I don't get why you're still trying to argue about WAR. I've repeatedly stated it isn't 100% accurate.
Because you continue to insist on using it to 'prove' if the Cubs had spent money how they still wouldn't have made the playoffs.
The fact remains is that the Cubs could have spent money on better players the last two seasons attempting to have a successful major league team (how awful that would be) without significantly impacting the attempt of building a strong farm system.
The still would have had Javier Baez, they still could have signed Jorge Soler, they still could have drafted Albert Almora, they still could have signed their international signings this offseason. Maybe they wouldn't have gotten Pierce Johnson or Kris Bryant, but to have lost out on Johnson it would have taken a significant FA signing like Prince Fielder and if you have Fielder you don't need to trade Cashner. So that becomes an option of Fielder and Cashner vs Rizzo and Johnson. Odds are overwhelming that Fielder and Cashner will end up the more productive duo over the next 8 or so seasons. If you don't get Bryant that means that you actually had a decent to good major league season. Oh the horror of that and guess what?? You still get to draft in the first round. There have been plenty of great major league players drafted in the middle to late of the first round.
Your assertion that the cubs should build like Yankees, Boston, Philadelphia and the LA teams yes? They should be in the $125 mil + payroll range?
Yep. They have the resources to spend the maximum for the draft and international market and still field a payroll of $140-150 million.
No one has said that the Cubs shouldn't spend the maximum on the system. Not one person.
The white sox sit at $124,065,277 and have 40 wins. San Francisco sits at $142,180,333 49 wins.
The Giants have also won the World Series 2 of the last 3 seasons.
But by your cherry picking of them this season, I guess we shouldn't try to duplicate what they have done right?
Yes the White Sox are in a tough spot this season, but I bet they have a winning season again before the Cubs do, cause the Sox will do that silly little both thing. Try to build their system while trying to field a competitive major league team.
The yanks have $228,995,945 in payroll sit at 56 wins and are 8.5 back in the division.
And the Yankees have been to the playoffs 17 out of the last 18 seasons.
Easy to cherry pick this season when most of their top players have been hurt.
The angles currently have 50 wins and $142,165,250 payroll. Philly has 50 wins too and $159,578,214 in payroll. Other high payroll teams include Toronto(50 wins $118,244,039 payroll), Washington(53 wins $112,431,770 payroll), Cubs(49 wins $104,150,726 payroll). That accounts for 8 of the top 15 payrolls who probably aren't in playoff contention.
And most people were picking Toronto and Washington to be in the WS this year. There isn't one reasonable fan around who wouldn't have traded places with either one of those teams in Spring Training. Revisionist history.
Also in the spring all the slurpers were pointing to the Nationals as they way to build a team. Now after 3/4 of an unsuccessful season they are now the poster child for how to not build a team?? Convenient.
In the bottom half of payrolls Arizona(56 wins $90,158,500) 3.5 back in division, Atlanta(65 wins $89,288,193), Baltimore(61 wins $91,793,333) 4.5 back, Cleveland(60 wins $82,517,300), Tampa(64 wins $57,030,272), Oakland(63 wins $68,577,000), Pittsburgh(65 wins $66,289,524). So, there's as many teams in the bottom half of the league in payroll as their are in the top half.
So we are now using Pittsburgh as an example of how to run a franchise? Really??
The Pirates who havent had a winning season since 1992??? That is how you want this franchise run??
Arizona is going to come up short and miss the playoffs finishing probably about .500. You know they same kind of results you and the prospect worshippers say is a worthless result and a position that is impossible to build long term success from.
Atlanta is convenient to use again this year now that they are in first place. Facts show that over the last 8 seasons the Cubs have been more successful than the Braves. Braves have two Wild Card berths while the Cubs have two Division Titles. Yes Division Titles matter.
We will see with Cleveland.
Tampa has better people running their plan and don't have the resources to run it any other way. You don't think the Front Office there wishes they could go out and add some quality, high dollar free agents?? If you say yes, you are completely delusional.
We will get to Oakland and Baltimore in a moment.
So my question is why is how Oakland and Baltimore build off limits? Clearly paying to win doesn't work out as well as you're suggesting. At best its a 50/50 proposition. What you're suggesting is how Theo ran the Red Sox and ended up with Crawford and that team that basically lead to him being removed.
Oakland and Baltimore's build's are not off limits.
They are just being run by smarter and better people.
Billy Beane and Dan Duquette are better GM's and team builders than Epstein and Hoyer.
Beane might be the best GM in the history of baseball despite not winning a WS yet.
Duquette has now had success at two different franchises.
Epstein hasn't had success anywhere that Duquette didn't hand him a loaded toy box.
Epstein also got run out of town because Kevin Youkilis got old and injury prone and the system didn't develop anyone to take over for him. Because Lester went from one of the top young pitchers in the league to an average starter that the system didn't develop a replacement for. Because Buchholz hasn't been healthy or consistent enough. Same with Ellsbury.
The down turn of the Red Sox the last couple years can be pointed as much to the failure of the home grown players at the major league level and the absence of quality players in the minors to step in.
How did the Red Sox turn themselves around this year? Yes some of the home grown players have rebounded like Ellsbury, but they also went out and spent money to bring in Napoli, Victorino, Drew and Dempster and benefitted from a rebound season from John Lackey.
Yes trying to do the both this might be a 50/50 proposition, but building a core of a long term successful team only using the farm system is likely a 1/50 proposition.
If you're going to model after any team it should be the Cardinals. They contend every year.
Yes the Cardinals have been consistently successful but they have also had some unbelievable luck in the drafting of Albert Pujols and the FA signing of Chris Carpenter. Probably the two biggest contributors to the 2 World Series the Cards have won recently.
So I guess you are saying the Cubs should base their rebuilding plan on drafting the best hitter of our generation in the 13th round and picking up a starter off the scrap heap who had serious arm problems who turned it around into being one of the top Aces of the last decade??
Yeah, that is a reasonable plan.
They almost never go crazy in FA but instead try to find quality bargains.
They also don't have the resources that the Cubs have.
They also spend more in the FA market than people want to admit.
They spent heavily on Matt Holiday
For example, they let Fielder and Pujols go and instead signed Beltran relatively cheaply at $13 million a season instead of the 20-25 Pujols and Fielder got.
And you and most other Cub fans would have shit all overthemselves had the Cubs spent $13 million a season on Carlos Beltran at the age of 35.
But it has worked out well so you can now point your revisionist history finger at it as a great move.
And most importantly, they typically have a strong farm system.
Not always.
A couple years ago when they won the WS they had one of the 5 worst systems as ranked by Baseball America.
It is a sustainable system because they have the talent in their farm system and because they rarely get stuck in bad contract hell like a lot of the teams mentioned previously. They are neither too invested in prospects nor are they heavily invested in older talent. They are the happy medium.
It is a sustainable system because they make every effort to field a quality major league team so they don't have to rely on a heavy influx from the farm system like the Cubs are currently.
The Cards find quality major league players so they only need to find one or two players every few years to plug into their lineup, not develop the entire core at the same time like the current plan is for the Cubs.
No matter how much you wish to believe it, the so called 'bad contract hell' doesn't significantly impact the development of the farm system. You can only spend about $15 million a season on the draft and international signings and until the Cubs get into the $160M payroll range, there shouldn't be any impact on the spending they can do at the minor league level.
That happy medium you suggest is the thing called doing BOTH that you so consistently argue against doing.
