There's No 'plan B' for rebuilding Cubs

[Boobaby1]

Why are people syill blaming epstein for the payroll ? That Ricketts deciding where he wants payroll to be..

As far as the players go.. when you drop from 150 to 100 in a matter of 2 seasons, your obviously letting go of some talent and having to replace them with players who would normally be a 20-25 man on roster that would take a minimal salary and bringing in young kids from the system that playing at low cost.

For me , im not gonna judge epstein and hoyer much for what they've done tbeir first 2 offseasons with the psrent club because that was more of dismantling and finding whatever players willing to come and play for them at low cost and knowing their not gonna be competitive. . Basically what they got mostly were players looking to revive their careers with them. knowing theyd be flipped to another team if they succeed and could get a better deal the next yr...
Im gonna judge them more on these next 2 off seasons as I expect to see them adding pieces to the core via system, trades ,and FA and expect to see a team being competitive by 2016.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

Because it has been publically stated that when he needs the money, it will be there. As bad as the Cubs have been, I can't think of a better time to start opening up the checkbook and adding something in the form of a player or two.

Also, as far as payroll is concerned, once again, why would Epstein take a job that had such restrictions on payroll? Are you telling me that he knew nothing of the sort during his interview? If he did, he is an absolute idiot.

At least the so-called Albatross contract will be off the books so we won't have to hear about that after this year. Now we can focus on E-Jax holding the team back from spending. I can't wait to see what flippable pieces they will bring in with the Soriano money.

I guess am having a hard time believing in long-term success amidst being frozen in long-term failure. When will the thawing out begin?

 

[Boobaby1]

Again it would net them what.. 10-12 more wins maybe ?
So instead of 60-65 they win 70-75

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

Shark, Wood, and Arrieta are cost controlled, and Hammel is on the cheap. Please tell me why they couldn't have added any offense whatsoever to aid Rizzo and Castro, and opted to throw utility players out there instead?

And remember, every season is considered "precious".

 

[JP Hochbaum]

1. LA Dodgers $235,295,219
2. NY Yankees $203,812,506
3. Philadelphia Phillies $180,052,723
4. Boston Red Sox $162,817,411
5. Detroit Tigers $162,228,527
6. LA Angels $155,692,000
7. San Francisco Giants $154,185,878
8. Texas Rangers $136,036,172
9. Washington Nationals $134,704,437
10. Toronto Blue Jays $132,628,700
11. Arizona Diamondbacks $112,688,666
12. Cincinnati Reds $112,390,772
13. St. Louis Cardinals $111,020,360
14. Atlanta Braves $110,897,341
15. Baltimore Orioles $107,406,623
16. Milwaukee Brewers $103,844,806
17. Colorado Rockies $95,832,071
18. Seattle Mariners $92,081,943
19. Kansas City Royals $92,034,345
20. Chicago White Sox $91,159,254
21. San Diego Padres $90,094,196
22. NY Mets $89,051,758
23. Chicago Cubs $89,007,857
24. Minnesota Twins $85,776,500
25. Oakland A's $83,401,400
26. Cleveland Indians $82,534,800
27. Pittsburgh Pirates $78,111,667
28. Tampa Bay Rays $77,062,891
29. Miami Marlins $47,565,400
30. Houston Astros $44,544,174

Can you tell me the correlation coeeficient to spending and winning? I see a 20% chance of winning the WS if you are in the top 10. That really is horrible odds.

 

[Boobaby1]

Can you tell me the correlation coeeficient to spending and winning? I see a 20% chance of winning the WS if you are in the top 10. That really is horrible odds.

The way I take it, look at all the teams that have been to the WS and/or have won it. If you go outside of the top 10, you will find the Cardinals, White Sox, and Rays as teams that have been there as of late.

Aside from that, there has been major success by spending. The Angels are the exception as they seem to have miserable contract after miserable contract.

When the A's, Royals, Pirates, Astro's, Rockies, and Marlins to name a few start making it there on a regular basis, then an argument for frugality can be made.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

The way I take it, look at all the teams that have been to the WS and/or have won it. If you go outside of the top 10, you will find the Cardinals, White Sox, and Rays as teams that have been there as of late.

Aside from that, there has been major success by spending. The Angels are the exception as they seem to have miserable contract after miserable contract.

When the A's, Royals, Pirates, Astro's, Rockies, and Marlins to name a few start making it there on a regular basis, then an argument for frugality can be made.

But the Cubs aren't trying to win, that is the thing people need to understand. The Cubs brass won't outright say this, but it is obvious to anyone. Which i am cool with. I would rather have ten years sustained success from a strong farm system, then a team spending 200 million that plays .500 ball. I know it isn't a guarantee but it has a proven track record to work better than buying a team. And once we get the young guys here the spending will happen, likely on pitching since we have little of that coming up.

 

[nwfisch]

But the Cubs aren't trying to win, that is the thing people need to understand. The Cubs brass won't outright say this, but it is obvious to anyone. Which i am cool with. I would rather have ten years sustained success from a strong farm system, then a team spending 200 million that plays .500 ball. I know it isn't a guarantee but it has a proven track record to work better than buying a team. And once we get the young guys here the spending will happen, likely on pitching since we have little of that coming up.

No, they just say this team is a playoff team

Don't piss on my leg and call it rain.

 

[Parade_Rain]

No, they just say this team is a playoff team

Don't piss on my leg and call it rain.

If the President of the United States can tell everyone "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it", surely the Cubs brass should be able to sucker the slurping fans.

 

[Mongo_76]

Can you tell me the correlation coeeficient to spending and winning? I see a 20% chance of winning the WS if you are in the top 10. That really is horrible odds.

Your math.... Um... Wow...

SMH

Can you enlighten us all on the "correlation coeeficient" (whatever the hell that is) when you're spending is in the bottom 10?

 

[Mongo_76]

I know it isn't a guarantee but it has a proven track record to work better than buying a team.

The Yankees are laughing their ass off at you right now...

 

[CSF77]

Can you tell me the correlation coeeficient to spending and winning? I see a 20% chance of winning the WS if you are in the top 10. That really is horrible odds.

I see a 0% chance for the Cubs right now.

20>0

Dont need
In statistics, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (/ˈpɪərsɨn/) (sometimes referred to as the PPMCC or PCC or Pearson's r) is a measure of the linear correlation (dependence) between two variables X and Y, giving a value between +1 and −1 inclusive, where 1 is total positive correlation, 0 is no correlation, and −1 is total negative correlation. It is widely used in the sciences as a measure of the degree of linear dependence between two variables. It was developed by Karl Pearson from a related idea introduced by Francis Galton in the 1880s.

to figure that.

Swear nerds taking over.....

 

[SilenceS]

There is always a plan B. Its just if plan A dont work. Theo Jed wont be working on a plan B.

 

[diavolos]

But the Cubs aren't trying to win, that is the thing people need to understand. The Cubs brass won't outright say this, but it is obvious to anyone. Which i am cool with. I would rather have ten years sustained success from a strong farm system, then a team spending 200 million that plays .500 ball. I know it isn't a guarantee but it has a proven track record to work better than buying a team. And once we get the young guys here the spending will happen, likely on pitching since we have little of that coming up.

ask the yankees about that one. or the florida marlins, times 2.

but you are right about one thing, the cubs are not trying to win.

i find the farm system comment that you and the others trot out here to be so perplexing. less than one quarter of all "prospects" even make it to the major league level. even less are productive. banking the entire future of the club and it's "sustained success" on prospects is simply puzzling in modern day baseball.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

ask the yankees about that one. or the florida marlins, times 2.

but you are right about one thing, the cubs are not trying to win.

i find the farm system comment that you and the others trot out here to be so perplexing. less than one quarter of all "prospects" even make it to the major league level. even less are productive. banking the entire future of the club and it's "sustained success" on prospects is simply puzzling in modern day baseball.

I think something like 80% of top twenty make it to all star games, and a large percentage of top 100 definitely make the bigs. It isn't about how many prospects we have but the quality of them. And our quality is rated 1 or 2 right now.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

The Yankees are laughing their ass off at you right now...

So Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Robinson Cano, and the numerous prospects they traded for major league talent had no bearing on them winning?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Your math.... Um... Wow...

SMH

Can you enlighten us all on the "correlation coeeficient" (whatever the hell that is) when you're spending is in the bottom 10?

Why would I do that? My claim is not that we will win with spending in the bottom ten.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

No, they just say this team is a playoff team

Don't piss on my leg and call it rain.

Of course they say that. A GM would be outright dumb to say they aren't a playoff team. If I owned a team and my GM said that they would be fired. part of a GM's job is to sell the product on the field, and even if it is bad you have to shine it up a bit. Its sales and marketing.

 

[diavolos]

So Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Robinson Cano, and the numerous prospects they traded for major league talent had no bearing on them winning?

have you seen some of the talent that the yankees brought in during the 90's? no one is denying that grooming players isn't efficacious to help, note i said help, stock your major league roster. but seriously. look at the yankees teams from 1996 onwards and tell me that there wasn't a ton of money spent on big time players.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

have you seen some of the talent that the yankees brought in during the 90's? no one is denying that grooming players isn't efficacious to help, note i said help, stock your major league roster. but seriously. look at the yankees teams from 1996 onwards and tell me that there wasn't a ton of money spent on big time players.

And no one is claiming that we shouldn't make the same splash once we get our young guys up here, but first things first, we have to get the young guys up here.

 

[nwfisch]

Of course they say that. A GM would be outright dumb to say they aren't a playoff team. If I owned a team and my GM said that they would be fired. part of a GM's job is to sell the product on the field, and even if it is bad you have to shine it up a bit. Its sales and marketing.

THE OWNER said this.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/02...a-team-right-now-that-can-go-to-the-playoffs/

 

[Raskolnikov]

THE OWNER said this.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/02...a-team-right-now-that-can-go-to-the-playoffs/

Well he isn't a very smart man.