- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
I'll comment on the bolded here a bit. They were able to get Carp, and Lohse because they were kinda seen as washed up trash, hurt or not worth the risk. Those weren't "big" signings at the time and pretty much seen as roster fillers or reclamation risk/reward projects a bit.So far JZ and I greatly disagree on how we would run the team; and thats fine. I feel Ricketts and Theo shouldnt sacrifice the current state of the ML team for the sake of only focusing on the farm system we will be lucky if 1-2 of these highly touted kids becomes half of what they're hyped to be.
He listed the cardinals as a prime example of a consistent winning team; and I alluded to the fact the Cards didnt just build the farm, they did BOTH build the farm while signing/acquiring the right players. Earlier in the thread I listed a host of names that didnt originally come from the Cards, but mostly from signings and trades. They signed Chris Carpenter and Eckstein, and Kyle Lohse and Jason Isringhausen. They traded Major Leaguers (NOT prospects, if you think 6 and 7 year vets are prospects thats as dumb as saying a 30 year old man is still a child) for Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds (who was traded for MVP David Freese). The big piece acquired for prospects was Matt Holliday; but still St Louis smells like roses because nobody can tell me what Brett Wallace and Clay Mortenson are doing.
The cards are NOT a prime example of building farm then cultivating and fielding talent; they make the SMART move at the RIGHT time. You want an example of building a great farm system; tampa bay rays. Oakland Athletics. Small market teams who cant afford to keep multiple stars.
The cubs are not small market. The cubs are not the A's or Rays; financially handicapped. The cubs are a top revenue team in baseball. The brand sells, wrigleyville and the stadium sell, losing sells, beer sells. They have money to spend, and yet they dont. A competitive team we feel is NOT too much to ask for. Eric Chavez's 2 year 8 million is something the cubs should have jumped all over; because I'm starting to believe a garbage bag is better than Ian Steward and Valbuena.
Ignoring obvious major league need to fill a pipeline who's ETA is looking like another 3 years is something the Miami Marlins, Athletics, and Rays do.
Not the Chicago Cubs.
Edmonds deal did have a "prospect" in it. Adam Kennedy. Kennedy had only made his MLB debut in late 99(after being drafted in 97) and I believe was the MVP of the PCL. He was a top 100 spec heading into that 1999 season. When Kennedy was traded for Edmonds he had played in barely 30 MLB games. The Rolen trade had a spec in it too. Bud Smith.(granted he was somewhat proven with 6 wins in 2001 but he was still on 22 years old and not an established vet). He was still playing in his first full MLB season when he was traded.
Also, tough to compare the Cards in the early and mid 2000's and even now to how the Cubs should be built right this second. The Cardinals have been competently built for the better part of 20-30 years on a really consistent basis at this point so they can supplement their holes in prospect building with FA signings and stay competitive over that time. The Cubs have never really been competently run in their entire modern history so I think the initial building phase of what the Cubs are trying to do can't really be compared to what the Cardinals were doing in the early to mid 2000"s with an already really well established well run organization. I agree I think the Cardinals model is beyond excellent and something for the Cubs to shoot for, I just don't think that it's really fair or accurate to compare the two processes at this point because the Cubs in 2013 don't have the organizational base the Cardinals did in the early 2000's when they were making those moves.
Last edited: