PDA

View Full Version : Why are the Cubs/Theo getting a 3-year "pass"?


Harry Chappas
04-11-2012, 05:37 PM
I've heard it/read it countless times that the Cubs fandom should expect to lose for at least the next few years. John Dewon (SP?) even said on the Score that it could take up to 5 years to rebuild the organization. To Epstein's credit, while acknowledging that a rebuild will take time, he has said their immediate objective is to win a championship and I don't think he's put a time-table on it.

But what puzzles me is why/how they are so screwed up that it would take 3-5 years to fix. Their farm system is certainly better than the Sox and probably average overall. But for Soriano, they don't have any horrible contracts and even if they did, they have the financial means to pay for their mistakes. And with free agency, I just don't get why it would take them - or any team - 3-5 years to reasonably expect to compete.

Just curious...

WhiteSox5187
04-11-2012, 05:40 PM
I've heard it/read it countless times that the Cubs fandom should expect to lose for at least the next few years. John Dewon (SP?) even said on the Score that it could take up to 5 years to rebuild the organization. To Epstein's credit, while acknowledging that a rebuild will take time, he has said their immediate objective is to win a championship and I don't think he's put a time-table on it.

But what puzzles me is why/how they are so screwed up that it would take 3-5 years to fix. Their farm system is certainly better than the Sox and probably average overall. But for Soriano, they don't have any horrible contracts and even if they did, they have the financial means to pay for their mistakes. And with free agency, I just don't get why it would take them - or any team - 3-5 years to reasonably expect to compete.

Just curious...

I don't think the Cubs farm system is that much better than the Sox. As for their pass, they are certainly trying to lower expectations for the coming seasons but we will see how much of a pass they get if they have three straight 90+ loss seasons.

DumpJerry
04-11-2012, 05:49 PM
No reason to worry about this. They say three years to keep the fanbase interested for at least that long.

kittle42
04-11-2012, 05:50 PM
It's logical - why not give them a pass? A new regime (with a history of success) + an obvious, obvious, admitted re-build - so they get a pass on 2012 and maybe even on 2013. Not sure of the 5-year thing - that seems a bit much.

This all said, there will be many silly Cubs fans calling for Epstein's head after this season no matter what. Of course, they just don't get it.

SoxSpeed22
04-11-2012, 05:57 PM
I find it odd how both sides of town took different approaches in building their teams. The Cubs have a lot of retread veterans/ failed prospects on their team, while the Sox decided to go with more unproven guys to go with their veterans. So far, the unproven guys have done better, but it's only been 5 games.

DumpJerry
04-11-2012, 06:10 PM
Of course, the fanbase is in for a surprise when they realize the new CBA takes away Theo's favorite toy: paying over slot in the draft.

HomeFish
04-11-2012, 07:46 PM
Because announcing that Andy MacPhail, Dusty Baker, Lou Pinella, Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, Derek Lee, Augie Ojeda, and any number of previous saviors would immediately lead to a contending team worked out so well for them?

Golden Sox
04-11-2012, 09:13 PM
The franchise on the Northside is so popular they basically can do anything they want and still draw 3 million people. I'm under the impression the bad guys have sold close to 3 million tickets already this season. Does it really matter if they win or not this year? 3 million tickets sold means there going to make a ton of money this year. As far as giving Epstein 3 years to turnaround the team. If they have 3 years of losing close to a hundred games a year and there attendance starts to decline, Theo will be gone.

RKMeibalane
04-11-2012, 10:28 PM
Most Cubs fans don't know how count higher than three, and saying that the Cubs will contend immediately isn't realistic.

kittle42
04-11-2012, 11:10 PM
Most Cubs fans don't know how count higher than three

That's because beer sales are capped at two per customer.

ComiskeyBrewer
04-12-2012, 03:38 AM
Of course, the fanbase is in for a surprise when they realize the new CBA takes away Theo's favorite toy: paying over slot in the draft.

This. I'll be very interested to see how well he does when he can't overpay his 2nd -7th round picks by $3-4 Million.

StillMissOzzie
04-12-2012, 03:45 AM
Because announcing that Andy MacPhail, Dusty Baker, Lou Pinella, Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, Derek Lee, Augie Ojeda, and any number of previous saviors would immediately lead to a contending team worked out so well for them?

You left out hitting coach to the stars Rudy Jaramillo.

SMO
:gulp:

RedHeadPaleHoser
04-12-2012, 08:35 AM
They've had a 100+ year pass; 3 more won't matter.

DrCrawdad
04-12-2012, 08:38 AM
You left out hitting coach to the stars Rudy Jaramillo.

SMO
:gulp:

You're right! That had to have been one of the most hyped signings of a hitting coach.

The other night they put a camera on Jaramillo for a brief moment as he sat on the bench. He looked wholly distracted and like he was picking bugs from his hair.

palehozenychicty
04-12-2012, 01:46 PM
This. I'll be very interested to see how well he does when he can't overpay his 2nd -7th round picks by $3-4 Million.

That, and as someone mentioned, it's better than hyping the masses for a return that has absolutely no chance. Of course, that return represents participating in a World Series.

SI1020
04-12-2012, 04:06 PM
They've had a 100+ year pass; 3 more won't matter. Really, you've explained it all. Nothing more need be said.

Frontman
04-12-2012, 05:55 PM
Just plain baseball common sense. This year is a wash, next year Theo and company begin to put together the team they want, and year three is when they SHOULD contend.

No more, no less.

gosox41
04-13-2012, 12:20 AM
I've heard it/read it countless times that the Cubs fandom should expect to lose for at least the next few years. John Dewon (SP?) even said on the Score that it could take up to 5 years to rebuild the organization. To Epstein's credit, while acknowledging that a rebuild will take time, he has said their immediate objective is to win a championship and I don't think he's put a time-table on it.

But what puzzles me is why/how they are so screwed up that it would take 3-5 years to fix. Their farm system is certainly better than the Sox and probably average overall. But for Soriano, they don't have any horrible contracts and even if they did, they have the financial means to pay for their mistakes. And with free agency, I just don't get why it would take them - or any team - 3-5 years to reasonably expect to compete.

Just curious...

Under promise, over deliver. Trying to keep fans interested and not piss them off too much so they continue to go to games. If they get good earlier, excitement increases, attendence spikes.


Bob

Moses_Scurry
04-13-2012, 12:30 AM
New managers/gm's always get at least a 1 year pass and usually 2 year passes unless it is a team like the Yankees or a placeholder like Mike Quade. It is common sense that if a new GM is brought in, it means the team is a mess because of the old GM. It has to be assumed that it will take 1-2 years to clean up the mess.

I bet if the cubs stink this year and next, there will be plenty that start turning against Theo. Ricketts seems like a big Theo fanboy though, so I bet he won't fire him for much more than 3 years, even if they are really bad.

Bob Roarman
04-13-2012, 07:50 AM
Don't want to give them a pass? Then don't give them a pass.

doublem23
04-13-2012, 08:00 AM
Don't want to give them a pass? Then don't give them a pass.

Obviously this is a question based in generalities, not a person-by-person response

Bob Roarman
04-13-2012, 08:26 AM
Well they're talking about the Chicago media and, right off the bat with the vast majority of them, they don't even really know how to cover the city's own sports. Or understand them for that matter in specific examples/circumstances. So I don't really take what they say or expect from any of our teams with much more than a grain of salt, don't know why anyone else would do more than that either if they've seen it long enough.

Dan H
04-20-2012, 08:58 AM
Obviously, you have to give new management time to turn a low-life team like the Cubs around. However, if I were a Cubs fan, I'd be tired of being told that I have to be patient. The team hasn't even appeared in a World Series since the end of World War II. Cubs fans should tell their team that want to see real progress accomplished. Happy talk and all this idiotic "Hope Springs Eternal" stuff is a bunch of nonsense that only a bunch of mindless sheep would buy. But then again, these are Cubs fans we are talking about.

Broccoli Rob
04-20-2012, 09:20 AM
Pew pew, got ya Cubs fans and Chicago media! Man, stereotypes never get tired.

As many have said, Theo gets a pass because he inherited a poorly run team and a constant "win now" mentality leads to teams with huge implosions seemingly on the near horizon, like our own Chicago White Sox.

Lip Man 1
04-20-2012, 12:05 PM
Broc:

The difference is if the Cubs win 50 games or 100 they'll draw three million. The Sox organization knows if they go into a rebuilding mode and announce it as such, it will be a disaster attendance-wise.

They HAVE to win, or Sox fans will not show up to support garbage. (Just look at how they are drawing this year for example...three losing seasons in the past five years will do that.)

That's where upper management is crucial in knowing what 'veteran' players to get who can still actually play.

Kenny's main problem hasn't been (in my opinion) his "go for it" mentality after Ron Schueler that's been a god-send, but the fact that he's taken MAJOR risks on players who have serious issues hoping they "rebound."

That normally doesn't work very well or these guys wouldn't have been available in the first place.

Lip

Hitmen77
04-20-2012, 04:25 PM
I'd say there are 3 main reasons:

1. This is the Cubs. For some reason, their fans and the media buy into every one of their "saviors". Remember "in Dusty we trusty"? Before that it was Andy McFail and so forth back to Dallas Green.

2. The Cubs, unlike the Sox, have at least had a management shake up. For the White Sox, Ozzie and Walker may be gone, but it's the same old organization team that has brought us bust after bust for the last 10 years. What are the Sox doing different now that would give us reason to "give them 3 years"?

3. Lip nails it for #3. The Cubs can take 3 or 5 or 8 years. They'll still have the crowds to bring in revenue to keep their payroll near the top of the league. The Sox on the other hand, seem to already be heading into pre-2005 territory. They look to be heading to a situation where they can't develop their own talent and they don't (or at least claim to not) have enough revenue to get enough quality players to fill the holes in their lineup.

I'm not saying I think Theo is guaranteed to succeed with the Cubs (we've heard that story from Cubs kool aid drinkers before), but despite both teams sucking this year, they appear to be in a better position to get back into contention than the Sox.

Broc:

The difference is if the Cubs win 50 games or 100 they'll draw three million. The Sox organization knows if they go into a rebuilding mode and announce it as such, it will be a disaster attendance-wise.

They HAVE to win, or Sox fans will not show up to support garbage. (Just look at how they are drawing this year for example...three losing seasons in the past five years will do that.)

That's where upper management is crucial in knowing what 'veteran' players to get who can still actually play.

Kenny's main problem hasn't been (in my opinion) his "go for it" mentality after Ron Schueler that's been a god-send, but the fact that he's taken MAJOR risks on players who have serious issues hoping they "rebound."

That normally doesn't work very well or these guys wouldn't have been available in the first place.

Lip

Many other teams who take gambles on players can either have more revenue to fall back on (Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs) or more talent in the farm system to fall back on. The Sox seem to have neither.

StillMissOzzie
04-21-2012, 01:47 AM
I'd say there are 3 main reasons:

1. This is the Cubs. For some reason, their fans and the media buy into every one of their "saviors". Remember "in Dusty we trusty"? Before that it was Andy McFail and so forth back to Dallas Green.



Let me add another to your list of what I like to call "This Year's Saviour": Jim Lefebvre. Remember the "Lefebvre Belebvre" t-shirts sported by the blue sheep back in the 90's?

I just looked this up: for Lefebvre's 2 year tenure with the Cubs, he was 162 - 162, with records of 78-84 in 1992 and 84-78 in 1993, and two 4th place finishes.

SMO
:rolleyes:

doublem23
04-21-2012, 02:33 AM
2. The Cubs, unlike the Sox, have at least had a management shake up. For the White Sox, Ozzie and Walker may be gone, but it's the same old organization team that has brought us bust after bust for the last 10 years. What are the Sox doing different now that would give us reason to "give them 3 years"?

Bust after bust... With a title in the middle there. I dislike the 2005! justifying everything from then on mindset, but at least you have to give him credit where it is due, even if you think it was a fluke. I know KW's failures have been frustrating the last few years, but he also was probably the single most important person in assembling the 2005 team. I'm pretty sure that every player on that roster was either acquired by KW as GM or drafted and developed by the Sox while KW was head of Player Development, with the exception of Jon Garland, who was drafted by the Cubs and acquired by Ron Schueler in 1998 (IIRC), but he still spent the majority of his minor league career with the Sox.

And, FWIW, 1 World Series in 10 years is a track record that's currently eclipsed by only 2 teams, equaled by 5 more, and better than 22.

FielderJones
04-21-2012, 10:20 AM
I don't know how I'd begin to argue with someone who considers 2005 and 2008 bust years.

Frater Perdurabo
04-21-2012, 11:26 AM
I don't know how I'd begin to argue with someone who considers 2005 and 2008 bust years.

Exactly. Still, 2008 was disappointing in the sense that it was a missed opportunity, as season-ending injuries to Crede, TCQ and Contreras almost certainly forced Game 163, thus denying the Sox the opportunity to line up their rotation for Danks and Buehrle each to pitch twice against the Rays.

The Immigrant
04-21-2012, 11:47 AM
They might get a pass this year, but they are already starting to feel it at the gate and things will only get worse if there's no significant improvement next year - and I don't expect there to be one. The die hard Cubs fans I know are willing to be patient for now but I don't think they'll put up with another year like this one. While the team might still draw more than 2.5 million in attendance, that's not an insignificant drop given the debt load on the team and the need to pay for some or all of the upcoming renovations at Wrigley. I expect I'm in the minority on this point due to the Cult of Theo, but I think the Sox will be back in contention well before the Cubs.

Hitmen77
04-21-2012, 01:46 PM
Bust after bust... With a title in the middle there. I dislike the 2005! justifying everything from then on mindset, but at least you have to give him credit where it is due, even if you think it was a fluke. I know KW's failures have been frustrating the last few years, but he also was probably the single most important person in assembling the 2005 team. I'm pretty sure that every player on that roster was either acquired by KW as GM or drafted and developed by the Sox while KW was head of Player Development, with the exception of Jon Garland, who was drafted by the Cubs and acquired by Ron Schueler in 1998 (IIRC), but he still spent the majority of his minor league career with the Sox.

And, FWIW, 1 World Series in 10 years is a track record that's currently eclipsed by only 2 teams, equaled by 5 more, and better than 22.

I should have been more clear in my statement. I was speaking in terms of player development from the minors. I think this is what Theo is generally giving a "3 year rebuilding pass" for. Some people (right or wrong) think he should be given time to infuse talent into that organization.

If the question is why isn't the Sox organization given the same "pass", it's because it's the same management team in place. For all I know, behind closed doors, they've decided to change their approach to player development. But there's nothing publicized on which the media would "give them a 3 year pass" on.

"Bust after bust". I meant players like Brian Anderson, Josh Fields, etc,. Is Beckham on his way to being a bust? The Sox haven't produced much home grown talent in a long time....and I think that hurts them. I was not clear about that.

I never said "it's all on KW" or that everything he ever did was bad. In fact, where in my post did I mention him by name? :dunno:. He has certainly shown his strengths in finding talent from other organizations over the years...and KW was indeed the head of player development in the late 90s when the Sox generated a good crop of talent. But, this organization is doing something wrong...whether it's the team in place or the player development philosophy, etc. and there hasn't been any announced change in direction to give anyone a pass on.

If people want to put words in my mouth and say I'm blaming KW for everything and never giving him credit.....well, I can't defend something I never said.:shrug: But, I my post was indeed unclear because the seasons indeed weren't all busts.

Hitmen77
04-21-2012, 01:50 PM
I don't know how I'd begin to argue with someone who considers 2005 and 2008 bust years.

That's because you'd be arguing with something I didn't say.

I still stand behind my opinion that the Sox player development hasn't been successful and they won't be a pass for more of the same. That doesn't make every critique a total condemnation of everything KW ever did.

russ99
04-24-2012, 08:50 AM
They HAVE to win, or Sox fans will not show up to support garbage. (Just look at how they are drawing this year for example...three losing seasons in the past five years will do that.)

It's too early for conclusions about Sox attendance this year. The question is if the good numbers for the opening weekend Detroit series was more than we can expect and if the Baltimore series was much less than we can expect since colder weeknights in early April (against lesser teams) never draw.

This weekend against Boston could be a good draw again, similar to the Tigers series...

A lot of Cubs fans I know were very upset last season, to the point of not buying into it anymore. Theo's hire bought Ricketts some time.

But if they lose 90-100 this year and disappoint next year, those same fans will start questioning Ricketts again. If they alienate the real fans, they won't draw 2-3 million on Iowans and tourists alone.

Irishsox1
04-24-2012, 10:07 AM
The Cubs fans don't have to worry, this man will turn it around.

http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/rocknrolla2/Ricketts.jpg

kittle42
04-24-2012, 10:43 AM
It's too early for conclusions about Sox attendance this year. The question is if the good numbers for the opening weekend Detroit series was more than we can expect and if the Baltimore series was much less than we can expect since colder weeknights in early April (against lesser teams) never draw.

This weekend against Boston could be a good draw again, similar to the Tigers series...

A lot of Cubs fans I know were very upset last season, to the point of not buying into it anymore. Theo's hire bought Ricketts some time.

But if they lose 90-100 this year and disappoint next year, those same fans will start questioning Ricketts again. If they alienate the real fans, they won't draw 2-3 million on Iowans and tourists alone.

Wrigley was empty last night. I was considering meeting some friends there. There were over 4,000 tickets left on Stubhub before the game. Sec. 222, Row 3 was $1. Bleachers were $5.

doublem23
04-24-2012, 10:52 AM
Wrigley was empty last night. I was considering meeting some friends there. There were over 4,000 tickets left on Stubhub before the game. Sec. 222, Row 3 was $1. Bleachers were $5.

A friend of mine from the old neighborhood was at the Cubs game last night. She said that there were maybe 10,000 people at the game and about an hour before 1st pitch, tickets in the 200 level (lower deck, covered by the Upper Deck) were on Stubhub for as low as 23 cents.

That said, official attendance for the game was almost 38,000.

kittle42
04-24-2012, 12:09 PM
A friend of mine from the old neighborhood was at the Cubs game last night. She said that there were maybe 10,000 people at the game and about an hour before 1st pitch, tickets in the 200 level (lower deck, covered by the Upper Deck) were on Stubhub for as low as 23 cents.

That said, official attendance for the game was almost 38,000.

They have so much advance sales that no matter how empty that dump actually is, they'll still look like 3 millions attendees on paper when the season's done.

RedHeadPaleHoser
04-24-2012, 12:41 PM
They have so much advance sales that no matter how empty that dump actually is, they'll still look like 3 millions attendees on paper when the season's done.

It is ticket revenue in the coffers but the visibility of green seats will be evident as the season goes from warm summer weekends to cool September home games. They'll see their turnstiles spin in warm weather; always do.

1908<2005
04-25-2012, 06:59 AM
They have so much advance sales that no matter how empty that dump actually is, they'll still look like 3 millions attendees on paper when the season's done.

Yep the Cubs season ticket holder list is long they're bound to find people to at least buy them.