, an organization which has made the playoffs for--wait for it--two consecutive years (!), as the model for baseball consistency. A round of applause for this brilliant point, really.

I can go on with this but I really don't want to honestly. This is a fixable issue honestly.

1. Gamble on high end pitching. Stop drafting safe picks.

2. Stop selling any pitcher with value for a short term gain. They are set with hitting and that is what they are gearing up in retention. Excess value becomes trade depth. I was really never against Eloy etc by nature. I was against selling Cease when they had nothing in the pipe that could turn into a answer.

3. Re-evaluate your development staff. Even if it means hiring ex-staff from teams with successful development history. It is not a crap shoot. Sucessful practices produces successful results.

Alas, if only the Cubs had a staff with a recent history of turning young prospects into successful major league contributors...

 

[CSF77]

"No, it's just that the default position is the two guys with a fistful of World Series rings over the last 15 years are pretty good at their jobs, and the burden of proof is on you to explain why they're not. I keep asking you how they are failing in a substantive way and all you keep telling me is that Babe Ruth wasn't a good base stealer. Your criticisms are superfluous; your "core issues" are not core issues."

1st one he inherited. 2nd one was legit. 3rd one he had to tank 3 years and make some damn good trades to rebuild. Last I checked Yanks were in that situation and rebounded much faster with out a total tear down.

"Because they were in position to do so after hitting on so many of their young players. They reclaimed Rizzo's production. Bryant was an instant MVP. Schwarber was an immediate impact. Russell was getting comp'd to Barry Larkin. Contreras was instantly productive. Baez became an MVP candidate. Of course they traded talent for other pieces; you say that like it's an accusation, and it's bizarre. They won the fucking World Series. And they didn't fall into oblivion afterwards, either. They stayed damned good."

No they won a world series in a down year. Astros were on the uprise. Boston blew past cap just to beat them. NYY are now a force. They won before these teams became legit. Right now they might be the 3rd best in their own division. Stop puffing up 1 winner. You are starting to sound like a white sox fan.

'I really think we should all take a moment and appreciate how you're holding up the Astros, an organization which has made the playoffs for--wait for it--two consecutive years (!), as the model for baseball consistency. A round of applause for this brilliant point, really. '

You should really take a look what they did. They did the same thing as the Cubs but better. They hit more sucesses in the draft. And they still have talent upwelling even after getting good.

Cubs are ranked only over Boston right now. Astros #6. After winning. They didn't sell the farm to do it and they keep on hitting on quality players. Thus the sustained success. If you would stop being a homer for a second maybe you would learn something.

'Alas, if only the Cubs had a staff with a recent history of turning young prospects into successful major league contributors... '

Baez: #1 pick
Almora #1 pick
Russell traded for
Happ in AAA after striking out 30%
Bryant #2 player in his draft.
Hendricks traded for
Edwards traded for.
Rizzo traded for.
Contreras international signing.
Schwarber drafted 1st round.
Caratini traded for
Rosario traded for

So of their own drafting they hit on Almora. #6 pick. Bryant: #2 pick and Schwarber #4 pick. Well you have that bit right. They hit on the ones they should have.

Going back to the stroes:

1. RHP Forrest Whitley #17 pick 2016
2: OF Kyle Tucker: 5th pick 2015
3: 1B/OF Yordan Alvarez Trade to Dodgers to get him. Cuban defector
4: 4. RHP Josh James 2014 Draft picks

All 4 are top 100.

Cionel Perez lefty from Cuba.
Corbin Martin RHP 2nd round 2017 draft pick.
Seth Beer 1B 28 pick 2018 draft.
JB Bukauskas 2017 #15 draft pick

This is not getting into failing on 2 #1 pick starting pitchers and the talent on the team that they self developed.

That is a self made team and there was a reason why the Cards got busted stealing their secrets. oh and Singleton who busted. No one is perfect but when you are constantly producing talent that matters little.

 

[CSF77]

Add to it the Stroes was not 2 but 3. They got beat in 2016 in the play offs. They have been good almost as long as the Cubs.

 

[beckdawg]

Astros also sucked longer than the cubs did meaning they had more high round picks not to mention they had multiple #1 overall picks where the cubs never picked higher than 3rd. As for the conversation on Almora I mean I honestly don't know what your point is. To sit here and say Almora was a bad pick is just wrong. It wasn't and to suggest otherwise is just a fundamental misunderstanding of how the MLB draft works. This isn't the NFL where a top 10 pick is supposed to guarantee a pro bowl type player. A lot of first round picks never even make it to the majors let along are marginally productive while there.

 

[CSF77]

Astros also sucked longer than the cubs did meaning they had more high round picks not to mention they had multiple #1 overall picks where the cubs never picked higher than 3rd. As for the conversation on Almora I mean I honestly don't know what your point is. To sit here and say Almora was a bad pick is just wrong. It wasn't and to suggest otherwise is just a fundamental misunderstanding of how the MLB draft works. This isn't the NFL where a top 10 pick is supposed to guarantee a pro bowl type player. A lot of first round picks never even make it to the majors let along are marginally productive while there.

They had the biggest pool for a while. And they missed on 3 1st round picks. I did say that they did what the Cubs did but better. They targeted pitching also and have 2 top 100 prospects as pitchers right now.

My main point is in the approach. The Cubs are scared of failing with their picks where they rarely take risks. They have gone the safe route. College MLB ready bats and high floor pitching with minimal potential. This year the showed some risk but it was in easier to develop hitting which is not a system weakness. Thus safe by default.

So I do get your view point in the draft. No it is not the NFL. But that doesn't mean to be afraid of failure. Being afraid to take a risk on a pitcher with potential just because he might fail. So you get a guy that most likely never makes it past AA because the lacks high end talent.

It is just their approach and it is not a good one. Draft safe and over pay on the back end because nothing is major league quality. Then you end up Capped out on payroll with no answers because of you inablity to produce major league pitching

 

[CSF77]

Anyways the past is the past. They have already filled the system with safe types. It would be refreshing for this draft to be a risk based one. The system is getting pushed back at the top right now. AA is filling up with talent. They go out and fill up Iowa with AAAA injury filler. Nothing new. Isn't it time to see a potential based draft vs a Polish based one

 

[Rory Sparrow]

I am kind of amazed that with all their draft picks and all their money (prior to this year, of course), the Cubs outfield continues to be a mess. Fowler's 2016 season in CF was the only good season turned in by a Cubs OF in the Maddon Era. I like Almora and Schwarber, but the reality is that they've been only +1 WAR guys at best...and Schwarber had an icky negative WAR season. Hayward's defense might give you a +1.5 WAR, but he shouldn't be an everyday player. Happ flamed out, but he really wasn't any worse than the other Cubs OFs, and he's only 24.

In some sense, I think Maddon (and perhaps the Cubs organization in general) have done Almora and Schwarber no favors in their development. Those guys should really by above-average starters at LF and CF, always in the lineup contributing.

 

[chibears55]

I am kind of amazed that with all their draft picks and all their money (prior to this year, of course), the Cubs outfield continues to be a mess. Fowler's 2016 season in CF was the only good season turned in by a Cubs OF in the Maddon Era. I like Almora and Schwarber, but the reality is that they've been only +1 WAR guys at best...and Schwarber had an icky negative WAR season. Hayward's defense might give you a +1.5 WAR, but he shouldn't be an everyday player. Happ flamed out, but he really wasn't any worse than the other Cubs OFs, and he's only 24.

In some sense, I think Maddon (and perhaps the Cubs organization in general) have done Almora and Schwarber no favors in their development. Those guys should really by above-average starters at LF and CF, always in the lineup contributing.

You pretty much answered your own statement..

Heyward ties up $$$ with his crappy bat in RF

Were on year 4 of waiting to see if Schwarber going to play to everyone expectation, so he ties up LF

They bypassed a chance at getting Cain or Yelich last year for CF because they decided to go with Almora and Happ, and right now that turning out to be a double kick in the ass because because Happ in Iowa and Almora is average while Cain and MVP Yelich are both helping a division team (Brewers) jump ahead of you to take over the division

 

[chibears55]

I'm still waiting for a logical answer on why if they were going to cut off spending money, why give 20 mil to Hamels over just going with what they have for a 5th starter and spending Hamels money to legitimately upgrade the bullpen

 

[fatbeard]

I'm still waiting for a logical answer on why if they were going to cut off spending money, why give 20 mil to Hamels over just going with what they have for a 5th starter and spending Hamels money to legitimately upgrade the bullpen

Because what they had as a fifth starter was Tyler Chatwood.

 

[CSF77]

Because what they had as a fifth starter was Tyler Chatwood.

Fair enough.

Coulda shoulda woulda.

It solves nothing.

IMO what starts to solve issues is surgery. Cut the cancer to allow the team to heal. At this rate we might see it happen.

IMO the biggest mistake was after the evaluation this last off season they just chose to retain and swap coaches. They didn't address the core issues that are wrong with the team. Over payment for poor production. There has to be accountability.

Now seeing Zag in RF kinda made me happy. I would continue that honestly and bench Heyward. Really piss him off where it motivates him to do something other than collect a fat check for catching some balls.

Chattwood I would send through DFA and no one will take it on. Then demote to Iowa. Promote Maples. You really are not losing in payroll by doing so but you are removing a problem and maybe letting him start down there he builds some value again.

 

[CSF77]

And what is up with Yu? He looks like Chatwood right now.

 

[fatbeard]

IMO the biggest mistake was after the evaluation this last off season they just chose to retain and swap coaches. They didn't address the core issues that are wrong with the team. Over payment for poor production. There has to be accountability.

Now seeing Zag in RF kinda made me happy. I would continue that honestly and bench Heyward. Really piss him off where it motivates him to do something other than collect a fat check for catching some balls.

Well this all sounds fine and dandy, but this isn't football. Contracts are fully guaranteed. You cannot "correct" over-payment in baseball, you just have to pay your way through it. Sure, you can "hold accountable" Jason Heyward by putting him on the bench, but he's still going to collect $96mil over the next four years no matter what. So you can publicly embarrass him, you can maybe piss him off to the point that he becomes a malcontent and an even bigger problem, and maybe you could even trade him, but you're still going to eat a big chunk of that contract if you do. At the end of the day, he's still getting paid. It's a pretty silly thing to do in the case of a 2 WAR player who's good in the locker room. We're not talking about a Chris Davis contract or a Milton Bradley malcontent here. The Cubs start three MVP-caliber bats on a daily basis and can stomach a league average bat in RF as long as he brings value in other places. Step back from the ledge.

In summary, takes like this are mostly venting by frustrated fans and good sports talk radio fodder, but there's a reason why actual baseball orgs don't do business this way.

Chattwood I would send through DFA and no one will take it on. Then demote to Iowa. Promote Maples. You really are not losing in payroll by doing so but you are removing a problem and maybe letting him start down there he builds some value again.

This is a decision you make when you have no other options, and the Cubs aren't there yet. They won 95 games with Chatwood as a starter most of the season; they can survive with him occasionally mopping up in the bullpen.

 

[chibears55]

Because what they had as a fifth starter was Tyler Chatwood.

Also have or had, Montgomery, Mills, gone with a kid like Underwood , or kept Drew Smyley who was supposed to be that guy

5th starter is just a guy a team can plug out there for 30 games and give them 5 innings. Anything more is a bonus, anything less you find someone who can..

 

[CSF77]

Well this all sounds fine and dandy, but this isn't football. Contracts are fully guaranteed. You cannot "correct" over-payment in baseball, you just have to pay your way through it. Sure, you can "hold accountable" Jason Heyward by putting him on the bench, but he's still going to collect $96mil over the next four years no matter what. So you can publicly embarrass him, you can maybe piss him off to the point that he becomes a malcontent and an even bigger problem, and maybe you could even trade him, but you're still going to eat a big chunk of that contract if you do. At the end of the day, he's still getting paid. It's a pretty silly thing to do in the case of a 2 WAR player who's good in the locker room. We're not talking about a Chris Davis contract or a Milton Bradley malcontent here. The Cubs start three MVP-caliber bats on a daily basis and can stomach a league average bat in RF as long as he brings value in other places. Step back from the ledge.

In summary, takes like this are mostly venting by frustrated fans and good sports talk radio fodder, but there's a reason why actual baseball orgs don't do business this way.



This is a decision you make when you have no other options, and the Cubs aren't there yet. They won 95 games with Chatwood as a starter most of the season; they can survive with him occasionally mopping up in the bullpen.

Like I said bench to send a message to him. Playing time = production.

Org do bench for lack of production. Cubs have been pay = play. Which is wrong.

On Chatwood. If they DFA most teams will pass. He most likely accepts then you have him start in AAA. If he fixes his flaws then you have something to work with over the duration of his deal.

Right now he is still making the same mistakes in a new role.

Again this is core issues with this team. They are passive and investment over rides common sense.

 

[fatbeard]

Also have or had, Montgomery, Mills, gone with a kid like Underwood , or kept Drew Smyley who was supposed to be that guy

5th starter is just a guy a team can plug out there for 30 games and give them 5 innings. Anything more is a bonus, anything less you find someone who can..

Montgomery is best as a spot starter/swing man and is more valuable out of the pen. Mills and Underwood are prospects who the Cubs clearly feel aren't ready, if they are even major league talent to begin with. Smyly wasn't "supposed" to be anything other than an injury flyer and he's thrown 3 innings in three years. None of these guys are viable options going into a season for a WS-contending team. Signing Hamels was the correct move.