PDA

View Full Version : Look At Cubs Rebuilding Efforts...


Lip Man 1
10-04-2012, 12:46 PM
Surprisingly (given the author's allegences) not that positive.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/15548216-419/theo-epsteins-major-remodeling-of-cubs-raises-red-flags.html

Lip

PalehosePlanet
10-04-2012, 01:17 PM
It's tough to rebuild when you don't have the pieces. It's even tougher with the new draft/foreign players money restrictions rules in place.

People will say that the Cubs are going about this the so called right way. But to me, without the ability to pay over slot, and a mediocre -- at best -- farm system, this team will have to lose 90+ games a year for about 5 or 6 more years before they have enough homegrown cornerstones. And that's if they do an outstanding job developing players at the minor league level.

DumpJerry
10-04-2012, 01:41 PM
He was on Mulley & Hanley this morning talking about it. He was quite the dark cloud. If I was a Cub fan listening to him, I would have swallowed the Cyanide Pill.

Kenny said we were rebuilding this year, too. We finished 24 games ahead of the sCrUBS.

DeadMoney
10-04-2012, 02:17 PM
Things in baseball are strange. Oakland and Baltimore sure showed us that this season. It's a sport that's as much about confidence and approach as it is about talent.

Some teams take longer to 'figure it out' (Tampa, Washington), whereas others have transformations that nearly no one expected (Oakland, Baltimore) - and it seems to occur overnight. There's obviously no 'formula' or correct way to do things. Theo's approach has worked before (and it'll work again - somewhere, someday), but who knows how quickly it'll come together again in Chicago.

To Cubs fan friends, I've been quite the dark cloud all season, but have recently changed my tune. My point all season was that even if the Cubs do turn it around, at the very least the Nationals/Reds/Pirates/Cardinals/Braves all have young cores (or solid prospects that are around the corner) that aren't going to be easy to compete with in the NL. Combine that with a Dodgers ownership group that's ready to throw piles of money around and a Phillies group that's nothing to sneeze at, and the outlook looks bleak. But, with what just happened in Oakland; with what happened in Colorado a few years ago; with what happens in baseball, you can never say never. Oakland lost 88 games last year, then traded Cahill and Gio and Bailey and came back with a cast on virtual nobodies and rookies to win 94 games (granted, some of the returns for those trades have been huge contributors this season). If the Cubs find teams that value players like Castro or Samardzija or Russell or Marmol (or some other guy who comes up next year and has success), you never know how quickly this thing can turn.

DrCrawdad
10-05-2012, 06:21 AM
Surprisingly (given the author's allegences) not that positive.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/15548216-419/theo-epsteins-major-remodeling-of-cubs-raises-red-flags.html

Lip

Interesting article. I agree:

I still don't understand why the only approach to the Cubbies by Epstein was a total gut job. With the resources at Epstein's disposal - one of the richest teams and owners in MLB, he couldn't have produced a rebuild AND a (potential) winning team this season?

And what's the timetable on this current Cubbie rebuild? 3 years? 5 years? If they don't win a World Series by then, what? - DrCrawdad 8/1/2012

This season has been successful for the Cubs in the long term plan. Do you agree with that? - Coopaloopa 8/14/2012

I disagreed then with Coopaloopa and apparently the Sun-Times writer does to.

mzh
10-05-2012, 08:15 AM
The key to rebuilding is that you need to have at least one franchise-changer come out of the system from within, and drafting in that way is a total crapshoot. That's what would scare me if I were a Cubs fan- Tampa Bay went through 9 awful seasons, only twice picking below 6 overall, before they landed Evan Longoria and David Price in consecutive years. How much losing will it take before the Cubs find their guy like that?

Dan H
10-05-2012, 08:18 AM
He was on Mulley & Hanley this morning talking about it. He was quite the dark cloud. If I was a Cub fan listening to him, I would have swallowed the Cyanide Pill.

Kenny said we were rebuilding this year, too. We finished 24 games ahead of the sCrUBS.


I have nothing against rebuilding - I just don't think a team has to be stripped to its bare bones to do it. If I were a Cub fan, I'd decide this team isn't worth a Cyanide Pill and it isn't worth supporting. The team has had 45 losing seasons with 21 of those with 90 losses or more since their last World Series appearance in 1945. They have done enough rebuilding.

Golden Sox
10-05-2012, 08:23 AM
Bill Veeck once said "The future is now, five year plans usually lead to new five year plans".I keep hearing they're saving their money to start up their own TV station similar to what the Yankees have. Needless to say I wish them the worse in everything they do.

Red Barchetta
10-05-2012, 10:59 AM
Things in baseball are strange. Oakland and Baltimore sure showed us that this season. It's a sport that's as much about confidence and approach as it is about talent.

Some teams take longer to 'figure it out' (Tampa, Washington), whereas others have transformations that nearly no one expected (Oakland, Baltimore) - and it seems to occur overnight. There's obviously no 'formula' or correct way to do things. Theo's approach has worked before (and it'll work again - somewhere, someday), but who knows how quickly it'll come together again in Chicago.

To Cubs fan friends, I've been quite the dark cloud all season, but have recently changed my tune. My point all season was that even if the Cubs do turn it around, at the very least the Nationals/Reds/Pirates/Cardinals/Braves all have young cores (or solid prospects that are around the corner) that aren't going to be easy to compete with in the NL. Combine that with a Dodgers ownership group that's ready to throw piles of money around and a Phillies group that's nothing to sneeze at, and the outlook looks bleak. But, with what just happened in Oakland; with what happened in Colorado a few years ago; with what happens in baseball, you can never say never. Oakland lost 88 games last year, then traded Cahill and Gio and Bailey and came back with a cast on virtual nobodies and rookies to win 94 games (granted, some of the returns for those trades have been huge contributors this season). If the Cubs find teams that value players like Castro or Samardzija or Russell or Marmol (or some other guy who comes up next year and has success), you never know how quickly this thing can turn.

After watching "Moneyball", I have a better appreciation for the accomplishments in Oakland. I know that Hollywood provided the spin, however I like to see teams like the A's and Orioles develop the chemistry and teams to compete with the Yankees payroll.

The challenges that the A's in particular face remind me a lot of the White Sox. From a fan and attendance perspective, they are the second team in a market competing against a NL franchise that is popular with the press and that plays in a ballpark which is an attraction in itself.

However, I have to admit that I take sick pleasure in watching the Cubs again implode to 101 losses in 2012 and are stuck again in a rebuilding mode while I watch Soriano completely butcher routine plays in left field and hit useless solo home runs while the team is losing. :tongue:

guillensdisciple
10-05-2012, 02:47 PM
What are we at right now? 104 years right? Downright embarrassing,

DumpJerry
10-05-2012, 03:01 PM
What are we at right now? 104 years right? Downright embarrassing,
"We?" Who is "we?"



For a good laugh, ask a Cub fan who believes in Theo to tell you about the last time Theo successfully built a MLB team from the pits to The Trophy. While you're at it, ask the Cubbie about all the times Theo has done it. The blank look you'll get is priceless.

Smokey Burg
10-06-2012, 10:43 PM
I've seen enough Cub rebuiling plans to last the rest of my lifetime. I truly believe that if they went out and filled in a few holes when they had their winning streak in June-July that they would have been competitive until the end of the season. Instead, they gut the team for a bunch of AA players most of whom probably will not make it to MLB. I don't expect to see Cubs in post season play for a long time.

palehozenychicty
10-06-2012, 11:12 PM
I've seen enough Cub rebuiling plans to last the rest of my lifetime. I truly believe that if they went out and filled in a few holes when they had their winning streak in June-July that they would have been competitive until the end of the season. Instead, they gut the team for a bunch of AA players most of whom probably will not make it to MLB. I don't expect to see Cubs in post season play for a long time.

But what would have been the point of being competitive when you outdraw most franchises anyway? You also still have good revenue from TV.

So many teams are better right now in the NL. I actually am fine with them taking it slow. If the Sox can wake up and get another title, I won't care. Their relevance in Chicago depends on the Cubs' failure.

cub killer
10-07-2012, 12:09 AM
Spot on. Let the losing continue.

PnyFaEstTFs

CoopaLoop
10-08-2012, 10:39 PM
That was a lot of words that didn't really get to a point.

DrCrawdad
10-08-2012, 10:55 PM
That was a lot of words that didn't really get to a point.

Here's a point, unlike you the writer doesn't think this year has been a success for the Cubbies.

CoopaLoop
10-08-2012, 11:36 PM
Here's a point, unlike you the writer doesn't think this year has been a success for the Cubbies.

Shed 50 million, picked up Soler/Almora and get the 2nd draft pick.

What would have been a successful year?

DrCrawdad
10-09-2012, 12:18 AM
Shed 50 million, picked up Soler/Almora and get the 2nd draft pick.

What would have been a successful year?

As with every teams draft picks, time will tell. As far as the 50 million they shed, I'm sure the folks who bought season tickets for near the highest prices in baseball find great comfort and mark it as a successful season when they lost 101 games. And any pain from the lousy team Theo fielded was relieved when Cubbie fans resold they're tickets for prices of .15 - $5.

CoopaLoop
10-09-2012, 12:51 AM
As with every teams draft picks, time will tell. As far as the 50 million they shed, I'm sure the folks who bought season tickets for near the highest prices in baseball find great comfort and mark it as a successful season when they lost 101 games. And any pain from the lousy team Theo fielded was relieved when Cubbie fans resold they're tickets for prices of .15 - $5.

And what does that have to do with rebuilding?

PalehosePlanet
10-09-2012, 12:29 PM
Shed 50 million, picked up Soler/Almora and get the 2nd draft pick.

What would have been a successful year?

A successful year would have been had any of the dozen+ young players they brought up from the farm shown that they are actual MLB caliber players. Other than Rizzo there was not one silver lining among the clouds. Brett Jackson looked absolutely clueless --- his lack of pitch recognition skills rivals Brent Lillibridge --- Vitters is looking more like a straight up bust every day, and the young pitchers? They'll be lucky if any of the kids they ran out there are still w/the team come 2014.

Speaking of 2014, my guess is that Starlin Castro will be moved to 3B by then. You can't have an error machine at the most important defensive position on the field.

Also, Soler, Almora, and the 2nd pick guarantees absolutely nothing.

DrCrawdad
10-09-2012, 01:41 PM
A successful year would have been had any of the dozen+ young players they brought up from the farm shown that they are actual MLB caliber players. Other than Rizzo there was not one silver lining among the clouds. Brett Jackson looked absolutely clueless --- his lack of pitch recognition skills rivals Brent Lillibridge --- Vitters is looking more like a straight up bust every day, and the young pitchers? They'll be lucky if any of the kids they ran out there are still w/the team come 2014.

Speaking of 2014, my guess is that Starlin Castro will be moved to 3B by then. You can't have an error machine at the most important defensive position on the field.

Also, Soler, Almora, and the 2nd pick guarantees absolutely nothing.

AMEN!

Brett Jackson whiffs at a rate higher than Lillibridge and rather than improving, Jackson is whiffing more as he moves up. Brett Jackson, now there is a bright spot, a shining success for the 2012 Cubbies.

SoxSpeed22
10-09-2012, 02:54 PM
What Theo and co. got out of this year is that none of Hendry's young guys (with the exception of Castro) should have any part of their building process. Now they can just cut their losses and just do it their way.

CoopaLoop
10-09-2012, 07:24 PM
A successful year would have been had any of the dozen+ young players they brought up from the farm shown that they are actual MLB caliber players. Other than Rizzo there was not one silver lining among the clouds. Brett Jackson looked absolutely clueless --- his lack of pitch recognition skills rivals Brent Lillibridge --- Vitters is looking more like a straight up bust every day, and the young pitchers? They'll be lucky if any of the kids they ran out there are still w/the team come 2014.

Speaking of 2014, my guess is that Starlin Castro will be moved to 3B by then. You can't have an error machine at the most important defensive position on the field.

Also, Soler, Almora, and the 2nd pick guarantees absolutely nothing.

Brett Jackson and Vitters are not from the Theo era. I am just talking about what Theo and co. have done since they got here. This year was year one of the rebuilding project. I don't really see what else he could have done.

Obviously a year where you lose 100 games is not successful, but considering it's a tear down, I think they did the best they could do. Got a couple of young promising players in Almora and Soler, got a real prospect back for a one year signing in Paul Maholm and shed 50 million off the 2013 payroll.

If his sales pitch of Soriano last week actually gets anyone to bite in the offseason, I don't see how this couldn't be viewed as a successful start to the rebuilding process.

Only thing that went wrong was the Dempster trade.

DrCrawdad
10-09-2012, 08:36 PM
Brett Jackson and Vitters are not from the Theo era. I am just talking about what Theo and co. have done since they got here. This year was year one of the rebuilding project. I don't really see what else he could have done.

Obviously a year where you lose 100 games is not successful, but considering it's a tear down, I think they did the best they could do. Got a couple of young promising players in Almora and Soler, got a real prospect back for a one year signing in Paul Maholm and shed 50 million off the 2013 payroll.

If his sales pitch of Soriano last week actually gets anyone to bite in the offseason, I don't see how this couldn't be viewed as a successful start to the rebuilding process.

Only thing that went wrong was the Dempster trade.

What about the Ian Stewart trade?

Bob Roarman
10-09-2012, 09:08 PM
If his sales pitch of Soriano last week actually gets anyone to bite in the offseason, I don't see how this couldn't be viewed as a successful start to the rebuilding process.



They might finally be rid of Soriano and that contract? Man, what McDonough did to that team and it's lasting effects in such a short amount of time he had at the helm is incredible.

CoopaLoop
10-09-2012, 09:10 PM
What about the Ian Stewart trade?

I'd call D.J Lemaheiu and Tyler Colvin for Ian Stewart a wash.

Was there something else to that trade? That's meh for meh.

DSpivack
10-09-2012, 10:21 PM
I'd call D.J Lemaheiu and Tyler Colvin for Ian Stewart a wash.

Was there something else to that trade? That's meh for meh.
Stewart was terrible this year. The two in Colorado combined for 20 HRs and 94 RsBI.

doublem23
10-09-2012, 10:43 PM
Stewart was terrible this year. The two in Colorado combined for 20 HRs and 94 RsBI.

Yeah, Colvin especially, who hit. 290/.327/.531 with 18 HR and can play every position of the OF. The only justification for trading him, from the Cubs' perspective, I guess is that he's already 26 so he probably would be on the downside by the time the team is even in a position to compete again, so maybe moving him when he had value was the right move, but Ian Stewart was god-awful and if the only guys in the organization to replace him are Vitters and Jackson... Awful.

CoopaLoop
10-09-2012, 11:08 PM
Stewart was terrible this year. The two in Colorado combined for 20 HRs and 94 RsBI.

Yeah, Colvin especially, who hit. 290/.327/.531 with 18 HR and can play every position of the OF. The only justification for trading him, from the Cubs' perspective, I guess is that he's already 26 so he probably would be on the downside by the time the team is even in a position to compete again, so maybe moving him when he had value was the right move, but Ian Stewart was god-awful and if the only guys in the organization to replace him are Vitters and Jackson... Awful.

Colvin was a 26 year old failure.

Let's take a look at those away from Coors numbers, shall we?

244/274/414

DrCrawdad
10-09-2012, 11:10 PM
I'd call D.J Lemaheiu and Tyler Colvin for Ian Stewart a wash.

Was there something else to that trade? That's meh for meh.

:scratch:

Stewart was terrible this year. The two in Colorado combined for 20 HRs and 94 RsBI.

:clap:

Yeah, Colvin especially, who hit. 290/.327/.531 with 18 HR and can play every position of the OF. The only justification for trading him, from the Cubs' perspective, I guess is that he's already 26 so he probably would be on the downside by the time the team is even in a position to compete again, so maybe moving him when he had value was the right move, but Ian Stewart was god-awful and if the only guys in the organization to replace him are Vitters and Jackson... Awful.

:bandance:

DrCrawdad
10-09-2012, 11:11 PM
Colvin was a 26 year old failure.

Let's take a look at those away from Coors numbers, shall we?

244/274/414

How were Ian Stewart's numbers away from Coors this year?

Your regular defense of Theo Epstein here is one thing but even most Cub fans I know candidly admit the Ian Stewart trade was bad. Trying to find a silver lining on the Stewart deal is puzzling.

doublem23
10-09-2012, 11:32 PM
Colvin was a 26 year old failure.

Let's take a look at those away from Coors numbers, shall we?

244/274/414

Mm, still an upgrade over a 27-year-old failure who hit .201/.292/.335 all season, which is the guy they picked up for him

CoopaLoop
10-09-2012, 11:39 PM
How were Ian Stewart's numbers away from Coors this year?

Your regular defense of Theo Epstein here is one thing but even most Cub fans I know candidly admit the Ian Stewart trade was bad. Trying to find a silver lining on the Stewart deal is puzzling.

Mm, still an upgrade over a 27-year-old failure who hit .201/.292/.335 all season, which is the guy they picked up for him

I said it was a meh for meh deal.

I suppose you could say the Cubs could have been able to get something of value for Colvin if he did anything like that had he stayed, but he had become a failed prospect. He went the way of many failed prospects and was traded in a change of scenery deal that had nothing of consequence in it.

Bob Roarman
10-10-2012, 01:20 AM
Mm, still an upgrade over a 27-year-old failure who hit .201/.292/.335 all season, which is the guy they picked up for him

Well the guy they traded the season before failed to hit over .150. If the change of scenery worked out for him, there's nothing you can do. Like Coopa said, that's what the deal was dependent on with both the players being traded. Looks like it may work out for Colvin, not so much with Stewart. Oh well.

JB98
10-10-2012, 01:56 AM
I'd call D.J Lemaheiu and Tyler Colvin for Ian Stewart a wash.

Was there something else to that trade? That's meh for meh.

The Sean Marshall trade was not particularly good either. I think they hoped for better than they got from Travis Wood. I'm sure Wood will be in their rotation against next year. He's left-handed and still young, but he hasn't established himself yet.

They relieved themselves of a headache with the Zambrano deal, but Volstad was a complete disaster for them as well.

I don't see how you can say the only thing that went wrong for Theo and Friends was the Dempster trade. There's really not much question the best piece they had to trade was Garza. Unlike Dempster, Garza can pitch in the American League. He's the kind of guy who can help any team in baseball. He's simply a better pitcher than Dempster. Unfortunately for the Cubs, he went down at the worst possible time, killing his trade value in the short run. The Cubs will probably have to hold on to him until he proves he's healthy, and then they won't get as good a return as they would have had they been able to deal him in July.

The Cubs still have bad contracts in Soriano and Marmol that they need to move. They would have liked to have gotten Soriano's ass out of there in July, too, but he wouldn't approve a deal to the Giants.

I don't see how the failures of guys like Jackson and Vitters are wins for Theo's regime. Sure, those players are left over from the Hendry Era, but wouldn't it have been beneficial for the Cubs if those guys had shown SOMETHING, if for no other reason than to increase their trade value?

I think the Cubs' positives this year were limited to Rizzo and Samardzija. At this point, Theo and Friends have realized the hole is even deeper than they thought. That's why they've gone public in pleading for patience from the fans. It's going to be horrible on the North Side again next year and probably the year after that as well.

CoopaLoop
10-10-2012, 08:26 AM
The Sean Marshall trade was not particularly good either. I think they hoped for better than they got from Travis Wood. I'm sure Wood will be in their rotation against next year. He's left-handed and still young, but he hasn't established himself yet.

What? They moved a reliever for a starter.
I don't think a 100 loss team in rebuilding mode is going to feel the effects of losing a set up man.


I don't see how you can say the only thing that went wrong for Theo and Friends was the Dempster trade. There's really not much question the best piece they had to trade was Garza. Unlike Dempster, Garza can pitch in the American League. He's the kind of guy who can help any team in baseball. He's simply a better pitcher than Dempster. Unfortunately for the Cubs, he went down at the worst possible time, killing his trade value in the short run. The Cubs will probably have to hold on to him until he proves he's healthy, and then they won't get as good a return as they would have had they been able to deal him in July.Garza got hurt, Theo and friends didn't fumble anything there.


I don't see how the failures of guys like Jackson and Vitters are wins for Theo's regime. Sure, those players are left over from the Hendry Era, but wouldn't it have been beneficial for the Cubs if those guys had shown SOMETHING, if for no other reason than to increase their trade value? Um, what? Who said that?

doublem23
10-10-2012, 08:59 AM
Um, what? Who said that?

I think you effectively did when you note that the only thing that went wrong for Theo and his Cubbies was the Dempster deal. They made an awful lot of mistakes this year, and the team is, at least for the time being, worse off because of them.

SCCWS
10-10-2012, 10:31 AM
Since I am a die-hard White Sox fan living in New England, I don't share the Cub hatred that many White Sox fans do. I am just glad Theo is out of Boston. Obviously the Red Sox spend money, but what Theo accomplished in Boston with their minor league system was very frustrating to a die hard White Sox fan. At one time, the Red Sox just went out and bought talent because their minor league was terrible. But that all changed w Theo. It didn't take them long before they were producing quality talent from the minors. Players like Buchholz, Pedroia, Papelbon, Youk, Ellsbury etc. It seemed in the last 6-7 years, that every time they got an injury, they could get by with some call-up who played like they belonged for a month or so. As a White Sox fan, it was frustrating because it seemed like every time we needed an emergency call-up, they were lucky to hit their weight.
The last few years, when the Red Sox had an outfield injury, up would come Josh Reddick. I would watch this kid and say how come the White Sox never seem to have someone this good waiting in the wings. When Reddick got hurt filling in for JD Drew who was hurt, they brought up Ryan Kalish who looked just as good as Reddick. When Youk started having problems this year, up comes Middlebrooks. He looked like a stud his first month. Luckily for us, he made Youk expendable but it is frustrating watching a team you hate that always seems to have viable options in the minoirs that can fill in on an interim basis.

So I wouldn't write Theo off. If the Cubs spend like Boston did, I would bet he will have their farm system well stocked in 2-3 years. I am glad to see him gone from Boston because his replacement has not had a good start.

doublem23
10-10-2012, 10:58 AM
Well, one of Theo's tricks in Boston was to pay well over slot for guys that would fall due to signability issues, which, in theory is something the new draft rules will snuff out.

I'm not really sure if the Red Sox are doing the minor league thing that much more productively than other teams, they're just able to buy a better core of guys to build around. From your "why don't the Sox have anyone as good as Josh Reddick in the minors?" question, here's two players, try and figure out which is which...

Player A - Career .263/.307/.436 hitter, averages 23 HR, 73 RBI, 70 R, 21 D, 30 BB, and 127 K per 162 games played
Player B - Career .244/.300/.445 hitter, averages 23 HR, 66 RBI, 74 R, 29 D, 42 BB, 126 K per 162 games played.

Reddick is Player B. Dayan Viciedo is Player A. It seems like there's a bit of a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side," here.

What will make the Cubs rebuild work, whenever they decide to do it, is that they are still one of Major League baseball's money machines. They will eventually be able to pay for top-notch talent. They're not going to be able to compete as long as they pretend like they can rebuild the organization from bottom up. That basically never works in baseball.

The Immigrant
10-10-2012, 11:58 AM
What will make the Cubs rebuild work, whenever they decide to do it, is that they are still one of Major League baseball's money machines. They will eventually be able to pay for top-notch talent. They're not going to be able to compete as long as they pretend like they can rebuild the organization from bottom up. That basically never works in baseball.

Right, and in the meantime the Ricketts clan will be pocketing substantial sums of money that can be used to pay down debt or finance stadium renovations. They will get away with it because Cub fans will continue to renew their season tickets regardless of how long the team continues to suck and regardless of how low the team's payroll gets.

JB98
10-10-2012, 01:44 PM
What? They moved a reliever for a starter.
I don't think a 100 loss team in rebuilding mode is going to feel the effects of losing a set up man.

Garza got hurt, Theo and friends didn't fumble anything there.

No, there is nothing wrong with trading Sean Marshall. The decision to move Marshall was the correct one. The issue is with the return. I think they thought Travis Wood would establish himself as a valuable member of the rotation moving forward. He has not done that to this point. Too soon to give up on him, sure, but I'm not impressed so far.

And, no, Theo and Friends didn't fumble anything with Garza. Nevertheless, the worst thing that happened to them this year was Garza going down at an inopportune time. Given his talent level, track record and reasonable contract situation, the Cubs could have netted a nice return had they moved him to a contender this summer. Due to the injury, it blew up in their faces. That defeats the argument that the Dempster deal was the only thing that went wrong for the Cubs this year.

Frankly, I think the Cubs did about all they could do with Dempster. He had his 10-and-5 rights. There's nothing the club can do about that. The player had his rights and he exercised them. I don't think there was as big a market for Dempster's services as people thought or maybe hoped. The Rangers panicked a little bit when they lost Greinke to a division rival, and the Yankees were in a tight spot with both Sabathia and Pettitte on the shelf at the same time. The desperation of those two clubs created a little bit of a market for Dempster. The Cubs got what they could.

This year didn't go well at all for the Cubs. They had very few young players capitalize on the opportunities they were given. They've got even more work to do than maybe they realized coming into the situation.

DrCrawdad
10-10-2012, 04:31 PM
I think you effectively did when you note that the only thing that went wrong for Theo and his Cubbies was the Dempster deal. They made an awful lot of mistakes this year, and the team is, at least for the time being, worse off because of them.

Agreed! Well put.

Moses_Scurry
10-10-2012, 04:44 PM
No, there is nothing wrong with trading Sean Marshall. The decision to move Marshall was the correct one. The issue is with the return. I think they thought Travis Wood would establish himself as a valuable member of the rotation moving forward. He has not done that to this point. Too soon to give up on him, sure, but I'm not impressed so far.

And, no, Theo and Friends didn't fumble anything with Garza. Nevertheless, the worst thing that happened to them this year was Garza going down at an inopportune time. Given his talent level, track record and reasonable contract situation, the Cubs could have netted a nice return had they moved him to a contender this summer. Due to the injury, it blew up in their faces. That defeats the argument that the Dempster deal was the only thing that went wrong for the Cubs this year.

Frankly, I think the Cubs did about all they could do with Dempster. He had his 10-and-5 rights. There's nothing the club can do about that. The player had his rights and he exercised them. I don't think there was as big a market for Dempster's services as people thought or maybe hoped. The Rangers panicked a little bit when they lost Greinke to a division rival, and the Yankees were in a tight spot with both Sabathia and Pettitte on the shelf at the same time. The desperation of those two clubs created a little bit of a market for Dempster. The Cubs got what they could.

This year didn't go well at all for the Cubs. They had very few young players capitalize on the opportunities they were given. They've got even more work to do than maybe they realized coming into the situation.

They could have traded him before the season. 2 years of him pre-injury would have probably brought an amazing return.

TheVulture
10-10-2012, 09:09 PM
I don't get why Cub supporters are so worked up. They only failed to meet their goal of a 63 win season by two wins. Things could be worse.

SCCWS
10-11-2012, 09:56 AM
Well, one of Theo's tricks in Boston was to pay well over slot for guys that would fall due to signability issues, which, in theory is something the new draft rules will snuff out.

I'm not really sure if the Red Sox are doing the minor league thing that much more productively than other teams, they're just able to buy a better core of guys to build around. From your "why don't the Sox have anyone as good as Josh Reddick in the minors?" question, here's two players, try and figure out which is which...

Player A - Career .263/.307/.436 hitter, averages 23 HR, 73 RBI, 70 R, 21 D, 30 BB, and 127 K per 162 games played
Player B - Career .244/.300/.445 hitter, averages 23 HR, 66 RBI, 74 R, 29 D, 42 BB, 126 K per 162 games played.

Reddick is Player B. Dayan Viciedo is Player A. It seems like there's a bit of a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side," here.

What will make the Cubs rebuild work, whenever they decide to do it, is that they are still one of Major League baseball's money machines. They will eventually be able to pay for top-notch talent. They're not going to be able to compete as long as they pretend like they can rebuild the organization from bottom up. That basically never works in baseball.


But look at the teams they are on. Reddick led the A's in HR-RBI and hits. He is the guy opposing teams focus on. Dayan is hitting from the bottom 3rd of order which is a good thing for a young hitter.
On the other side, Reddick can play all outfield positions including CF which he did in Boston filling in for Ellsbury. Reddick is also a decent base-stealer.

CoopaLoop
10-12-2012, 01:08 AM
I think you effectively did when you note that the only thing that went wrong for Theo and his Cubbies was the Dempster deal. They made an awful lot of mistakes this year, and the team is, at least for the time being, worse off because of them.

How is the team worse off because of them?

DumpJerry
10-12-2012, 06:59 AM
How is the team worse off because of them?
They lost out on a top-flight prospect from Atlanta when Dempster said no. The return from Texas is not as good.

russ99
10-12-2012, 12:37 PM
IMO, the Cubs rebuild doesn't actually start until they dump Soriano's, Garza's and Marmol's big contracts.

Despite the worse record this year, I'd bet the Astros beat the Cubs back to the playoffs, even with being moved to the more difficult AL West.

kittle42
10-12-2012, 02:05 PM
The Cubs getting screwed by 10/5 rights from Lee, Ramirez, Dempster, and Soriano in recent years has been very amusing.

SoxSpeed22
10-12-2012, 05:25 PM
IMO, the Cubs rebuild doesn't actually start until they dump Soriano's, Garza's and Marmol's big contracts.

Despite the worse record this year, I'd bet the Astros beat the Cubs back to the playoffs, even with being moved to the more difficult AL West.Let's not go nuts here. Both of them are eons away with the way it's going. This year's Astros team might be in the conversation when you talk about the worst teams of all time. Both of them are going to have fairly high picks for the next few years, so they need to get some very good talent with those picks. And yes, the 10/5 players the Cubs had ended up hurting their rebuild by being a bit too loyal to the team.
I found the Cubs approach to building their team very odd. They traded several players and got a bunch of AAAA guys. They will really need to step up to bring better talent in.

CoopaLoop
10-12-2012, 09:03 PM
They lost out on a top-flight prospect from Atlanta when Dempster said no. The return from Texas is not as good.

They got a top flight prospect from Atlanta for Paul freaking Maholm.

doublem23
10-13-2012, 09:00 AM
How is the team worse off because of them?

I would have assumed the 10-win decline in 1 season would have been pretty self-explanatory.

DumpJerry
10-13-2012, 11:58 AM
They got a top flight prospect from Atlanta for Paul freaking Maholm.
Technically, Maholm was sent to the Braves by the Cubs.

The Cub fan in my office was depressed when they got him. He said he was a Cub killer would continue to be so now that he was on the Cubs. For his first several starts with the Cubs, he lived up to that expectation.

DSpivack
10-15-2012, 12:30 AM
Technically, Maholm was sent to the Braves by the Cubs.

The Cub fan in my office was depressed when they got him. He said he was a Cub killer would continue to be so now that he was on the Cubs. For his first several starts with the Cubs, he lived up to that expectation.
Surely this move will put the Cubs over the top?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-cubs-fire-traveling-secretary-20121014,0,2950323.story

DrCrawdad
10-15-2012, 08:06 AM
Surely this move will put the Cubs over the top?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-cubs-fire-traveling-secretary-20121014,0,2950323.story

Another move that further illustrates the genius that is Theo Epstein.

DumpJerry
10-15-2012, 08:09 AM
Surely this move will put the Cubs over the top?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-cubs-fire-traveling-secretary-20121014,0,2950323.story
Good thing they identified the root cause of their road losses over the past 20 years.

StillMissOzzie
10-15-2012, 02:02 PM
Did he book them at the Ramada?

CoopaLoop
10-15-2012, 05:25 PM
I would have assumed the 10-win decline in 1 season would have been pretty self-explanatory.

lol gtfo

SOXSINCE'70
10-15-2012, 07:41 PM
Did he book them at the Ramada?

No, he booked them at Holiday Inn Express! :roflmao::roflmao:

SI1020
10-15-2012, 10:10 PM
lol gtfo The facts are the great Theo came in, they took a couple of steps backward and don't seem to have helped themselves all that much in the process.

doublem23
10-15-2012, 11:21 PM
lol gtfo

LOL, I forgot the goal of baseball is to lose games now.

:dunce:

You want to pretend like the Cubs have to go into a complete tear down to get good again that's fine, but no major market team has ever done so. There's no reason a team with their kind of resources ever needs to lose 100+ games to rebuild. It's ****ing ridiculous.

cub killer
10-16-2012, 03:36 AM
Tell that to the flub fans. Most of them think this year was successful, and that they'll definitely turn it around in a few years, so everything is just hunky-dory.

SOXPHILE
10-16-2012, 09:16 AM
Tell that to the flub fans. Most of them think this year was successful, and that they'll definitely turn it around in a few years, so everything is just hunky-dory.

I'm never seen a fanbase wear a 100 loss season like a badge of honor like these idiot "fans" have in 2012.

Hooray ! We lost 100 games ! We have the second worst record in baseball, now we can get the #2 draft pick, because we all know that GUARANTEES future championships ! It's just too bad the Astros lost more than us, they get the #1 draft pick ! Boo hoo !

doublem23
10-16-2012, 09:45 AM
I'm never seen a fanbase wear a 100 loss season like a badge of honor like these idiot "fans" have in 2012.

Hooray ! We lost 100 games ! We have the second worst record in baseball, now we can get the #2 draft pick, because we all know that GUARANTEES future championships ! It's just too bad the Astros lost more than us, they get the #1 draft pick ! Boo hoo !

Yes, I don't doubt that Theo and his buddies coooooould turn this thing around, but my only point was that in the short-term, they have turned the Cubs from bad to downright miserable. If this is their plan, does anyone see this team being even mildly competitive in the next 2-3 seasons? I can't fathom how they would be.

DumpJerry
10-16-2012, 02:25 PM
I know there are differences between the two teams, but one thing I keep thinking about is:
2003: Detroit Tigers 43-119.
2006: Detroit Tigers 95-67, AL pennant winners.

Domeshot17
10-16-2012, 05:32 PM
I think Theo is doing it right from the business perspective.

Most teams would need to spend 80-100 mil to be close to .500 during a rebuild in order to draw fans. However, as long as the cubs keep the "experience" high, they will still draw close to 3 million fans.

The difference in those 250k fans is probably less than the difference of a gutted payroll, ESPECIALLY if they can move high priced players like Soriano.

While there is no such thing as a sure thing, we can't argue it both ways. The excuse for a pathetic White Sox farm system has always been "Because we always finish about .500, we do not get premium picks". Well okay, the Cubs are playing for Premium picks, fine.

But because of the size of their fan base and the location of their ball park, the Cubs are going to keep turning a good profit, be able to save up their resources and attack foriegn scouting while selecting top level prospects in the draft. When they are ready to spend, they will have some extra money saved up.

It would never work for the White Sox because they would only draw 5,000 people to the game. But the Cubs are the Cubs and they will be fine doing it this way.

If it will work, no one knows, but they won't be in a bad position because of it.

They also have a smart marketing department. They are lowing non-premium seats in the ball park and have consistently pushed the message of "we are new, be patient with us, we will build this up right". Loyal fans ARE going to buy into that.

I think its pretty telling the Cubs are marketing a complete tear down better than the White Sox are marketing are near division championship. I hope Brooks is ashamed of the job he did this year.

kittle42
10-16-2012, 07:37 PM
I think its pretty telling the Cubs are marketing a complete tear down better than the White Sox are marketing are near division championship. I hope Brooks is ashamed of the job he did this year.

The White Sox couldn't market a 162-0 season with Superman hitting cleanup.

pearso66
10-16-2012, 07:56 PM
I know there are differences between the two teams, but one thing I keep thinking about is:
2003: Detroit Tigers 43-119.
2006: Detroit Tigers 95-67, AL pennant winners.

To be fair, didn't they spend a TON of money to get to that point? I know they had a few homegrown players, but they weren't necessarily rebuilding the way the Cubs are pushing that they are.

StillMissOzzie
10-17-2012, 12:00 AM
I'm starting to convince myself that the Cubs teardown approach has the beneficial side effect of making them a ****load of money for a few years while they still draw the blue sheep to the Wrigley experience and trade off as much of the high-priced bad paper as they can while trotting out a team largely earning the MLB minimum wage.

Even with a surge in disgruntled "fans" unhappy with the lack of immediate results on this 3-4 year process, they will still draw 2.5 - 2.8 million. I did hear just today that they will be reducing prices on SOME tickets for the 2013 campaign, but they are also looking to add some more prime real estate seats by moving the wall behind home plate a little closer to the field.

SMO
:gulp:

Nellie_Fox
10-17-2012, 12:55 AM
...they are also looking to add some more prime real estate seats by moving the wall behind home plate a little closer to the field.

SMO
:gulp:Thus making themselves even more unattractive to any free agent pitchers. Less foul ground makes it even more of a hitters' park.

DeadMoney
10-17-2012, 10:29 AM
Thus making themselves even more unattractive to any free agent pitchers. Less foul ground makes it even more of a hitters' park.

While I agree that Wrigley is a terrible place to pitch with day games, with the wind blowing out, and with a lack of foul ground, it's a tad gullible to think that most Major League players (and agents) won't take the maximum years and money that they can get.

Nellie_Fox
10-17-2012, 12:35 PM
While I agree that Wrigley is a terrible place to pitch with day games, with the wind blowing out, and with a lack of foul ground, it's a tad gullible to think that most Major League players (and agents) won't take the maximum years and money that they can get.
If they see it as possibly their last contract, sure. But, if they worry that their stats will suffer and hurt their next contract, they'll consider taking a little less to play somewhere better suited to them.

palehozenychicty
10-29-2012, 02:12 AM
I think Theo is doing it right from the business perspective.

Most teams would need to spend 80-100 mil to be close to .500 during a rebuild in order to draw fans. However, as long as the cubs keep the "experience" high, they will still draw close to 3 million fans.

The difference in those 250k fans is probably less than the difference of a gutted payroll, ESPECIALLY if they can move high priced players like Soriano.

While there is no such thing as a sure thing, we can't argue it both ways. The excuse for a pathetic White Sox farm system has always been "Because we always finish about .500, we do not get premium picks". Well okay, the Cubs are playing for Premium picks, fine.

But because of the size of their fan base and the location of their ball park, the Cubs are going to keep turning a good profit, be able to save up their resources and attack foriegn scouting while selecting top level prospects in the draft. When they are ready to spend, they will have some extra money saved up.

It would never work for the White Sox because they would only draw 5,000 people to the game. But the Cubs are the Cubs and they will be fine doing it this way.

If it will work, no one knows, but they won't be in a bad position because of it.

They also have a smart marketing department. They are lowing non-premium seats in the ball park and have consistently pushed the message of "we are new, be patient with us, we will build this up right". Loyal fans ARE going to buy into that.

I think its pretty telling the Cubs are marketing a complete tear down better than the White Sox are marketing are near division championship. I hope Brooks is ashamed of the job he did this year.

I think my highlighted quote is the key in their approach. Whether it works for them is unknown, but I think they want to pay down debts and refinance, as if they are in bankruptcy. They know that the park will still generate revenue, and people are still watching on television. They can afford to take this risk, even if it seems extravagant. At least they have a plan.

I'm not sure what the White Sox plan is at the moment.

Dan H
10-29-2012, 07:32 AM
I personally don't care what the Cubs do anymore. They can't erase history like a 104-year period with a World Series win and an almost 70-year span on not even appearing in a Series. So their rebuilding effort is boring. So what if they finally win, say,in 2017? After that, they will start another 100-year losing streak.

cws05champ
10-29-2012, 09:22 AM
Surely this move will put the Cubs over the top?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-cubs-fire-traveling-secretary-20121014,0,2950323.story

http://dustinstockton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/seinfeld_george_240x260_052820041524.jpeg
Good thing I'm available!!

doublem23
10-29-2012, 09:24 AM
I'm not sure what the White Sox plan is at the moment.

Keep trying to win every year?

I know, I know, awful plan.

palehozenychicty
10-30-2012, 01:44 AM
Keep trying to win every year?

I know, I know, awful plan.

Not an awful plan, but how are they going to do it? Who are they going to sign that'll make up the 22 games necessary to win it all? They don't do well in the premiere free agent market. They don't have a lot of positional young talent ready to step in. They don't have a lot of assets to trade.

Time will tell, but they're in a corner right now. You can't deny that.

If Danks can recover, then I'm fine with the pitching staff. This is minus Peavy and possibly Floyd.

But I worry about the nine guys on the diamond. Are they good enough? I'm not convinced of that right now.

doublem23
10-30-2012, 09:22 AM
Not an awful plan, but how are they going to do it? Who are they going to sign that'll make up the 22 games necessary to win it all? They don't do well in the premiere free agent market. They don't have a lot of positional young talent ready to step in. They don't have a lot of assets to trade.

They only needed to make up 4 games

Moses_Scurry
10-30-2012, 10:12 AM
They only needed to make up 4 games

Yeah where does the 22 games come from? I'm sure Danks is more than capable of giving the team the 10 wins or so that Peavy gave them last year. Even if his ERA and other stats aren't as good.

I love that the Sox are not intentionally trying to tank seasons like their neighbors up north, but it would be nice to have some more position players to be excited about. I haven't really had that since Thomas and Ventura ... 20 years ago.

Maybe Hawkins will be enough. How far is he away?

doublem23
10-30-2012, 10:19 AM
Maybe Hawkins will be enough. How far is he away?

Years

SoxSpeed22
10-30-2012, 12:40 PM
I would rather not see Hawkins here for at least two years, more like three. We are kind of set at outfield for a while until Rios and Dunn's contracts are up, so Hawkins, Mitchell and Thompson can take their time.

DumpJerry
10-30-2012, 12:50 PM
I would rather not see Hawkins here for at least two years, more like three. We are kind of set at outfield for a while until Rios and Dunn's contracts are up, so Hawkins, Mitchell and Thompson can take their time.
In two years with the White Sox, Dunn has played in the Outfield in seven games.

doublem23
10-30-2012, 12:58 PM
In two years with the White Sox, Dunn has played in the Outfield in seven games.

Obviously Dunn is not an OF, but his presence prevents the Sox from moving other players into the DH slot (say, like Dayan Viciedo) so he does effectively block young OF until his contract expires.

CoopaLoop
11-01-2012, 12:55 AM
If they see it as possibly their last contract, sure. But, if they worry that their stats will suffer and hurt their next contract, they'll consider taking a little less to play somewhere better suited to them.

Yeah people take a little less in sports all the time.

Nellie_Fox
11-01-2012, 01:06 AM
Yeah people take a little less in sports all the time.If you don't think players have ever turned down more money because they didn't want to play for the team offering it, you haven't been paying attention.

DSpivack
11-01-2012, 01:13 AM
If you don't think players have ever turned down more money because they didn't want to play for the team offering it, you haven't been paying attention.

The Big 3 in Miami in the NBA, Peavy with this deal, Konerko and Dye in past deals with the Sox, etc.

MUsoxfan
11-01-2012, 02:15 AM
The Big 3 in Miami in the NBA, Peavy with this deal, Konerko and Dye in past deals with the Sox, etc.

And AJ and Buehrle in the past

waldo_the_wolf
11-01-2012, 06:38 PM
And AJ and Buehrle in the past

And Jose Valentin, he's still one of my all-time faves since he turned down more money from the Orioles after his first year with the Sox just because he loved playing for the Sox so much.

DSpivack
11-01-2012, 11:04 PM
And Jose Valentin, he's still one of my all-time faves since he turned down more money from the Orioles after his first year with the Sox just because he loved playing for the Sox so much.

He wasn't the greatest of shortstops, but he certainly was fun. Manos!

mahagga73
11-13-2012, 08:15 PM
Not an awful plan, but how are they going to do it? Who are they going to sign that'll make up the 22 games necessary to win it all? They don't do well in the premiere free agent market. They don't have a lot of positional young talent ready to step in. They don't have a lot of assets to trade.

Time will tell, but they're in a corner right now. You can't deny that.

If Danks can recover, then I'm fine with the pitching staff. This is minus Peavy and possibly Floyd.

But I worry about the nine guys on the diamond. Are they good enough? I'm not convinced of that right now.
i don't know, the Giants don't look like worldbeaters outside their pitching staff and have won 2 of 3 Series now.

mahagga73
11-13-2012, 08:16 PM
If you don't think players have ever turned down more money because they didn't want to play for the team offering it, you haven't been paying attention.
Players love the fact they can actually enjoy playing and living in a world class city minus the New York East Coast style of media. Just my theory.

palehozenychicty
11-14-2012, 11:09 AM
Yeah where does the 22 games come from? I'm sure Danks is more than capable of giving the team the 10 wins or so that Peavy gave them last year. Even if his ERA and other stats aren't as good.

I love that the Sox are not intentionally trying to tank seasons like their neighbors up north, but it would be nice to have some more position players to be excited about. I haven't really had that since Thomas and Ventura ... 20 years ago.

Maybe Hawkins will be enough. How far is he away?

You need 11 wins to get the World Series title in October.

They only won 85 games this season. +96 games will take the division in any year. Any less than 96 will increase the probability of a division loss.

They don't have to tank seasons, but they could definitely produce more homegrown talent. The FA market is always filled with risks, and the trade market demands more prospects.