Samardzija criticizes Cubs

[brett05]

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".

Just went over your's and PR's head. The Marlins bailed quickly after winning. Of course they had bad records afterwards. Smart teams are asking themselves why haven't we won two WS the past 20 years. Heck, why haven't we won one.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Just went over your's and PR's head. The Marlins bailed quickly after winning. Of course they had bad records afterwards. Smart teams are asking themselves why haven't we won two WS the past 20 years. Heck, why haven't we won one.

LOL. The Marlins are a joke. Statistically speaking the Braves had a better shot to win and win more often than the Marlins.

Edit: liking your post was an accident. I can't unlike it through tapatalk, but will do said removal when I can get to forum via computer.

 

[brett05]

I agree they were a joke, but it's only afterwards are they thought like that.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Just went over your's and PR's head. The Marlins bailed quickly after winning. Of course they had bad records afterwards. Smart teams are asking themselves why haven't we won two WS the past 20 years. Heck, why haven't we won one.

Brett are you really trying to say that the scattershot method of trying to win a World Series is preferable or even equal to building a strong foundation for sustainable winning? The odds against being able to do that are astronomical which is why so many teams that try it fail. The Padres last year are a perfect example. Rather than being patient with a talented farm system they traded off a huge chunk of it to win it all and ended up equally as bad and in worse shape organizationally. It's the wrong way to go about trying to win even if it works once in a while.

 

[brett05]

Brett are you really trying to say that the scattershot method of trying to win a World Series is preferable or even equal to building a strong foundation for sustainable winning? The odds against being able to do that are astronomical which is why so many teams that try it fail. The Padres last year are a perfect example. Rather than being patient with a talented farm system they traded off a huge chunk of it to win it all and ended up equally as bad and in worse shape organizationally. It's the wrong way to go about trying to win even if it works once in a while.

No, I am arguing that a team to have maximum success should do BOTH. Had the stance for 5ish years on CCS now.

 

[Diehardfan]

Brett are you really trying to say that the scattershot method of trying to win a World Series is preferable or even equal to building a strong foundation for sustainable winning? The odds against being able to do that are astronomical which is why so many teams that try it fail. The Padres last year are a perfect example. Rather than being patient with a talented farm system they traded off a huge chunk of it to win it all and ended up equally as bad and in worse shape organizationally. It's the wrong way to go about trying to win even if it works once in a while.

He's a White Sox fan and that's their MO.....does he have a choice?

 

[brett05]

For clarity, A team should not focus on one or the other. They should do both at the same time.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

No, I am arguing that a team to have maximum success should do BOTH. Had the stance for 5ish years on CCS now.

Pretty tough to do both without having a huge payroll and never having a farm system in the top 10 which means your payroll will always be high and you will more often than not pay guys for past performance. Do you have any examples of teams that make the playoffs greater than 50% of the time that manage to do both?

 

[brett05]

Pretty tough to do both without having a huge payroll and never having a farm system in the top 10 which means your payroll will always be high and you will more often than not pay guys for past performance. Do you have any examples of teams that make the playoffs greater than 50% of the time that manage to do both?

Teams that make the playoffs 50% of the time? I am going to go with no teams do.

The Cubs did have the #1 farm in all of baseball prior to the arrival of Theo (I want to say like 2003).

Teams that work on both the majors and the minors at the same time. Yankees, Cardinals, Giants, Red Sox to name a quick 4.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Teams that make the playoffs 50% of the time? I am going to go with no teams do.

The Cubs did have the #1 farm in all of baseball prior to the arrival of Theo (I want to say like 2003).

Teams that work on both the majors and the minors at the same time. Yankees, Cardinals, Giants, Red Sox to name a quick 4.

All of those teams went into their contention windows with solid farms systems, the Yankees famously so in the nineties with guys like Jeter, Posada, Bernie Williams and a few others. Once you build the foundation it's easier to sustain but sometimes you have to break it down and start over. The Phillies, Braves, Brewers and Reds are all doing that now. The Yankees haven't spent any real FA money in 3-4 years trying to ride out the bad contracts while developing a few solid prospects because their previous spending model was unsustainable.

 

[brett05]

All of those teams went into their contention windows with solid farms systems, the Yankees famously so in the nineties with guys like Jeter, Posada, Bernie Williams and a few others. Once you build the foundation it's easier to sustain but sometimes you have to break it down and start over. The Phillies, Braves, Brewers and Reds are all doing that now. The Yankees haven't spent any real FA money in 3-4 years trying to ride out the bad contracts while developing a few solid prospects because their previous spending model was unsustainable.

But the teams I mentioned while building the solid base also addressed the major league club at the same time. They didn't abandon the major league team and go all in on the minors. The Cubs have been super fortunate that it worked out for them by abandoning the major league club. Way too many examples of teams doing that and failing for years and years (Pirates, Royals, Twins to name a quick three).

It's always better to do both. It provides the least amount of risk and does not alienate the fans.

 

[Diehardfan]

But the teams I mentioned while building the solid base also addressed the major league club at the same time. They didn't abandon the major league team and go all in on the minors. The Cubs have been super fortunate that it worked out for them by abandoning the major league club. Way too many examples of teams doing that and failing for years and years (Pirates, Royals, Twins to name a quick three).

It's always better to do both. It provides the least amount of risk and does not alienate the fans.

Being fortunate had absolutely nothing to do with it. Theo was able to pull it off because 1) he pretty much warned everyone upfront that was the way to rebuild this franchise, 2) he knew how strong the fan base was, 3) he also knew that you might piss off some Cub fans but you won't lose them and 4) he really didn't have any other choice. Not many franchises would stand up to what he did, this might be the only one....he couldn't even do that in Boston with their crazed fans.

 

[DanTown]

They didn't abandon the major league team and go all in on the minors. The Cubs have been super fortunate that it worked out for them by abandoning the major league club.

You mean like when the Cubs signed Scott Feldman then flipped him for Arrieta/Strop?
Like when the major league team traded for Coghlan?
Like when the major league team signed Edwin Jackson for four years?

The Cubs didn't do what you're saying they did; the Cubs purposely didn't sign bad contracts to just try and win 80 games instead of 70. No good team tries to do what you're suggesting. That's why the Padres and White Sox didn't win much last year and why the Diamondbacks are probably going to win around 80 games now.

The Cubs are obviously fortunate that they acquired a lot of talent in the way they did; however, in baseball, when you acquire a lot of talent like they have, you can set up your franchise with just one or two of those guys hit. Bryant and Schwarber will be so cheap for so many years that it's worth to acquire these players.

 

[brett05]

You mean like when the Cubs signed Scott Feldman then flipped him for Arrieta/Strop?
Like when the major league team traded for Coghlan?
Like when the major league team signed Edwin Jackson for four years?

The Cubs didn't do what you're saying they did; the Cubs purposely didn't sign bad contracts to just try and win 80 games instead of 70. No good team tries to do what you're suggesting. That's why the Padres and White Sox didn't win much last year and why the Diamondbacks are probably going to win around 80 games now.

The Cubs are obviously fortunate that they acquired a lot of talent in the way they did; however, in baseball, when you acquire a lot of talent like they have, you can set up your franchise with just one or two of those guys hit. Bryant and Schwarber will be so cheap for so many years that it's worth to acquire these players.

Those moves for the MLB team sure shows a lack of abandonment. :facepalm:

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Brett, all of the teams you mentioned went through down times for several years before building the organizations that started winning championships. They Yankees were bad for 4-5 year period in the late 80's early 90's, the Cardinals were awful for a time in the mid 90's and the Giants were absolutely terrible between 2005-2008. The Red Sox, from your examples, are the only team that really were never terrible but they came in 2nd for like 10 years (!!!), I'd much rather my team suck for 4 or 5 than be 2nd for 10 years. There has always been rebuilding in baseball. The difference really lies in the cost of player contracts.

There was a time not long ago when you could be rebuilding and add 2-3 secondary stars on short contracts and hope to catch lightening in a bottle while still focusing on development. some year you'd be bad and throw in the towel to pick up prospects and you'd then get a decent draft pick, other years you'd compete with those secondary players. Now secondary stars in say the 3-4 WAR range make $12-$20 mil a year and you have to sign them to longer deals. So you need more younger players on your roster and then augment with the higher priced guys. If you're not developing talent you end up with a team like Baltimore that was the high spender in the offseason and has about zero chance of winning. The Angels are in teh same boat with the best player in baseball but the worst farm system and will be completely unable to field a competitive team around that player in his prime years. Wasting Mike Trout in his prime should be illegal in some way.

So you go ahead and believe what you want to believe but the exciting teams in baseball today include the Cubs and Astros and they'll be joined by some exciting Braves, Phillies and maybe Reds and Brewers teams in the near future. These are teams that in their in their bad year could possibly add a secondary star or two and hover around .500 and in the process make their development harder and longer. Mediocrity is 100 times worse than sucking in my view so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Wasting Mike Trout in his prime should be illegal in some way.

When you think about the stupid crazy haul Atlanta got for Shelby Miller, the Angels should consider trading him for a bunch of prospects. I'd consider trading the pitcher on the bump last night, too. If the prospects were right, that could be timed for Pujols contract almost being off the books, too. That team is toast.

Mediocrity is 100 times worse than sucking in my view so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Agreed. There is no hope in mediocrity. It only prolongs the misery.

 

[brett05]

Brett, all of the teams you mentioned went through down times for several years before building the organizations that started winning championships. They Yankees were bad for 4-5 year period in the late 80's early 90's, the Cardinals were awful for a time in the mid 90's and the Giants were absolutely terrible between 2005-2008. The Red Sox, from your examples, are the only team that really were never terrible but they came in 2nd for like 10 years (!!!), I'd much rather my team suck for 4 or 5 than be 2nd for 10 years. There has always been rebuilding in baseball. The difference really lies in the cost of player contracts.

I can't say what you would rather have. Baseball fans would rather have competition than no competition. It may not work, but at least try. The attendance justifies my statement. Even the Cubs dropped like 10+% of their attendance by not trying.
Almost forgot, the Braves of the 90's an 00's did both as well. I want BOTH, not DUMP, FAIL and HOPE.

If you're not developing talent you end up with a team like Baltimore that was the high spender in the offseason and has about zero chance of winning. The Angels are in teh same boat with the best player in baseball but the worst farm system and will be completely unable to field a competitive team around that player in his prime years. Wasting Mike Trout in his prime should be illegal in some way.

Because of the parity in the AL, both teams are potential playoff teams among the experts. The AL has only one team not considered a possibility this year for the playoffs and that's the A's.

So you go ahead and believe what you want to believe but the exciting teams in baseball today include the Cubs and Astros and they'll be joined by some exciting Braves, Phillies and maybe Reds and Brewers teams in the near future. These are teams that in their in their bad year could possibly add a secondary star or two and hover around .500 and in the process make their development harder and longer. Mediocrity is 100 times worse than sucking in my view so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

This last part I am in some agreement with you. You want to be in one of two spots. Winning it all or getting the #1 pick. But you should always be trying to do the first. The teams you mention (Braves, Phillies, Reds, Brewers) probably won't be the exciting teams of the future. Teams that stink usually continue to stink year in and year out. Royals, Pirates, Brewers, Rockies, Padres went thru years and in some cases decades of being bad. It's rare to have a team hit on so many young players. It was said all last year and this year the mantra has not changed. From that point, yes we agree to disagree.

But who really cares? How great was it to see our teams play and play well last night in a meaningful start to the season? Unless you are one of those that couldn't care less about playing the Angels that is.

 

[brett05]

When you think about the stupid crazy haul Atlanta got for Shelby Miller, the Angels should consider trading him for a bunch of prospects. I'd consider trading the pitcher on the bump last night, too. If the prospects were right, that could be timed for Pujols contract almost being off the books, too. That team is toast.

Agreed. There is no hope in mediocrity. It only prolongs the misery.

The Angels need starting pitching pretty badly.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I can't say what you would rather have. Baseball fans would rather have competition than no competition. It may not work, but at least try. The attendance justifies my statement. Even the Cubs dropped like 10+% of their attendance by not trying.
Almost forgot, the Braves of the 90's an 00's did both as well. I want BOTH, not DUMP, FAIL and HOPE.


Because of the parity in the AL, both teams are potential playoff teams among the experts. The AL has only one team not considered a possibility this year for the playoffs and that's the A's.




This last part I am in some agreement with you. You want to be in one of two spots. Winning it all or getting the #1 pick. But you should always be trying to do the first. The teams you mention (Braves, Phillies, Reds, Brewers) probably won't be the exciting teams of the future. Teams that stink usually continue to stink year in and year out. Royals, Pirates, Brewers, Rockies, Padres went thru years and in some cases decades of being bad. It's rare to have a team hit on so many young players. It was said all last year and this year the mantra has not changed. From that point, yes we agree to disagree.

But who really cares? How great was it to see our teams play and play well last night in a meaningful start to the season? Unless you are one of those that couldn't care less about playing the Angels that is.

The old way of building teams is out the window due to cost of even 2nd tier FA. That makes your comments regarding 90's teams quite moot. The teams that stink year in and year out have either bad/weak ownership or poor FO/scouting or both. Those teams you specifically mentioned are also mostly smaller market teams that can't pay big bucks for top FA. They have to continually build from the Farm to have any cost control.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

But who really cares? How great was it to see our teams play and play well last night in a meaningful start to the season? Unless you are one of those that couldn't care less about playing the Angels that is.

This we can agree with. Watching a guy like Arrieta go toe to toe with a guy like Trout is what baseball is all about.