Let's Put Theo and Jed to sleep

[chibears55]

The data shows otherwise. You can pick lower in the draft (Cardinals) and still win if you have the right people. Ricketts is claiming he has the right people. To date it has not been seen

The Cardinals have been able to maintain success because they already had a base set on the major league leve withl young and vets for a long time , so when they draft they were able to draft best talent in areas of need. Plus because they had a good mix of young n vets on their team they have been able to make that trade or sign a FA that could help them win now..



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

The Cardinals have been able to maintain success because they already had a base set on the major league leve withl young and vets for a long time , so when they draft they were able to draft best talent in areas of need. Plus because they had a good mix of young n vets on their team they have been able to make that trade or sign a FA that could help them win now..



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

Which is exactly what the Cubs could have done.

 

[chibears55]

Which is exactly what the Cubs could have done.

Over the years yea but we all know the tribune was satisfied with just havibg a star attraction and never spent a dollar more then they had to..

not the last couple years , They just came off of back to back 90 lost seasons with over 30 end of career players on roster after the 2012 season and didnt have much talent in farm system that was ready to step up.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

Over the years yea but we all know the tribune was satisfied with just havibg a star attraction and never spent a dollar more then they had to..

not the last couple years , They just came off of back to back 90 lost seasons with over 30 end of career players on roster after the 2012 season and didnt have much talent in farm system that was ready to step up.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

1) It's a huge misnomer that the Tribune did not spend money on the team. A lot of bad contracts came around, but they tried.
2) They could have added pieces the past two seasons. Correct me if I am wrong but they have added zero pieces at this point.

 

[chibears55]

1) It's a huge misnomer that the Tribune did not spend money on the team. A lot of bad contracts came around, but they tried.
2) They could have added pieces the past two seasons. Correct me if I am wrong but they have added zero pieces at this point.

I didn't say they didn't spend money just that they wouldn't spend that little extra that couldve helped. Seen a few deadline deals they passed on cause player in return was costly.

They did add zero pieces to major league roster , but as we go round n round on this we all know their main plan was to build up the minor league system these last 2 years which they've done.
At the cost of losing on major league level ? Yes
We happy about that ? No
But that was their plan so now we just wait and see how it pans out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

I didn't say they didn't spend money just that they wouldn't spend that little extra that couldve helped. Seen a few deadline deals they passed on cause player in return was costly.

They did add zero pieces to major league roster , but as we go round n round on this we all know their main plan was to build up the minor league system these last 2 years which they've done.
At the cost of losing on major league level ? Yes
We happy about that ? No
But that was their plan so now we just wait and see how it pans out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

The killer is that you are right this is the plan.
Is that what they tell folks? No
Did they lie completely and continue to do so? Seems like it

 

[chibears55]

The killer is that you are right this is the plan.
Is that what they tell folks? No
Did they lie completely and continue to do so? Seems like it

Don't know where they lied because they said from day 1 they were gonna fix the minor league system.
Please don't say he said the goal was to be in contention for WS every year..that the goal once the dust clears and they built up their team.

 

[nwfisch]

Don't know where they lied because they said from day 1 they were gonna fix the minor league system.
Please don't say he said the goal was to be in contention for WS every year..that the goal once the dust clears and they built up their team.

Ahh but he did.

"Every opportunity to win is sacred," Epstein said. "It's sacred to us inside the organization and it should be sacred to the fans as well. They deserve our best efforts to do what we can to improve the club, and put the club in position to succeed in any given season."

 

[brett05]

Don't know where they lied because they said from day 1 they were gonna fix the minor league system.
Please don't say he said the goal was to be in contention for WS every year..that the goal once the dust clears and they built up their team.

You hate the point because it goes against your argument.

 

[chibears55]

Ahh but he did.

And that what they been doing with fixing up the system. . Putting them in position to be able to succeed every year

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

 

[SilenceS]

The Cardinals won the World Series only winning 83 games!

 

[JP Hochbaum]

I think Ricketts' point is being lost on some here.

The Cubs could have probably overpaid for a couple 30-something free agents, and they undoubtedly would have improved the team in the interim. Perhaps make them a .500 ball club or slightly better. Again, in the interim.

The problem is .500 ball clubs don't make the playoffs, and they don't pick as high in the draft (and in turn, have less pool money). If anything, it slows a rebuilding process, and any success that is achieved is almost certainly unsustainable.

So if you're fine with what had been the Cubs' status quo for so many years, then by all means, make the case why an 83 win team makes sense. I don't see the long-term value in being competitive enough to win half your games, but not good enough to win a championship.

The people bashing Theo on this thread have zero understanding of what the Cubs brass have been saying. They are not trying to win right away, they are trying to produce a team that could contend for the WS for a decade, not just two years and have to start all over again (circa 2007)

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Ahh but he did.

No he didn't he said put in a position to succeed. He never mentioned in contention for the playoffs.

Succeed could mean building a stronger farm system, it could mean developing current talent on the roster and flipping it for younger talent.

People are taking that one sentence out of context and ignoring the fact that Cubs brass ALSO said that it would take them years to be in contention for a WS.

It is also GM speak to say they are going to succeed and not actually win a lot of game. GM's aren't going to say "hey its our intention to lose so we could get draft picks". That is just not realistic to expect, they are businessmen and still have to tell their players that they are trying to build a winner even though they really aren't. It's politics in sports, that is reality.

 

[beckdawg]

Shoot Tommy thinks this is a 83 win team. Lol. Just goes to showcyou how out of touch this team is and how incompetent it is being ran.

As I said before, I think people are reading way to much into that. It's owner being a homer. All I'm saying is given the situation what else is the front office supposed to do? We can sit here and debate why the cubs seemingly only have a $105-110 mil budget but given the players they've gone after and what they spent the past 2 years that seems to be the case. And as for getting lucky with wavier players, maybe but there is strategy behind it. They have been buying under valued guys and hoping for those players to pan out. Not everyone works out but the difference is you can take a shot on 4-5 guys like that vs one "star." That's what I was getting at by them taking the approach of finding several players for $20 mil rather than one.

I personally don't think this is an 83 win team. However, I think we can all agree the pirates are a decent team and over 5 games the cubs are putting together really good games vs them. As such, I don't think they are that far away. If they continue to play like they have in the start of the season they might be 1-2 players away from that level. And to go from a $134 mil 71 win team in 2011 to a $92.6 mil team 3 years later who may win 70-75 games in my opinion is pretty good.

Obviously everyone would love for them to have had $135 mil to spend the whole time but for whatever reason that just isn't the case. Everyone is welcome to their opinion but I honestly feel they are on the right path on the field. If there's a question about ownership I feel it's more about ticket prices staying as high when they know they are going to have to be a scrappy team to win. But as I rarely go to games, that doesn't really matter that much to me.

 

[nwfisch]

As I said before, I think people are reading way to much into that. It's owner being a homer. All I'm saying is given the situation what else is the front office supposed to do? We can sit here and debate why the cubs seemingly only have a $105-110 mil budget but given the players they've gone after and what they spent the past 2 years that seems to be the case. And as for getting lucky with wavier players, maybe but there is strategy behind it. They have been buying under valued guys and hoping for those players to pan out. Not everyone works out but the difference is you can take a shot on 4-5 guys like that vs one "star." That's what I was getting at by them taking the approach of finding several players for $20 mil rather than one.

I personally don't think this is an 83 win team. However, I think we can all agree the pirates are a decent team and over 5 games the cubs are putting together really good games vs them. As such, I don't think they are that far away. If they continue to play like they have in the start of the season they might be 1-2 players away from that level. And to go from a $134 mil 71 win team in 2011 to a $92.6 mil team 3 years later who may win 70-75 games in my opinion is pretty good.

Obviously everyone would love for them to have had $135 mil to spend the whole time but for whatever reason that just isn't the case. Everyone is welcome to their opinion but I honestly feel they are on the right path on the field. If there's a question about ownership I feel it's more about ticket prices staying as high when they know they are going to have to be a scrappy team to win. But as I rarely go to games, that doesn't really matter that much to me.

There is no such thing as reading too much into what the owner says. The owner is absolutely clueless, overwhelmed and out of touch with reality.

 

[beckdawg]

The data shows otherwise. You can pick lower in the draft (Cardinals) and still win if you have the right people. Ricketts is claiming he has the right people. To date it has not been seen

I'm not entirely going to disagree with this but I will say the cardinals haven't drafted a player in the top 100 prospects since the new CBA. It's entirely possible that has more to do with the fact that it's only been 2 years and generally high picks get rated quicker even if they ultimately don't pan out. However, I don't think we're near close enough to say what impact the of the new CBA will be. For example, IFA are typically 5 years at the earliest and 3-4 years on HS players with college guys being from the first draft under the new CBA seeing time within the next year or two.

 

[Boobaby1]

The people bashing Theo on this thread have zero understanding of what the Cubs brass have been saying. They are not trying to win right away, they are trying to produce a team that could contend for the WS for a decade, not just two years and have to start all over again (circa 2007)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!

Surely you aren't bashing a team that from 2003 to 2008, was in the playoffs 50% of the time, and favored to win the division over the mighty Cardinals 66% of the time?

Oh the humanity for a Cubs fan to truly be excited that they went to the playoffs 3 times in 6 years which is the same amount of appearances that they had went to the previous 50 years.

I've been a Cubs fan for over 45 years, and NEVER have they impacted that much excitement in that span of time.

Show me a Cubs fan who wasn't excited then, and I'll show you a liar. :shot:

 

[Boobaby1]

I'm not entirely going to disagree with this but I will say the cardinals haven't drafted a player in the top 100 prospects since the new CBA. It's entirely possible that has more to do with the fact that it's only been 2 years and generally high picks get rated quicker even if they ultimately don't pan out. However, I don't think we're near close enough to say what impact the of the new CBA will be. For example, IFA are typically 5 years at the earliest and 3-4 years on HS players with college guys being from the first draft under the new CBA seeing time within the next year or two.

When was the CBA ratified? Michael Wacha was drafted 19th overall in the 2012 draft.

 

[beckdawg]

When was the CBA ratified? Michael Wacha was drafted 19th overall in the 2012 draft.

Not sure the exact timing but also pretty sure Wacha never made a top 100 list. Obviously that's a technicality. But to be fair Wacha also has only pitched 77.1 major league innings. Rick Ankiel threw close to 200 of pretty good ball before ultimately losing it. Like I said before, I'm not saying it's going to be impossible for teams to find good players later in the draft because there are extremely smart people being employed by these teams to find every edge they can. What I'm saying is at the present time we don't know how much more difficult the new CBA will make it to find that edge. And to use pre-new CBA as evidence to the contrary just isn't valid because the rules are clearly different.

 

[dabynsky]

When was the CBA ratified? Michael Wacha was drafted 19th overall in the 2012 draft.

Ah the Michael Wacha argument. Lets talk about Michael Wacha. You know why Michael Wacha looks like a steal for the Cardinals. It is because the moment he went from college to being in the Cardinals system his fastball velocity jumped from the 90-94 range to averaging 93.1 last year. His curveball went from an average pitch to above average pitch. Of course this happens for the Cardinals, but lets not act like this is something that is easily duplicated.

So the approach apparently is to hope to get lucky on a guy that has his stuff noticeably jumps immediately after being drafted which has happened all of one time so far in the post CBA draft world. Are there going to be guys that drop due to various reasons, sure? But the odds are that they typically are pitchers, and that you need more than a little luck to land on them.