Trades I Wish the Cubs Never Made

[zack54attack]

Ted Lilly

 

[JosMin]

Sammy Sosa :fap:

 

[2323]

Shark:---------1.29 ERA---1.05 WHIP----6.43 K/9
Hammel:-----2.63 ERA---0.51 WHIP----7.42 K/9
Wood:--------2.92 ERA---1.14 WHIP---12.41 K/9
Jackson:-----6.19 ERA---1.88 WHIP----7.87 K/9
Villanueva:-11.59 ERA---2.14 WHIP----5.79 K/9

When Arrieta gets back this rotation will not look that bad right now.

We can toss W/L out the window right now with them. The over all team was bubble gummed together.

Cashner is not going to provide more wins for the Cubs this year. Rizzo's O will provide more wins this year.

The team need run support more than SP at this time. Yes Villanueva sucks but he will be replaced soon.

I would have promoted Tsuyoshi Wada today and shit canned Carlos after that last turd. But W/E.



As an over all view of things. The trades have been good. Even if Cash is better than Rizzo. Rizzo still holds quality value. Then you have to look at the other trades. Maholm for Viz. Then Marshall for Wood. Then Dempster for Hendricks, Garza for a truck load. Feldman for Arrietta and Strop.

Over all they have loaded up.

The one bad transaction they made: Signing Jackson. That one was just stupid.

The one bad no transaction not resigning A-Ram. (Well they got out bid on 2 great pitchers but W/E)

The rest of them was never going to happen. (IE Fielder)

Jackson, like most everyone, was signed with the idea in mind that they'd eventually flip him. So far, he's been awful...probably easily the worst pitcher on the team in spite of being highly paid. But pitchers occasionally have good years and it just takes that one decent season for them to flip him to some pitching needy contending team.

 

[Jntg4]

in before Lou Brock.

Saw this thread, was about to post it.

 

[Flacco4Prez]

Hamilton is obvious. Archer to TB is not worth putting on there. Garza gave the Cubs good years and ultimately led to Olt and Edwards. Cashner maybe good, but let's give Rizzo the year to prove himself. An above average 1B is more valuable than an above average SP.

I would include trading Soriano to the Yankees on this.

 

[hyatt151]

in before Lou Brock.

Or Bill Madlock.

 

[Flacco4Prez]

Not a trade, just the worst baseball decision in my lifetime, letting Greg Maddux walk to the Braves

 

[SilenceS]

Not a trade, just the worst baseball decision in my lifetime, letting Greg Maddux walk to the Braves

See, there is a misconception among Cubs fans. The Cubs have always been a cash cow and has always spent like a mid market. Maddux was an example. The Hendry years was mainly the only years the Cubs just spent. Its engrained in the owners DNA it seems.

 

[beckdawg]

See, there is a misconception among Cubs fans. The Cubs have always been a cash cow and has always spent like a mid market. Maddux was an example. The Hendry years was mainly the only years the Cubs just spent. Its engrained in the owners DNA it seems.

The trib didn't always have the best interest in the cubs as a team a heart. For example, WGN obviously got a friendly TV contract where as other teams stick it to TV channels. In the case of WGN, it was mutually beneficial to the Trib. On top of that, there's other issues like not resolving the rooftop issue long before it started. I've said this a lot but look at what the Cardinals have done with the rooftop village or whatever the **** they are calling it. They own that, create the same atmosphere but also get paid out of it not to mention having far fewer headaches. It's a case of being penny smart and pound dumb. All of those poor decisions lead to their more mid market budget because they were being poorly utilized financially.

It's still too early to say on this front office from a business standpoint. I do wonder if staying in wrigley long term is a mistake. I get why you wouldn't want to move but 28 other teams are not sticking to "tradition." Boston has made it work after years of mistakes. However, another historic franchise in the Yankees choose to build new. I think it's a bit difficult to say at this point which decision is better long term.

 

[2323]

It's easy to say they should move out of Wrigley but when you're the one making that decision, it's not so easy. It's a game of chicken. The truth is they don't know if people are more devoted to the team or the stadium--and they don't want to learn this lesson the hard way, when it's too late. What person wants to be ridiculed because you left Wrigley behind and incorrectly assumed people would flock to Rosemont the same way the did to Clark and Addison.

 

[beckdawg]

It's easy to say they should move out of Wrigley but when you're the one making that decision, it's not so easy. It's a game of chicken. The truth is they don't know if people are more devoted to the team or the stadium--and they don't want to learn this lesson the hard way, when it's too late. What person wants to be ridiculed because you left Wrigley behind and incorrectly assumed people would flock to Rosemont the same way the did to Clark and Addison.

There's 28 other cities where they go to a stadium that isn't "historic." Would their attendance be as high? Probably not but that's not the point I'm getting at. Currently they have something like $12.5 mil in maintenance to wrigley a year. If you say tickets are $50 that's 250k attendance of which they had like 2.5 mil last year or 10%. My point is essentially if moving to some where else is a 10% drop in attendance it's a wash. Now, I don't know if that sort of profit analysis is accurate because I don't know the teams whole financial situation. All I'm saying is that it is entirely possible that even with a drop in attendance they might make as much money maybe even more.

 

[brett05]

Hamilton is obvious. Archer to TB is not worth putting on there. Garza gave the Cubs good years and ultimately led to Olt and Edwards. Cashner maybe good, but let's give Rizzo the year to prove himself. An above average 1B is more valuable than an above average SP.

I would include trading Soriano to the Yankees on this.

Not even close. The above average starting pitcher is way more valuable than the above average 1b.

 

[nwfisch]

That has nothing to do with anything. You are comparing what the Cubs are currently making to what in your mind the Cubs could hypothetically make in a new stadium, and you are concluding that the team's financial situation isn't good. WTF? You are basically saying that the Cubs' current exorbitant profit margin could be even more astronomical in a new stadium, but since the Cubs are stuck at Wrigley they can't compete financially with the Tampa's and Kansas City's of the MLB.

If the Cubs build a Jumbotron, they will win a World Series the following season.

 

[2323]

There's 28 other cities where they go to a stadium that isn't "historic." Would their attendance be as high? Probably not but that's not the point I'm getting at. Currently they have something like $12.5 mil in maintenance to wrigley a year. If you say tickets are $50 that's 250k attendance of which they had like 2.5 mil last year or 10%. My point is essentially if moving to some where else is a 10% drop in attendance it's a wash. Now, I don't know if that sort of profit analysis is accurate because I don't know the teams whole financial situation. All I'm saying is that it is entirely possible that even with a drop in attendance they might make as much money maybe even more.

This is shoddy. You can't just casually assume the 10% drop at Wrigley is a 10% drop at a different stadium. A 10% drop at Wrigley likely means a much more significant drop somewhere else. Also, good luck charging the same price for tickets at another venue. Your analysis completely neglects to consider that Wrigley itself is an attraction and it's partly why the can charge the ticket prices they do and also, it's why the 10% decrease isn't more significant.

Besides, two years ago when the Cubs lost 100 games, they were the most profitable team in baseball.

Sorry, but like someone else said, your post makes little sense

 

[beckdawg]

That has nothing to do with anything. You are comparing what the Cubs are currently making to what in your mind the Cubs could hypothetically make in a new stadium, and you are concluding that the team's financial situation isn't good. WTF? You are basically saying that the Cubs' current exorbitant profit margin could be even more astronomical in a new stadium, but since the Cubs are stuck at Wrigley they can't compete financially with the Tampa's and Kansas City's of the MLB.

Where did I say any of that? I said that a new stadium might enable them to make more money. Not once did I say they couldn't compete at their currently level.

 

[beckdawg]

This is shoddy. You can't just casually assume the 10% drop at Wrigley is a 10% drop at a different stadium. A 10% drop at Wrigley likely means a much more significant drop somewhere else. Also, good luck charging the same price for tickets at another venue. Your analysis completely neglects to consider that Wrigley itself is an attraction and it's partly why the can charge the ticket prices they do and also, it's why the 10% decrease isn't more significant.

Besides, two years ago when the Cubs lost 100 games, they were the most profitable team in baseball.

Sorry, but like someone else said, your post makes little sense

And you're assuming there would be a drop in attendance which may or may not happen in a new stadium. My point all along is I don't know whether or not a new stadium makes them more money. I'm just suggesting it's no where near as clear cut as some make it out to be. Is Wrigley a great draw? Yes. But there in lies the issue. It's not the team that's the draw. It's the stadium. Hell if anything those bitching about what the cubs spend should hope they move out of wrigley because then to draw fans you'd actually have to put a quality product on the field.

My point is that the tribune's actions have left them in a situation where they spend more like a mid-market team such as the cardinals rather than a large market team like the Red Sox, Dodgers, or Yankees. Staying in wrigley as long as they have is part of that problem. They didn't play home night games til the 80's for crying out loud. Let me be clear though, as I've long said, spending doesn't necessarily mean you're a better team(see: cardinals). What I'm getting at is people act like they should be the Red Sox/Dodgers/Yankees when their parent company for most of the past 30 years treated the team like a mid-market team. There's a reason this current ownership group is having to build a latin facility. There's a reason they had to improve their spring training facility. Ultimately is that the reason they've not won a title? No. But it's a symptom of the problem which is mismanagement of the team. That filters down to hiring GM's/managers/whatever.

 

[chibears55]

I disagree to a point that its all about WF as to fans showing uo..
It was WF pre Harry Carey when it was empty and those bars were there to hang out at.

Harry, a decent team , and a star attraction like Sosa is what mainly filled the seats not WF.

Attendance has dropped the last couple yrs cause the team got bad and there no attraction to draw tge fans out.. so the whole theory of fans will go to WF because they just want to go there to drink beer and hang out is hogwash.

The true fans and fans who just come out for good teams and star players will go to a new stadium just as well..

Cubs are the cubs , baseball is baseball..
Fans will go to watch

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

 

[SilenceS]

I know how they can fill the stadium. Bring back the best players in my life. The man, the myth , the legend.................. Augie Ojeda!

 

[beckdawg]

I know how they can fill the stadium. Bring back the best players in my life. The man, the myth , the legend.................. Augie Ojeda!

I wish Andre Dawson was more involved with the cubs to be honest. I was always a pretty big fan of him.

 

[2323]

And you're assuming there would be a drop in attendance which may or may not happen in a new stadium. My point all along is I don't know whether or not a new stadium makes them more money. I'm just suggesting it's no where near as clear cut as some make it out to be. Is Wrigley a great draw? Yes. But there in lies the issue. It's not the team that's the draw. It's the stadium. Hell if anything those bitching about what the cubs spend should hope they move out of wrigley because then to draw fans you'd actually have to put a quality product on the field.

My point is that the tribune's actions have left them in a situation where they spend more like a mid-market team such as the cardinals rather than a large market team like the Red Sox, Dodgers, or Yankees. Staying in wrigley as long as they have is part of that problem. They didn't play home night games til the 80's for crying out loud. Let me be clear though, as I've long said, spending doesn't necessarily mean you're a better team(see: cardinals). What I'm getting at is people act like they should be the Red Sox/Dodgers/Yankees when their parent company for most of the past 30 years treated the team like a mid-market team. There's a reason this current ownership group is having to build a latin facility. There's a reason they had to improve their spring training facility. Ultimately is that the reason they've not won a title? No. But it's a symptom of the problem which is mismanagement of the team. That filters down to hiring GM's/managers/whatever.

And it is indeed a relatively safe assumption. Why? If it wasn't they'd move the team.

Now you're just hamster-wheeling around an already faulty position.

Good luck with that.