Tanaka Watch Thread (Cubs Edition)

[beckdawg]

one can make a case about the farm but lets not forget that they lead the majors in payroll how many years?


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

His point was for all that money they spent in the past decade they won a single title. As a cubs fan it's kind of tough to say "only" but let's be realistic here, if that were the single key to winning a title they would have a lot more to show for it. On the contrary, when they built a core group of their own guys from their farm system they won numerous titles. Though to be honest, I'm not really sure any of that matters any more because it's a different game in terms of building a farm system. This cubs den article covers it well I think.

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/...t-pickshighest-bonus-pools-under-the-new-cba/

In the past, the yankees could essentially buy higher draft picks because they had the budget to get any player they drafted. There's now limits to that. And what's worse if you cross over those limits there are some fairly harsh penalties. The same also applies to international spending. Previously the yankees could sign whomever they wanted and that's how they brought in a lot of younger latin players.

What I'm interested to see is how teams trying to exploit these rules. I like the way the cubs over spent in IFA because there's been talk of a international player draft as well. Because they have limits this year, they have trading assets in their signing slots which are tradeable. Last year the cubs gave up a fringe prospect in order to be able to get rid of Marmol. It's possible they move some of their excess for some interesting fringe types like Corey Black. I've also heard some theories where a team who plans on spending big in FA the following year could over spend in IFA and on the draft losing picks and then also losing the picks for FA but they would then be like 3rd or 4th round picks instead of 1st round picks for those with qualifying offers. Though, I have to believe the MLB would have some sort of issue with this rule skirting.

 

[SilenceS]

His point was for all that money they spent in the past decade they won a single title. As a cubs fan it's kind of tough to say "only" but let's be realistic here, if that were the single key to winning a title they would have a lot more to show for it. On the contrary, when they built a core group of their own guys from their farm system they won numerous titles. Though to be honest, I'm not really sure any of that matters any more because it's a different game in terms of building a farm system. This cubs den article covers it well I think.

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/...t-pickshighest-bonus-pools-under-the-new-cba/

In the past, the yankees could essentially buy higher draft picks because they had the budget to get any player they drafted. There's now limits to that. And what's worse if you cross over those limits there are some fairly harsh penalties. The same also applies to international spending. Previously the yankees could sign whomever they wanted and that's how they brought in a lot of younger latin players.

What I'm interested to see is how teams trying to exploit these rules. I like the way the cubs over spent in IFA because there's been talk of a international player draft as well. Because they have limits this year, they have trading assets in their signing slots which are tradeable. Last year the cubs gave up a fringe prospect in order to be able to get rid of Marmol. It's possible they move some of their excess for some interesting fringe types like Corey Black. I've also heard some theories where a team who plans on spending big in FA the following year could over spend in IFA and on the draft losing picks and then also losing the picks for FA but they would then be like 3rd or 4th round picks instead of 1st round picks for those with qualifying offers. Though, I have to believe the MLB would have some sort of issue with this rule skirting.

Theo did the same thing in Boston. It why people cant truly say Theo knows what he is doing because it was a completely different ballgame drafting when he was with the Red Sox.

 

[TL1961]

The Yankees did NOT win 27 WS by spending a ton of money.

They won 20+ before free agency, and teh late 90's was with their own home grown talent.

For all the FA splashes they make, they have won few WS in the years when they had the big name high priced pitchers.

They won one with Clemens. Not too many others come to mind.

(Though I would love to have the problem of trying to remember which guys were on which WS winner!)

 

[TL1961]

cbssports.com is reporting today that it's down to the same five teams they reported it was down to two weeks ago.

 

[beckdawg]

We want results. Its not rocket science. It also hasn't happened.

Tanaka and his people don't see your stats within the stats. They don't care. They see a team in the Yankees with the culture and attitude that they want to win every year, no matter what the costs.

I was talking about toward others here not about the cubs but whatever. I'm pretty sure everyone here save for the sox fans wants to see the cubs win. So, I don't really see why people need to get nasty toward one another. Being a dick to someone hardly makes one person a "better" fan than someone who's a kool-aid drinker. If people want to be optimistic let them have their dreams. For those who don't believe and take that lack of faith to the point of talking down basically everything the cubs do I just don't see why they bother being cubs "fans" unless it's some sort of masochistic thing. Surely one of the pre-requisites for being a fan is finding some enjoyment in the subject matter which many on here don't see to have. I don't know seems to me that there's a lot of fair weather going around here. If results are the reason someone is a fan then why on earth would anyone choose the cubs in the first place? If that's the sole reason someone is a fan then they obviously have made a mistake and probably should be looking for another team. If not, then I'd suggest focusing on what one enjoy rather than being so negative.

As for Tanaka and his people, if they don't care then why are the cubs reportedly a finalist? If Tanaka wants to go to a winner then good for him. But it's highly doubtful he'll be remembered for it unless he turns into one of the best pitchers in the league. Honestly, if that's the type of person he is then he's probably not right for the cubs anyways. The cubs obviously have a stigma and they need players who want the challenge of winning in spite of that history.

 

[brett05]

I'm not sure people want the Cubs to win. Even their own fans, well some of them anyway.

They are the loveable losers and make a ton from it. Will it still be cool to go to Cubs games if they win?

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[Chris J]

I'm not sure people want the Cubs to win. Even their own fans, well some of them anyway.

They are the loveable losers and make a ton from it. Will it still be cool to go to Cubs games if they win?

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

Well that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard you say.. Planfield East or North?

 

[patg006]

I was talking about toward others here not about the cubs but whatever. I'm pretty sure everyone here save for the sox fans wants to see the cubs win. So, I don't really see why people need to get nasty toward one another. Being a dick to someone hardly makes one person a "better" fan than someone who's a kool-aid drinker. If people want to be optimistic let them have their dreams. For those who don't believe and take that lack of faith to the point of talking down basically everything the cubs do I just don't see why they bother being cubs "fans" unless it's some sort of masochistic thing. Surely one of the pre-requisites for being a fan is finding some enjoyment in the subject matter which many on here don't see to have. I don't know seems to me that there's a lot of fair weather going around here. If results are the reason someone is a fan then why on earth would anyone choose the cubs in the first place? If that's the sole reason someone is a fan then they obviously have made a mistake and probably should be looking for another team. If not, then I'd suggest focusing on what one enjoy rather than being so negative.

As for Tanaka and his people, if they don't care then why are the cubs reportedly a finalist? If Tanaka wants to go to a winner then good for him. But it's highly doubtful he'll be remembered for it unless he turns into one of the best pitchers in the league. Honestly, if that's the type of person he is then he's probably not right for the cubs anyways. The cubs obviously have a stigma and they need players who want the challenge of winning in spite of that history.

You can have your dreams if you think the 2017 projected line up will contain nothing but cubs farm system products. I'll call you a fool and disagree, because that's not how teams get formed, especially winning teams.

What do I enjoy? A winning team. Want me to be happy and Mr. Sunshine? Get the President and GM to put a legitimate, competitive product on the field. Instead, we get doozies like this from the cubs convention from the horse's mouth:

"We're not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes: We're a last-place team."

This right here, bothers me. He's not even trying to put a major league team on the field.

Why are the cubs a finalist for Tanaka?

Money talks. Its that simple.

But in all these reports saying the cubs are going to overspend any team (about god damn time they shell out dough people kept rushing to defend Boy Blunder and his cash constrained job), the constant is that Tanaka doesn't want to play for a loser.

Don't misquote, I spew negativity for this embarrassment of a baseball team on a daily basis because even the smallest improvements that wouldn't damage the precious farm are ignored. If they get Tanaka, even if he bombs I'll cut Boy Blunder slack. He spent money.

 

[brett05]

Well that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard you say.. Planfield East or North?

1) I wrote it
2) neither Illinois state scholar high honors Lewis grad
3) this isn't my original thought. It comes from people that no way more than anyone here

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[patg006]

I'm not sure people want the Cubs to win. Even their own fans, well some of them anyway.

They are the loveable losers and make a ton from it. Will it still be cool to go to Cubs games if they win?

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

It'll be expensive as ****....

 

[brett05]

If they pay top dollar now it sure ain't going down

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[Chris J]

You can have your dreams if you think the 2017 projected line up will contain nothing but cubs farm system products. I'll call you a fool and disagree, because that's not how teams get formed, especially winning teams.

What do I enjoy? A winning team. Want me to be happy and Mr. Sunshine? Get the President and GM to put a legitimate, competitive product on the field. Instead, we get doozies like this from the cubs convention from the horse's mouth:

"We're not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes: We're a last-place team."

This right here, bothers me. He's not even trying to put a major league team on the field.

Why are the cubs a finalist for Tanaka?

Money talks. Its that simple.

But in all these reports saying the cubs are going to overspend any team (about god damn time they shell out dough people kept rushing to defend Boy Blunder and his cash constrained job), the constant is that Tanaka doesn't want to play for a loser.

Don't misquote, I spew negativity for this embarrassment of a baseball team on a daily basis because even the smallest improvements that wouldn't damage the precious farm are ignored. If they get Tanaka, even if he bombs I'll cut Boy Blunder slack. He spent money.

I would agree because the Cubs are on record for saying that they will spend the dollars when their prospects are starting to come up and emerge. So I don't think a 2017 lineup of just prospects is even a question.

My question is this:

The Cubs haven't won in a century. Hendry tried spending the big bucks on free agents and it didn't work. You see teams like the Angels spend a lot of money and the results aren't there. You have the right to disagree with the Cubs plan of building a foundation but if spending hasnt worked for the Cubs, why are you against trying to go young and build a foundation?

 

[Jntg4]

Or me

:yeah:

 

[patg006]

I would agree because the Cubs are on record for saying that they will spend the dollars when their prospects are starting to come up and emerge. So I don't think a 2017 lineup of just prospects is even a question.

My question is this:

The Cubs haven't won in a century. Hendry tried spending the big bucks on free agents and it didn't work. You see teams like the Angels spend a lot of money and the results aren't there. You have the right to disagree with the Cubs plan of building a foundation but if spending hasnt worked for the Cubs, why are you against trying to go young and build a foundation?

Do your homework, Theo boy.

Hendry had this team competitive in 6 of his 8 seasons (not counting 2002 because he took over as GM over halfway through the season) with playoffs 3 times. Between 03-11 This team was in the hunt and competitive sans 2006 (Derrek Lee's broken wrist) and 2011. Tell me how many teams would kill for an 8 year span like that? Constantly competitive and 3 playoff appearances.

I'm against this 'method' because its NO guarantee of success, yet everybody talks about it like we should book 2016 or 2017 and beyond a decade of consistency and excellence and guaranteed wins because the luckiest guy in the world won a ring twice with Boston.

Bullshit.

This has been tried and failed before. The cubs have to find a middle ground mixing a farmhand or two, free agent, and trade. That is the best method, a balanced mix. That has been proven time again. Relying entirely on a farm system has not worked. The cubs are a team in exceptional position in a large market where they have money to spend small market teams wish they did.

 

[Jntg4]

Still have a higher payroll than the Blackhawks, Bulls and Fire

 

[waldo7239117]

much better chance with the yanks than the cubs


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

Oh yeah for sure. I wasn't saying that. I say no to playoffs to both. That's what I was saying.

 

[Chris J]

Do your homework, Theo boy.

Hendry had this team competitive in 6 of his 8 seasons (not counting 2002 because he took over as GM over halfway through the season) with playoffs 3 times. Between 03-11 This team was in the hunt and competitive sans 2006 (Derrek Lee's broken wrist) and 2011. Tell me how many teams would kill for an 8 year span like that? Constantly competitive and 3 playoff appearances.

I'm against this 'method' because its NO guarantee of success, yet everybody talks about it like we should book 2016 or 2017 and beyond a decade of consistency and excellence and guaranteed wins because the luckiest guy in the world won a ring twice with Boston.

Bullshit.

This has been tried and failed before. The cubs have to find a middle ground mixing a farmhand or two, free agent, and trade. That is the best method, a balanced mix. That has been proven time again. Relying entirely on a farm system has not worked. The cubs are a team in exceptional position in a large market where they have money to spend small market teams wish they did.

No, sorry back to back first round exits aren't anything to be that excited about.

And Tampa Bay relied just about entirely on their farm system... At least they got to the World Series.

 

[DewsSox79]

Do your homework, Theo boy.

Hendry had this team competitive in 6 of his 8 seasons (not counting 2002 because he took over as GM over halfway through the season) with playoffs 3 times. Between 03-11 This team was in the hunt and competitive sans 2006 (Derrek Lee's broken wrist) and 2011. Tell me how many teams would kill for an 8 year span like that? Constantly competitive and 3 playoff appearances.

I'm against this 'method' because its NO guarantee of success, yet everybody talks about it like we should book 2016 or 2017 and beyond a decade of consistency and excellence and guaranteed wins because the luckiest guy in the world won a ring twice with Boston.

Bullshit.

This has been tried and failed before. The cubs have to find a middle ground mixing a farmhand or two, free agent, and trade. That is the best method, a balanced mix. That has been proven time again. Relying entirely on a farm system has not worked. The cubs are a team in exceptional position in a large market where they have money to spend small market teams wish they did.

I agree. lots of luck has to happen in order for a total farm to work out plus the time frame is long as ****. tampas luck was price,shields,longoria and moneyball esque moves


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris J]

Do your homework, Theo boy.

Hendry had this team competitive in 6 of his 8 seasons (not counting 2002 because he took over as GM over halfway through the season) with playoffs 3 times. Between 03-11 This team was in the hunt and competitive sans 2006 (Derrek Lee's broken wrist) and 2011. Tell me how many teams would kill for an 8 year span like that? Constantly competitive and 3 playoff appearances.

I'm against this 'method' because its NO guarantee of success, yet everybody talks about it like we should book 2016 or 2017 and beyond a decade of consistency and excellence and guaranteed wins because the luckiest guy in the world won a ring twice with Boston.

Bullshit.

This has been tried and failed before. The cubs have to find a middle ground mixing a farmhand or two, free agent, and trade. That is the best method, a balanced mix. That has been proven time again. Relying entirely on a farm system has not worked. The cubs are a team in exceptional position in a large market where they have money to spend small market teams wish they did.

2004: Had a good record but not good enough
2005: 4 game under .500 4th in the central. not good enough
2006:66-96 30 games under. not good enough
2007: First round playoff exit not good enough
2008: First round playoff exit not good enough
2009: 83-78 not good enough
2010: 12 game under not good enough
2011: 20 game under not good enough


So in this span from 2004-2011 the Cubs always had a high payroll that bought team two first round exits and four seasons under .500. If you're content with making the playoffs twice in seven seasons with two first round exits then fine. I happen to expect more than that.. Cubs are trying something different that they believe will bring long-term success. I'll believe in it when having a top payroll did squat

 

[DewsSox79]

2004: Had a good record but not good enough
2005: 4 game under .500 4th in the central. not good enough
2006:66-96 30 games under. not good enough
2007: First round playoff exit not good enough
2008: First round playoff exit not good enough
2009: 83-78 not good enough
2010: 12 game under not good enough
2011: 20 game under not good enough


So in this span from 2004-2011 the Cubs always had a high payroll that bought team two first round exits and four seasons under .500. If you're content with making the playoffs twice in seven seasons with two first round exits then fine. I happen to expect more than that.. Cubs are trying something different that they believe will bring long-term success. I'll believe in it when having a top payroll did squat

money was spent poorly. they went for it all and the window was open just a little bit and it closed.


Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk