Samardzija criticizes Cubs

[TC in Mississippi]

Actually they will never be proven right. You can't show that doing both wasn't possible.

No, that isn't necessary for a logical argument. In any disagreement where a specific outcome is desired but the steps to get there are the basis for dispute you're going to have one side proceed with their plan and the test then becomes whether the outcome is achieved or not. The alternate course, in that specific set of circumstances, can neither be proven or disproven nor is it necessary to be. What you seem to be arguing is that it can never be proven that their course of action was the better or only path and, while that is of course true, in a outcome based debate that's completely immaterial. For example if the goal is to get to the old mill road by 5:00 and I say to take the freeway and you say to take backroads all that matters is that we arrive at the old mill road. If we then take the freeway and arrive there the backroads option is no longer even part of the discussion unless the same circumstances occur multiple times. Since every rebuilding situation in baseball is different those same circumstances will never present exactly again so, again, the other course has no bearing on discussion.

 

[brett05]

No, that isn't necessary for a logical argument. In any disagreement where a specific outcome is desired but the steps to get there are the basis for dispute you're going to have one side proceed with their plan and the test then becomes whether the outcome is achieved or not. The alternate course, in that specific set of circumstances, can neither be proven or disproven nor is it necessary to be. What you seem to be arguing is that it can never be proven that their course of action was the better or only path and, while that is of course true, in a outcome based debate that's completely immaterial. For example if the goal is to get to the old mill road by 5:00 and I say to take the freeway and you say to take backroads all that matters is that we arrive at the old mill road. If we then take the freeway and arrive there the backroads option is no longer even part of the discussion unless the same circumstances occur multiple times. Since every rebuilding situation in baseball is different those same circumstances will never present exactly again so, again, the other course has no bearing on discussion.

I agree with what you wrote except for the last part as it relates to the Cubs. The goal is to win and secondary to win consistently. They failed on both these parts to date. That said, I think very well this could be the validation of the first leading to the second, but that's not the point. The point was Jeff wanted to win and win consistently. They Cubs failed as Jeff said in that area. The Cubs abandoned the MLB team in hopes of a youthful rebuild which appears to be working.

The team did set a goal of failure begets winning and with that they did succeed, but I think it's fair to say they set the wrong goal.

 

[DanTown]

I agree with what you wrote except for the last part as it relates to the Cubs. The goal is to win and secondary to win consistently. They failed on both these parts to date. That said, I think very well this could be the validation of the first leading to the second, but that's not the point. The point was Jeff wanted to win and win consistently. They Cubs failed as Jeff said in that area. The Cubs abandoned the MLB team in hopes of a youthful rebuild which appears to be working.

The team did set a goal of failure begets winning and with that they did succeed, but I think it's fair to say they set the wrong goal.

They absolutely never failed Jeff. The best example I can give is buying a home. When you buy a home (win in baseball), you want to do it where you set up a foundation in the beginning then make changes as time goes on. The Cubs had no foundation and very little money so if they tried to build a home as quickly as possible, they would have sacrificed the long term structure of the home. While that sucks to the current people who want a home, the Cubs truly didn't have a chance to build a nice home at the time; they had to go about it via a slow process.

 

[brett05]

They absolutely never failed Jeff. The best example I can give is buying a home. When you buy a home (win in baseball), you want to do it where you set up a foundation in the beginning then make changes as time goes on. The Cubs had no foundation and very little money so if they tried to build a home as quickly as possible, they would have sacrificed the long term structure of the home. While that sucks to the current people who want a home, the Cubs truly didn't have a chance to build a nice home at the time; they had to go about it via a slow process.

The analogy does not work. There are physical laws that must be in place for a house to work. There is no such thing for winning the World Series.

 

[DanTown]

The analogy does not work. There are physical laws that must be in place for a house to work. There is no such thing for winning the World Series.

You can't make a 70-75 win team with limited prospects + money to spend into a 85 or 90 win team. You can't just say "we want to win every year, here is how we plan to do it no matter our prospects or contracts".

 

[brett05]

You can't make a 70-75 win team with limited prospects + money to spend into a 85 or 90 win team. You can't just say "we want to win every year, here is how we plan to do it no matter our prospects or contracts".

Jeff does not agree with your assessment. I don't believe history is on your side either.

 

[CSF77]

Jeff does not agree with your assessment. I don't believe history is on your side either.

Are you supporting Jeff?

I get that they tanked on purpose to get better selections in the draft.

It worked

They did not hide it and tried to make him a offer. He bet on himself and wanted more so the Cubs sold him and got back a player that was a type that you build around.

They didn't have to offer him a deal. He was acquired with the old office. But they did as they also offered Castro a deal also. It is not like he had 5 years as a proven ToR guy to point towards and say I am worth... When all he did was pitch 200 innings the year before and went into the year as a bad luck starter who couldn't sniff a victory

I believe he has a chip on his shoulder which he really has not earned to this point. Something to be said about humility and putting the team first as Arrieta has done. He is not me first and let's his performance speak for him.

Arretta is a team ace and conducts himself as one should. Shark has been showing his colors and with his history it is not surprising.

 

[brett05]

Not sure why you are mentioning Jake, but the jury is still out on if Jake is a team player. He had a chance to sign an extension and passed on the offer. We shall see there.

As for Jake, I support his comments about the team tanking. Yes I support that comment.

 

[DanTown]

Jeff does not agree with your assessment. I don't believe history is on your side either.

I don't give two flying fucks what Jeff thinks, he's wrong. You can't build a sustainable, winning team in FA on a normal budget. Hence the reason no one has ever been able to do it.

 

[CSF77]

Not sure why you are mentioning Jake, but the jury is still out on if Jake is a team player. He had a chance to sign an extension and passed on the offer. We shall see there.

As for Jake, I support his comments about the team tanking. Yes I support that comment.

Well he has a CY-Young and a 22 win season. Not to mention is working with them even when his Agent is Boras.

He has proven he is a top of the rotation. Not many can argue that point. The issue will be if he starts to ask for 30 mil per because of what Grenke got. Think he is making 34 mil this year and tops in the majors. That may price him out of what the Rickett's are willing to spend. Age is a factor here and are you going to pay a guy around 30 mil per at 36-39 years old? Most likely not. Sure from 29-36 you entertain the idea.

So my opinion is if both sides are not on the same page you deal out. Bottom line. Just business.

 

[Diehardfan]

I don't give two flying fucks what Jeff thinks, he's wrong. You can't build a sustainable, winning team in FA on a normal budget. Hence the reason no one has ever been able to do it.

Surprised that Brett, being a White Sox fan, can't see this...maybe he just doesn't want to see it. It's exactly what his team has been trying to do for the last 10 years.

 

[brett05]

I don't (care) what Jeff thinks,

Clearly you do as you are participating in the thread.

he's wrong.

Can't be shown or proven.

You can't build a sustainable, winning team in FA on a normal budget. Hence the reason no one has ever been able to do it.

Too vague. I'd say it's been done in the past. I'd use the Marlins as proof. And they did it twice.

 

[brett05]

Surprised that Brett, being a White Sox fan, can't see this...maybe he just doesn't want to see it. It's exactly what his team has been trying to do for the last 10 years.

My team has been trying to do both but we do a pretty lousy job in scouting the draft. IFA, great, but scouting the draft pretty putrid.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Too vague. I'd say it's been done in the past. I'd use the Marlins as proof. And they did it twice.

Both times the Marlins did it they were broken up and sold for parts followed by a long period of sucking. Building a solid organizational foundation allows for more opportunities for winning. The playoffs are essentially a crap shoot so the goal is less trying to win a World Series and more about getting chances to do it. The Royals, Giants, Pirates, Cardinals, Astros, Rangers, Rays and Nationals have reached multiple playoffs using this organizational method, al sit with different internal strategies. The Dodgers are the only team that has really had multiple playoff chances in the last 15 years without a solid organizational foundation and they had $300 million payrolls. On top of that also in as new ownership took over they set about rebuilding the farm system and eventually fired Ned Coletti in favor of Andrew Friedman to go even more in that direction with marching orders to trim $100 million from the payroll.

A non contending team can trade and spend for talent but that might get you 1 or 2 shots at the prize and injuries could derail even that. The Cardinals have one less than 85 games, usually a pretty good playoff cutoff point, twice in the last 10 years and one of those times won the WS. The Giants went through a 4 year rebuild after their 91 win 2004 season but since emerging from that in 2009 have won less than 85 wins once and have won 3 WS. I didn't even mention Boston who used this method for years and won 3 WS. to me it's very clear that if you want to win the WS having a strong organization is by far the better way to go. The Angels have no farm to speak of, a large payroll and virtually zero chance at the playoffs despite having the best player in baseball. To have really contended this year they would have, at minimum, needed 2 starting pitchers, an above league average IF and an above league average OF which probably would have raised their patroll $70 mil or more and still no guarantee of a World Series or even a playoff berth with Texas and Houston in the division.

I'll grant that you are technically right that a foundation isn't necessary to win, but buy the examples shown it is clearly more reliable. I'm not sure that disgruntled players with inflated self worth, eve one that I like as in Samardzija, will make me change my mind.

 

[brett05]

The Marlins did break up the team right after they won and the third time they went with this they bailed early. That doesn't mean it does not work, it means that the ownership was impatient.
The Cardinals are the classic team that did both and were successful. The BlueJays did both and were successful and the Yankees did both and were successful alebit they also spent the most money too.

I agree that you want to get the most chances at the top prize. And I agree that you need a firm foundation to do so. I just disagree that you have to bail on one for the other. The Cubs are very fortunate that most of their specs are looking to not only pan out but pan out high. There is no denying what is happening.

 

[CSF77]

The Marlins did break up the team right after they won and the third time they went with this they bailed early. That doesn't mean it does not work, it means that the ownership was impatient.
The Cardinals are the classic team that did both and were successful. The BlueJays did both and were successful and the Yankees did both and were successful alebit they also spent the most money too.

I agree that you want to get the most chances at the top prize. And I agree that you need a firm foundation to do so. I just disagree that you have to bail on one for the other. The Cubs are very fortunate that most of their specs are looking to not only pan out but pan out high. There is no denying what is happening.

I think it had to do with taking the most major league ready hitters back to back. Alamora they went high school and it was a shot in the dark and to this point is still one.

Sox did well with Rondon. To be honest don't know about any else.

Long term Cubs should have pitching depth as that is the bulk of the lower rounds.

Yanks started with a youth movement but have the largest market that supported a 200 mil payroll.

Jays built their system but ended up using it as trade leverage vs using it.

Cubs are doing both right now. They developed a core and are now adding F/A around it. Long term I doubt they do what the Yanks did and blow up to 200 mil. More likely they retain some and trade others while letting the farm replenish.

 

[brett05]

I think it had to do with taking the most major league ready hitters back to back. Alamora they went high school and it was a shot in the dark and to this point is still one.

Sox did well with Rondon. To be honest don't know about any else.

Long term Cubs should have pitching depth as that is the bulk of the lower rounds.

Yanks started with a youth movement but have the largest market that supported a 200 mil payroll.

Jays built their system but ended up using it as trade leverage vs using it.

Cubs are doing both right now. They developed a core and are now adding F/A around it. Long term I doubt they do what the Yanks did and blow up to 200 mil. More likely they retain some and trade others while letting the farm replenish.

100% agree

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

Last year Smardzja had a 5.00 ERA and was barely 5th starter quality. When we play him we're going to rock the $hit out of him. I think its time for him to STFU before we destroy SF when we play them.

 

[DanTown]

The Marlins did break up the team right after they won and the third time they went with this they bailed early. That doesn't mean it does not work, it means that the ownership was impatient.
The Cardinals are the classic team that did both and were successful. The BlueJays did both and were successful and the Yankees did both and were successful alebit they also spent the most money too.

I agree that you want to get the most chances at the top prize. And I agree that you need a firm foundation to do so. I just disagree that you have to bail on one for the other. The Cubs are very fortunate that most of their specs are looking to not only pan out but pan out high. There is no denying what is happening.

WS wins the past 20 years

Florida - 2
Atlanta - 0

Playoff Appearances

Florida - 2
Atlanta - 13

Both times they won as a WC who won 92 and 91 games. They were unable to win 85 games within five years of either WS appearance. No smart team says "let's do what Florida did". They got lucky with two teams that caught lightning in a bottle. Smart teams say "hey, you know what, let's just try to win 90 games everyear and give us a chance every year".

 

[Bear Pride]

The shark is mad at the Cubs? LOL. Who cares? That's the very attitude that kept him from being a Cub. He's on a good team now, and he still can't STFU. I can't stand players like him.