Update On The "Great Moves".

[KBisBack!]

yet these "Bench Players" are playing at a better pace then the high cost veterans of 2010 and 2011 :shrug:

2010 46 - 61

2011 42 - 65

2013 49 - 58


I guess it was their bench then that cost them a chance at a winnng season..

I see you clearly still ignore the facts that two of the most productive players on the team this year were high priced veteran players who are no longer on the team.

Whoops.

 

[KBisBack!]

http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=606335 yep the kid blows, absolutely no potential there.

Oh my god!!!!

An ERA of about 3 in fucking A ball.

Clear a space in Cooperstown for him.

 

[The Bandit]

Oh my god!!!!

An ERA of about 3 in fucking A ball.

Clear a space in Cooperstown for him.

Who said anything about Cooperstown?

Excuses, excuses, excuses. This, but, that, but stop.

 

[Jntg4]

Oh my god!!!!

An ERA of about 3 in fucking A ball.

Clear a space in Cooperstown for him.

2.65 =/= 3, far from it. And a 1.96 in Daytona, which is Advanced-A, mind you. Actually a huge difference between Advanced-A, A, ans Short-season A. He's opened a lot of eyes and gotten pretty nice reviews from scouts lately. Top 10 in our system? No. Decent prospect? Hell yeah.

 

[chibears55]

I see you clearly still ignore the facts that two of the most productive players on the team this year were high priced veteran players who are no longer on the team.

Whoops.

yet the team has some how survived without them the last week going 4 and 3

 

[Boobaby1]

yet these "Bench Players" are playing at a better pace then the high cost veterans of 2010 and 2011 :shrug:

2010 46 - 61

2011 42 - 65

2013 49 - 58


I guess it was their bench then that cost them a chance at a winnng season..

The point I get from the other's is that just suppose the Cubs payroll was at 2010's rate of 144 million versus the 2013 payroll of 106 million.

Some on here feel that the Cubs could be making a push for a playoff spot if the payroll was allowed to be expanded to seemingly attainable levels like in 2010, and by not trying, the Cubs are basically forfeiting seasons.

Others feel that even with the payroll increase, the Cubs would not benefit enough from it.

The common denominator is that the farm is affected minutely either way in my opinion, and for starters, out of the that 38 million extra, 5 million could have been used to sway Anibal Sanchez over here, and one would have to think that a rotation of Shark, Garza, Sanchez, Feldman, Wood, Villy, and Baker would have been a decent rotation.

I know some will claim that there is no guarantee that Sanchez would have signed with the Cubs, but for an extra 10 million on his contract, and the fact that Theo himself said that "elite" free agents wanted to be a part of the Cubs regardless of the rebuild, I would think that he would be a good enough salesman to pull that deal off in my opinion. Plus, money talks usually.

You can come with your own scenarios as to how you would spend the additional 33 million on the team and where. An extra power bat could have been had with a lot of money to improve the bullpen for instance, and there would still be ample money available.

This is why the argument continues to go round and round. opcorn:

 

[KBisBack!]

2.65 =/= 3, far from it.

According to the link provided, his stats on this season show an ERA of 2.95, not 2.65.

Learn to read.

And a 1.96 in Daytona, which is Advanced-A, mind you.

Wow.

In FOUR whole starts.

Great sample size.

 

[KBisBack!]

yet the team has some how survived without them the last week going 4 and 3

Barely over .500 against the second and third worst teams in the NL this year.

Wow.

What a momentous accomplishment.

I am sure Cincy and St Louis are scared now.

 

[Jntg4]

According to the link provided, his stats on this season show an ERA of 2.95, not 2.65.

Learn to read.




Wow.

In FOUR whole starts.

Great sample size.

My bad, one of my eyes is bad right now with a bad stye, misread that. Still below 3 in Advanced-A ball.

And the four starts are indeed a small sample size, but recent scouting reports are not to be ignored.

 

[beckdawg]

We are now further away then two years ago at competing. Nothing has been added to improve the team. I don't care about the potential "extra money" available. They are showing no intentions of spending it any time soon. So all this regime has done for the ML team is Turd Wood, Rizzo, and Edwin Jackson in two fucking years. The rest is garbage. But I guess we are supposed to beileve it's for a higher cause while the team sinks deeper down the shitter in hopes of an occasional flash of lightning from Des Moines.

What a complete waste of time.

Not sure how you come up with they are farther away than they were. 2 years ago the cubs won 71 games. This year they are on pace for 64 wins. If they hadn't fire sold at the deadline they probably could have gotten to that 71 win mark or pretty close. They finished 25 games back 2 years ago. So, it's not like they were even close to being on the cusp of the playoffs and then the new regime screwed that up. Let's face facts. They were a bad team 2 years ago and they are a bad team now. The only difference is one GM was trying to save his job while the other is secure. So, to argue they are worse now is pretty silly in my opinion.

As for your other contention about not doing enough to improve the team, that debate is more interesting. Let's hypothetically say they increased payroll 25% for 2012. That in theory buys you 2 players. And for giggles let's say they brought back A-ram and signed Beltran to plug the rather large hole in RF. Also, let's assume they got replacement level play out of both positions in 2012 which is likely the case. Those two players would have netted ~9 WAR. The cubs finished 19 games back in the wild card. To give you some idea of what another 10 wins would be, Cliff Lee and Zach Greinke finished with 9.7 WAR for 2012

I'm not going to say WAR is the end all be all but for this type of situation it works well. The only way the 2012 cubs had a shot would have been if they increased payroll by 50%+. And that's even with hindsight. At the time there was no way to know that Beltran would produce as well as he did. Simply put, the cubs weren't a player or even 2 away. If they were then it would have made sense to buy them as they are a big market team.

The problem they have is that they have got next to nothing out of their farm system the past 5 years. We're talking Rizzo, Barney, Castro, Castillo and sort of Samardzija though he's been in the majors longer than that. And because of that, buying players doesn't do them any good because they still aren't winning a WS. An argument could be made a near playoff/playoff team has more value than one that is a top 5 worst team. And that's a perfectly fair statement. But the counter argument to that is if you know you can't win it all then you sell to hopefully restock your team faster in the hopes of winning sooner.

I'm personally of the opinion that most of the moves the cubs made have been logically correct. Buying low on guys like Maholm and Feldman has been a pretty nice boon to them. They basically payed a few million to trade for pitching prospects. They have gotten out from under two really straining contracts in Big z and Soriano. Rizzo for Cashner seems like a steal at this point. Travis Wood has pitched pretty well this year and his 3 WAR since becoming a cub is better than Marshall's 1.9. Considering they had next to nothing in their farm system this is a good start.

To me the real question is are they going to be players in FA this off season or are they going to pass again. The farm system they have rebuild is looking pretty decent offensively but there's a lot of questions in terms of pitching.

 

[KBisBack!]

Still below 3 in Advanced-A ball.

And the four starts are indeed a small sample size, but recent scouting reports are not to be ignored.

Yawn.

Recent scouting reports at one point had Ian Stewart being an All Star 3B.

Chris Volstad had an ERA of 3.08 for a season in A ball.

How did those work out?

I know this is unfathomable for some to understand, but not every player that puts up decent numbers in fucking A ball makes them a decent prospect to becoming a major league player.

Again this is a player who wasn't ranked in the top 20 of the Nationals prospects.

There is an overwhelming chance that he never even makes it past AA ball and is nothing more than what 95% of minor league players are, just there to facilitate the games for the 5% that have a chance of becoming quality big league players.

 

[KBisBack!]

Not sure how you come up with they are farther away than they were. 2 years ago the cubs won 71 games. This year they are on pace for 64 wins. If they hadn't fire sold at the deadline they probably could have gotten to that 71 win mark or pretty close.

But they DID fire sale at the deadline and got rid of two of the more productive players on the team.

Farther away.

They were a bad team 2 years ago and they are a bad team now. The only difference is one GM was trying to save his job while the other is secure. So, to argue they are worse now is pretty silly in my opinion.

They were a bad team two years ago and they are a worse team now.

Any reasonable breakdown of the rosters from the end of the 2011 season to right now will show clearly how the roster is worse.

To look at things accurately and reasonably is not silly.

Buying low on guys like Maholm and Feldman has been a pretty nice boon to them.

Really?? Exactly how so??

What production have they gotten the last year from the money spent on Maholm??

Nothing at all. Zip. Nada. Zero. Not one competitive pitch thrown at any level of the organization.

They basically payed a few million to trade for pitching prospects.

That likely will never become even average major league players.

They have gotten out from under two really straining contracts in Big z and Soriano.

They paid the full cost of Zambrano contract which expired at the end of last season anyway. They didn't get another team to pay one cent of his contract.

Wow. What a genius move that was to let time continue and pay the full contract till it expired.

They are also paying almost all of Soriano's contract. They saved all of $6M.

Fail.

Rizzo for Cashner seems like a steal at this point.

Really??

A starting pitcher who has put extended stretches this season of being an above average major league starter for a player who has put up below average numbers at 1B is a steal?

Please explain how trading an average to above average player for a below average player seems like a steal?

 

[dabynsky]

I love how winning a couple extra games at the major league level only matter to you when they back up your point.

You see me planning a parade?

No but I ask you to be consistent in your analysis. You've said a team is what it is record says it is. The record says this team is better than any Cubs team in the past five years at this point in the year.

The team that had Garza, Soriano and Feldman could have a case made was currently a better team than last year.

But I didn't see any of those players in the lineup for the Cubs today, nor do I think they will in the lineup tomorrow.

So let's here the case on how the team at the major league level is better right now.

And we shall see what happens from the rest of the year. The point is that you have consistently and constantly stated that wins at the major league level are the only real measure of success. You told me that run differentials don't matter. Farm systems don't matter. The only thing that counts are wins at the major league level. I'm just measuring this team the way you told me to measure this team, and in fact said I or anyone else was stupid to try to measure it by any other way.

 

[SilenceS]

Cashner for Rizzo is def. not a steal. Still a long ways to go to see who won that trade. Cubs had the edge last year. Padres have it this year. They both were solid young prospects.

 

[beckdawg]

But they DID fire sale at the deadline and got rid of two of the more productive players on the team.
To look at things accurately and reasonably is not silly.

It's silly to talk about how much "better" they were 2 years ago because they won 71 games tied for 5th worst in the league. Rationalize it however you want but the fact of the matter is they wouldn't have won 90 games in the next two years with or without Garza and Soriano. I'm sorry but that's just the way it is.They would have had to spend upwards of $75 million more per year to get there and with a payroll that was already hovering around $100 mil that just isn't going to happen. And even then it's no guarantee the players they bought would have panned out. Look at Josh Hamilton, had they signed him he would have just been another large albatross around the teams neck.

Really?? Exactly how so?? What production have they gotten the last year from the money spent on Maholm?? Nothing at all. Zip. Nada. Zero. Not one competitive pitch thrown at any level of the organization. That likely will never become even average major league players.

You understand the concept of a prospect right? By your argument it's pointless to even draft players because most of them will never even become major league players. They spent around $5 million and turn that into a prospect who when healthy was a top 50 prospect. As a comparison they spent $6.7 million on signing Bryant.

They paid the full cost of Zambrano contract which expired at the end of last season anyway. They didn't get another team to pay one cent of his contract.
Wow. What a genius move that was to let time continue and pay the full contract till it expired. They are also paying almost all of Soriano's contract. They saved all of $6M. Fail.

They saved 2.5 mil on Z's contract along with along with 6.8 million on Soriano's. That's $9 mil which effectively pays for the $4.75 mil they payed Maholm and $6 mil for Feldman.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...os-zambrano-cubs-trade-marlins/1#.Ufp2W41_09k
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130725&content_id=54762224&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

As I said there's stuff to dislike, about what the cubs have done but I hardly think selling Garza and Soriano made any difference. If you truly feel it did then please suggest a scenario that would have lead them to an 85-90 win season they would have needed over the past 2 years to make the wild card. Even if they keep Dempster the team that had all three was 71-91.

In terms of WAR replacement level team is set at 48-114 record. I think everyone can agree they have no farm system so trading for guys is likely out unless they took on heavy salary. RF was a pretty crappy platoon. So, let's give them Carlos Beltran(3.3 WAR in 2012) @ the 2 years $26,000,000 the cardinals gave him. Starters 3-5 were horrible. Let's say they they went after Yu Darvish(4.9 WAR) 6 years @ $60,000,000 + $51.7 mil posting fee. Jeff Samardzija came up with 3 WAR so he replaces one of the other 2. And let's give them Paul Maholm(2.2 WAR) @ 1 year $4,750,000. Coco Crisp(2.5 WAR) @ 2 years $14,000,000. Also they could have brought back Ramirez at 3 years $36,000,000

In 2012 that would have given you this team
C - Geovany Soto/Castillo 1.4 WAR
1B - Anthony Rizzo 1.7 WAR
2B - Darwin Barney 2.3 WAR
SS - Starlin Castro 3.1 WAR
3B - Aramis Ramirez 5.7 WAR
LF - Alfonso Soriano 3.6 WAR
CF - Coco Crisp 2.5 WAR
RF - Carlos Beltran 3.3 WAR

SP - Ryan Dempster 2 WAR
SP - Matt Garza 1.2 WAR
SP - Yu Darvish 4.9 WAR
SP - Jeff Samardzija 3 WAR
SP - Paul Maholm 2.2 WAR

This team puts them +36.9 WAR and would barely get them to 85 wins. That amounts to them spending $70.85 mil extra if you include the $15.5 mil they payed to get rid of big Z. I've seen varying numbers for their 2012 payroll between $88 and 108 mil so it would nearly double their salary and also has the benefit of hindsight knowing the best possible players they could have gotten for the various positions. The wild card in 2012 was 88 wins. So, they would have had to either out perform their WAR in reality or picked up 3 wins via bullpen/bench to even make the 2nd wild card.

That's literally the perfect scenario and they barely make the playoffs. If you have a better suggestion on how they could have improved I'm all ears. But the only way I see them getting into playoff contention is taking on additional salary the size of a lot of team's entire payroll($70.85 would have been higher than TB, PIT, KC, HOU, SD, and OAK). And you can say they are a big market team so they should spend like one but at the end of the day, that's not the FO's decision. It's the owners.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

I still don't get how people think spending big wins a WS or a playoff berth. Most teams that spend big fail and go through multiple retooling phases and end up in baseball hell. Most sports you need to develop young players in order to win, the one exception being basketball where you only start 5 players.

Yes by trading away their best players they become worse off for this year and next year, but going from 75 wins to 65 wins is a good thing because it nets you a higher draft pick.

Especially if those players traded won't be on your team in the future trading them for more assets in 2017, when you hope the team is WS bound.

The team is doing things the right way by collecting assets. This is how the Yanks did it in the 90's the Red Sox the past 10 years, TB, STL, SF, these are the teams that do it year after year. The evidence is in the successes of other teams.

It is like making a 5 year bond investment and bitching about how you aren't seeing any returns after 2 years, before it hits a maturity date.

 

[SilenceS]

I still don't get how people think spending big wins a WS or a playoff berth. Most teams that spend big fail and go through multiple retooling phases and end up in baseball hell. Most sports you need to develop young players in order to win, the one exception being basketball where you only start 5 players.

Yes by trading away their best players they become worse off for this year and next year, but going from 75 wins to 65 wins is a good thing because it nets you a higher draft pick.

Especially if those players traded won't be on your team in the future trading them for more assets in 2017, when you hope the team is WS bound.

The team is doing things the right way by collecting assets. This is how the Yanks did it in the 90's the Red Sox the past 10 years, TB, STL, SF, these are the teams that do it year after year. The evidence is in the successes of other teams.

When is the last time any of those teams lost a 100 games? TB cant win it because they cant keep their assets. St. Louis reloads every year and is always in contention. They have never bombed to reload their system. Never. San Fran will spend big money and had a core of pitchers that are falling apart right now. The Cubs needed to build the farm, but now it is time to get competitive. This is a big market team with big market assets. Waiting for the first wave of prospect to be successful is suicide. To many fail for that. The Cubs have their first wave, now they need to keep building while putting out a team that can compete and then you intergrade the young kids as years go on.

 

[KBisBack!]

No but I ask you to be consistent in your analysis. You've said a team is what it is record says it is. The record says this team is better than any Cubs team in the past five years at this point in the year.

And is the team that has compiled that record so far this year the same team that will take the field today, tomorrow or next week??

No??

I am pointing out that the team that compiled the slightly better record is not the same team moving forward so how can you point to improvement when the players mostly responsible for the improvement aren't on the team anymore?

If the team that is currently constructed has a higher winning percentage during the post trade period than the winning percentage in the last few years I will listen to talk of improvement.

I will not listen to talk of improvement when most of the main pieces producing the improvement are no longer playing for the Cubs and won't be playing for the Cubs going forward.

There was an interesting discussion on local sports radio this morning.

Apparently there were a lot of prospect loving, Royals fans throwing their sippy cups all over the place because the Royals traded an A ball pitcher for Justin Maxwell.

The local host, Soren Petro said that whining about a prospect being given up for a major league player is a bottom feeding mentality.

He said that fans who were more concerned with the Baseball America rankings than wins for the major league team were losers. That winners care more about wins at the major league level than number of top 100 prospects. They talked about how Cardinal fans don't care about their prospects as much as they care about the major league team winning games.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

When is the last time any of those teams lost a 100 games? TB cant win it because they cant keep their assets. St. Louis reloads every year and is always in contention. They have never bombed to reload their system. Never. San Fran will spend big money and had a core of pitchers that are falling apart right now. The Cubs needed to build the farm, but now it is time to get competitive. This is a big market team with big market assets. Waiting for the first wave of prospect to be successful is suicide. To many fail for that. The Cubs have their first wave, now they need to keep building while putting out a team that can compete and then you intergrade the young kids as years go on.

You are right that we are a big market team. But when Theo took over we never had any assets, now we do.

And those teams don't lose 100 games because they have amazing farm systems, something we didn't have in the past. STL could lose Pujols, Boston could lose A Gon, Ellsbury, etc.. And replace them with farm guys.

If we want to be consistently good year after year, it requires a deep farm system. We didn't have one and had to blow things up.

 

[dabynsky]

And is the team that has compiled that record so far this year the same team that will take the field today, tomorrow or next week??

No??

I am pointing out that the team that compiled the slightly better record is not the same team moving forward so how can you point to improvement when the players mostly responsible for the improvement aren't on the team anymore?

If the team that is currently constructed has a higher winning percentage during the post trade period than the winning percentage in the last few years I will listen to talk of improvement.

I will not listen to talk of improvement when most of the main pieces producing the improvement are no longer playing for the Cubs and won't be playing for the Cubs going forward.

There was an interesting discussion on local sports radio this morning.

Apparently there were a lot of prospect loving, Royals fans throwing their sippy cups all over the place because the Royals traded an A ball pitcher for Justin Maxwell.

The local host, Soren Petro said that whining about a prospect being given up for a major league player is a bottom feeding mentality.

He said that fans who were more concerned with the Baseball America rankings than wins for the major league team were losers. That winners care more about wins at the major league level than number of top 100 prospects. They talked about how Cardinal fans don't care about their prospects as much as they care about the major league team winning games.

And we shall see but here are the early results:
Since Feldman's last start in a Cubs uniform: 17-14
Since Garza's last start in a Cubs uniform: 7-8
Since Soriano's last start in a Cubs uniform: 5-4

Extremely small sample sizes but it is what we are left with since this is the only acceptable measure. The rest of your post just reinforces what I've been trying to do which is analyzing this team by the measure that you say are acceptable.