The Cubs sent me a survey about their recent Season Ticket Holder event they held about a month ago. You may remember it from such posts as this one. They wanted to know how well they were perceived and if it had helped to persuade me to renew my season tickets.
Most of it was grading various aspects like the videos, the Q&A, etc. as Very Satisfying, Satisfying, Moderately Satisfying, Unsatisfying or Very Unsatisfying or some variation of that theme. Pretty standard stuff that was all kind of spun to reflect that THEY thought it was awesome and you should too, but they were just checking how they could make it MORE awesome. I found myself giving them decent marks because the event itself was nice. They're under no obligation to communicate with us beyond sending us an invoice and menacing letter about the wait list. We'll call that the Trib Way. So it was nice. But it didn't make me want to commit to purchasing 38 games again (what Kris and I bought last year as our part of the package), so I wondered if I should change my answers to reflect that until I reached the end.
One of the last questions asked:
If this event did not impact your decision, please share why.
And they provided a text box for a free form answer. So this is what I wrote:
It was a very nice event, but it was a show. You are looking for feedback to improve your show, and I don't know what more could be done to improve on that (realistically).
At the end of the day, the point of all of the videos and presentations was to get attention away from the losses on the field for which we are all paying an extremely high price. That was done very well and we all saw the announcement that renewals are up as a result, so in that regard, keep up the good work.
However, given that I have become a connoisseur of the spin machine that works non-stop on Cubs fans since the Tribune days, it wasn't effective in changing my group's mind to drop our tickets.
Personally, I have been a supporter of the rebuild and the horrors that would result on the major league field as a result because few fans truly realized the dumpster fire the organization was in the last days of Trib ownership. It had to be burned to the ground and rebuilt, and I think the job so far has been amazing.
However, I am extremely disappointed in the continued lack of attention to the product on the major league field in the 3rd year of this project. After 2 years of absolute tanking, it would be nice to see some acquisitions that aren't simply trade bait or roster fillers.
At what point is the major league team going to learn to win so that the minor leaguers that are now moving through the system have a winning atmosphere to uphold, rather than having the weight of a crappy team and an impatient, pissy fanbase that will turn on any of these golden prospects the minute they show a weakness in their game?
I understand the TV deal isn't done. I understand the rooftop owners and other neighbors around Wrigley are making every step in the renovation a Sisyphean ordeal. I get it. Nothing has been as cut and dry as I'm sure even the most pessimistic models would show when the team was originally purchased from Zell. Revenues aren't what everyone thought they would be at this point in the process. I get it.
But where is the good faith on ownership's part? Cubs season ticket holders have been operating on good faith for the past two seasons with absolutely nothing to show for it. Tickets to most games haven't been worth the paper they've been printed on. But we buy them because we have faith in a future product. The last two worthless seasons have been the opportunity cost of a future we believe Theo and Jed and the rest can eventually deliver.
But when will we see anything besides slickly edited videos and promises of a bright future?
Part of the selling point in the rebuild was that this wasn't going to be like the Pirates or the Royals where they have to hope and pray that a good number of their top prospects all hit at once before they become too expensive to keep. We have been sold on a product where resources would be spent while the infrastructure was maintained and developed to keep a steady pipeline of cheaper impact pieces coming to the majors. So far, all we're seeing is the pipeline being built, but there is nothing for it to supplement.
So here we are on Year Three of the official rebuild and Year Five of the Ricketts ownership where we have paid a Top 5 average ticket price for absolute crap and nothing tangible to show for it. It is time for some good faith on the ownership's part knowing that the revenue will eventually be there (especially when the team starts winning actual baseball games).
We should get SOMETHING for all of the patience and loyalty through this process because let's not pretend that the ticket prices won't shoot through the roof the moment the games are actually worth attending. It was a nice hat, though.
Comments
[img]http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv190/dramawatch/bender-applause.gif[/img]
(dying laughing)
WaLiQuote Reply
THIS*1000000000
dmick89Quote Reply
Well, that’s like your opinion, man.
It was a good opinion though.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
That’s what angers me. Sure, the minor league organization is in much better shape and that’s fantastic. It’s obviously important and will hopefully play a key part of the Cubs future. However, the MLB team isn’t one bit better than it was a few years ago. This is what I’m disappointed about. I understand what they’ve done and even agree that with what Thoyer had to work with financially, it may even have been the best way. Still, the MLB team is as pathetic as it was a few years ago. Everything is still about building a minor league system. The system is in the top 5. At what point is it good enough to address the obvious shortcoming at this point?
dmick89Quote Reply
THIS*1000000001
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
Is that like a larger number than the one I wrote? (dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
Great news. Hopefully also accompanied by enforcement of obstructing the base path.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Is that like a misting station?
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
Is this still allowed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV76ag-Q-dU
http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2012/10/16/this-wasnt-the-first-time-matt-holliday-has-thrown-a-despicable-cheap-shot-at-second-base-video/
WaLiQuote Reply
Good show. I’m pretty much sick of them losing too. I mean, I know all the free agents are going to go for more than they are worth by the old models, but guys, I’m starting to think its like when gas prices shot up, but everyone was certain that it would go back to 1.75 EVENTUALLY. No. Those prices for free agents are the prices now. It’s the models that need adjusting.
joshQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
Yeah, no doubt. It’s nonsense if they don’t enforce obstruction.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
Yeah, right on. I’m finding it hard to give even a single shit about this coming season.
joshQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
They love to say that it doesn’t pay to finish with mid-70’s or mid-80’s wins, but obviously you have to increase the win count as some point. This has been said many times here. And yeah, there seems to be no effort to drift out of the 60 win season. So, that means that they don’t really think they’re close. So the new information that 2015 will probably be the last horrible season rather than the first good season is probably true, which is pretty sad.
Again, lots of people had been saying that 2015 wouldn’t be any better, but this offseason makes it pretty clear that they are right.
JasonQuote Reply
You are so brave. Thank you for your patience.
EdwinQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
In theory, yeah, I’m all about 424’s sentiments too…but in reality, I’m starting to lean more in UD’s direction.
Not a single player that would have made a difference long-term for this team has been signed to a contract I would have been okay with so far. And for the Cubs to have landed these guys would have meant paying more than they were eventually bought for, which would have made the cost (and me) even crazier. I was way on board with the Cubs going after a player like Cano, but with certain limits in mind. In the end, those limits were not realistic, and I’m a little embarrassed I thought they were.
There’s just not a whole lot of talent out there worth going after, fellas. And the talent that is there honestly and truly does not make sense for the years and dollars it’s being purchased, not to mention purchasing it would mean the Cubs would be chucking the new organizational philosophy to the winds two years into its implementation. Unless what we’re really after is shuffling out one set of longshots for another. Changing faces.
As much as it pisses me off sometimes, nothing to do but wait it out and hope like hell Theo and Co. know what the fuck they’re doing.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
@ Smokestack Lightning:
I agree with this to an extent. I wouldn’t have signed Ellsbury at that contract. I’d have had no problem with the Cubs signing Cano to the contract he got. That was right on par with what his CAIRO projection suggested using $6 million per win. Up that to $7 million and it’s a pretty good deal. A shitload of money, but based on what we know right now, a pretty good deal.
I understand the Cubs not wanting to shell out that kind of money though and don’t blame them. While I’m fine with a large contract right now, I’d probably not give one out for more than $150 million and the player would have to be worth it. Ellsbury was not. I don’t want the Cubs to overpay. If the win is $7 million, which in reality, it is, then I want the Cubs to stay within that. Now and in a few years when they’re hopefully contending. I don’t like overpaying for players.
So maybe right now wasn’t the time to improve the MLB team. I could maybe get behind that, but what about at the deadline last year? Why not last offseason? This insistence that they wait until all the pieces are in place is what irritates me. Those pieces may never be in place. They’re counting on the most unreliable talents in baseball.
I wouldn’t have minded them climbing up to 80 wins this offseason, but that probably meant being more active over the last year. Then, if you do get lucky and the prospects start working out, you’re already there. You can then sink money into a Cano-type player and not look back.
What Jason said…
Jason wrote:
I’m not convinced this had to be. The full rebuild in the manner they are apparently doing it meant that, but you can rebuild the minor leagues while building the major leagues. And that, I feel needs to be pointed out, is exactly what Theo, Hoyer and Ricketts said they were going to do when Thoyer took over.
I think the fact they haven’t speaks to the financial restraints they’re working in and not a desire to attack the process in more than one way. There’s no doubt in my mind that if Theo got the money he was anticipating that he’d have done so. This concerns me because those financial issues are likely to be a problem for some time. That sucks because this is a team that should dominate the Central and I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
I couldn’t agree more with this. That’s why at best all I can do is slightly lean in UD’s favor on this (for now), and only because of the present reality. Here’s hoping the Cubs start to catch some breaks. So far, they’ve caught zero.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
@ Smokestack Lightning:
I just don’t know if we can continue to think of those contracts as overpaying. If everyone’s paying that price, then that’s just the price. If the Cubs are going to sign FA’s, they’re going to have shell it out, the market isn’t going to let you have Cano at whatever you want.
joshQuote Reply
If they won’t pony up, then they’ll be outbid everytime. How long do you stick to your guns and insist on looking for bargains? I dunno. Maybe their strategy is fine in the long-run, but on the other hand, it doesn’t make me want to watch baseball.
joshQuote Reply
josh wrote:
What did Shapiro say the cost of a win would be on the FA market awhile back? Something like $9 million? This may be where we are heading and it’s what the price is.
I’m not saying they had to go and sign guys at the same rate as before the 2007 season, but fucking something would be nice. Choo and Tanaka are the only guys left worth being interested in and the Cubs have basically told us not to hold our breath as far as those guys go.
They have money. They are billionaires. They got away with two years of good faith form this fan base and are now showing no signs that it’s going to get any better. Other owners have to be just staring slack-jawed at how the Cubs are operating. If I’m Reinsdorf, I’d be fucking pissed off as hell at the free pass this fan base is giving them based on nothing but faith.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
Shapiro said $9 million, but pretty sure that’s based on his valuation of wins, which we don’t have access to. Based on WAR and real wins provided by free agents, the value of the win has basically been $7 million for several years now. There was a big increase after 2007 (and one a few years before that), but it’s remained fairly constant since. The difference between the $5.5 million that’s often cited is that projections overvalue players (mostly due to playing time IIRC).
I think whatever goodwill the Cubs have is gone if they don’t do well this year and we know they won’t. I’m OK with that. I feel a lot better as a fan with a fanbase that is restless and putting additional pressure on the front office and ownership.
I stressed this last time we discussed this, but my issue isn’t with the front office. I think they’ve done well given what they have. I think they’ve done a great job. My issue is with ownership and I’ll agree with Dave here that we probably need more time to evaluate them, but over their first 5 years as owners, I’m not impressed.
You don’t need a huge payroll to win, but it helps and this is the Chicago Cubs. They should have a large payroll. It should be higher than any other team in the NL Central every year. A big reason I was so confident when Ricketts took over and when they eventually hired Thoyer was that I assumed they’d have a very high payroll. Without that, I’m really only confident in the Cubs having a good farm system.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
I’m shocked that Theo would come into a situation agreeing to basically run in place at the bottom of the standings for 3 straight years and then having the only way it gets better for it to come solely from the minor leagues to start. His 5 years is going to be up and they may not win more than 75 games in any of those 5 seasons at this rate. That is an awful lot of confidence he can be the smartest one in the room of an increasingly smarter room.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Agree that Rickets dropped the ball by waiting two years because of *mumble mumble* tradition or some bullshit. I’m just rapidly losing interest. I’m sure I’ll be right back into it when they have a good season again.
joshQuote Reply
josh wrote:
Overpaying is in part a matter of personal opinion. As long as a team buys a player for a lot more than I think they should, the term will exist. The way you present the term, I’m thinking we must define it differently (and I don’t mean that as a backhanded insult). The fact that the price is the price has nothing to do with whether or not I think somebody was a dipshit to pay it.
josh wrote:
I wasn’t arguing otherwise. The question is whether or not the price paid is going to be worth what the production is slated to be. I was big on the Cubs going after Cano until the price came down the pike, at which point I was glad the Cubs didn’t go to that length to get him. It wasn’t what I wanted the Cubs to pay. There’s a point where the returns don’t justify the price. And I think that’s what happened with Cano. And Ellsbury. And soon the same thing with Choo.
This is not to say I don’t think there are times when a team should risk an overpay, just that I didn’t think this was one of those times. If Clayton Kershaw somehow hits the market next winter, you’ll likely find me singing a much different tune.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/5dd2292cac56770f426c69c021ac0e00/tumblr_mfaphqG42m1rstq9ro1_500.gif[/img]
Aisle424Quote Reply
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/parking-lot-altercation-steals-the-show-at-winter-meetings-023231001.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory
Aisle424Quote Reply
Teams are offering 7 years to Choo? WTF
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I bet the Cubs aren’t.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
Would the Cubs balk at 5 years? My guess is they would only be willing to go 4.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
The way they’re acting, I’d be shocked to see anyone get signed for more than 3 years.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Smokestack Lightning:
My point is that the price may be going up. It’s overpaying to pay $3 a gallon for gas ten years ago. Now it’s just the price of gas.
joshQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I think we’re seeing the CBA in effect. Scarcity has driven prices up. I’m calling this stuff the new normal.
joshQuote Reply
I think Thoyer are basically banking that these first few years are creating a sort of bank rush and forcing teams to buy up all the available free agents at insane costs, and that they’re just going to wait back a couple years and trade up for whoever is good that is still left, or hope the prices even back out. Maybe that’s the right strategy. I have no idea. It means we’re going to see shitty baseball in Chicago for a couple more years, I’d guess.
joshQuote Reply
I’m not even so much bothered by the lack of spending than by the inability to get involved in the trade market. We couldn’t come up with a better offer than Carter Capps for Logan Morrison? That’s not a guy the Cubs think they could use? When the starting outfield is what, Lake, Sweeney, Schierholtz? Doug Fister was moved for a pretty small return. That’s a guy that helps you win now and probably when you’re ready to be good. There are MLB ready guys that aren’t going to cost significant prospects.
jQuote Reply
josh wrote:
Perhaps, but gas is still gas at $3 and does what $1.75 gas did ten years ago. Cano in ten years won’t. Not even close. He probably won’t even be able to do it in 5.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I think it is pretty easy to make the argument that they are far, far worse.
I know there are a few free agents still to sign, but outside of Tanaka and Choo (neither of which the Cubs are going to sign), there isn’t anyone who is going to make any real difference in the long term. Right now, the major league team is far worse than it was at the start of the season two years ago. No Soriano, Dempster, Maholm, Feldman, Garza, Dejesus, Harriston, etc.
They do not even have the veteran talent at the major league level that they can flip for prospects like they have for the last two years. They have Shark (who was once part of the future core) and they have Scheirholtz who might get a meh upper prospect or a low level lottery ticket.
The front office has done wonders at the minor league level but the major league level has deteriorated.
JimLQuote Reply
j wrote:
Morrison has been below replacement level for two straight years (and he wasn’t that great before then). His bat has gone south and his defense has always been terrible. Cubs already have plenty of guys who can’t hit or field.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
josh wrote:
Only if you watch it.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
When signing free agents, why don’t teams vary the annual payments more than they do currently? For example, why not break down Cano’s 10 year, $240 million dollar salary like this:
year 1: $32.5m
year 2: $32.5m
year 3: $30m
year 4: $30m
year 5: $25m
year 6: $23m
year 7: $23m
year 8: $18m
year 9: $15m
year 10:$12m
For one, it better matches up against his expected value per year meaning it is easier to justify the contract in its later years, but it also makes it easier to trade the player/contract later if necessary.
I understand that some teams cannot afford to take the bigger hit up front (meaning they are literally mortgaging their future by getting lots of value immediately but poorer value later), but some smarter (better planning) teams could. Teams (like the Cubs) that are terrible now (but currently have payroll flexibility) and are expected to be good in the future could frontload free agent contracts so that when they are competitive they will continue to have payroll flexability.
JimLQuote Reply
Corey Hart signs a one year contract with Seattle for $5 million base plus $8 million in incentives. If the Cubs were willing to gamble on Scott Baker last year for $5 million why not gamble on Corey Hart for the same amount?
When he was healthy Hart was one of the better hitters in baseball, It is not unreasonable to assume he can still rake. If Hart comes in and proves his knees are ok the Cubs should be able to flip him to a contender for a decent haul. If he can’t come back healthy then it won’t cost the Cubs much more than $5 million. This seems like the type of gambles the Cubs should be taking.
JimLQuote Reply
Is Hart playing OF in Seattle or just 1B/DH?
GBTSQuote Reply
@ JimL:
Because the present value of that contract would be larger than if they split it evenly or even better, backloaded it. A dollar now is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.
dmick89Quote Reply
josh wrote:
Like You CareQuote Reply
josh wrote:
Like You CareQuote Reply
Quitting my job: http://baseballjobs.teamworkonline.com/teamwork/r.cfm?i=62137
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
Feel free to use OVBlog as a reference.
dmick89Quote Reply
Who should the Cubs have signed that they haven’t, or didn’t try to? It seems like people are getting really worked up over the Chris Young’s of the world, and I can’t really bring myself to give a shit about it. Yeah it’d be nice to have Darvish or Puig or Sanchez, but every one of those deals looked like huge overpays at the time.
I can see being upset that they haven’t been more active in the trade market, but frankly I still think the system is a hair short of where I’d like to see it from a depth perspective before they start emptying it out for the David Prices of the world.*
*This goes out the window if Kershaw extension talks break down and he becomes available. Then trade everybody.
sitrickQuote Reply
How much different would we all feel about this rebuild if Castro hadn’t sucked and Rizzo hadn’t stagnated? If they both post 3 win seasons and the win total is in the 70s instead of the 60s, does everybody feel better?
sitrickQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
They could have tried keeping players like Feldman, Dempster, Garza, or Maholm. They could have tried to find a better upgrade at 3B and 2B the past two seasons, instead of using scrubs like Barney, Valbuena, and that other guy I can’t remember at the moment. They could have tried to do a better job of upgrading their outfield. They could have aquired a couple bullpen arms.
Maybe not all of these moves were feasable, or would have made a lot of sense. They might even have done something like sign BJ Upton (which I wanted them to do) only to have him be a total turd this year. But this is supposedly one of the best front offices in baseball. Shouldn’t we expect them to be able to find a way to field a team that doesn’t have gaping holes at 3 or 4 spots in the lineup?
EdwinQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
I’d feel better, but I’d still want them to go after a player like Cano, Tanaka, Choo, or Ellsbury. It still wouldn’t change the fact that the Cubs had done very little to improve their MLB talent, outside of hoping for better play from what they already had.
EdwinQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
To what end? What possible purpose does keeping Feldman, Dempster, Garza and Maholm serve? How is that any different from what Hendry had done since 2008? Valbuena was a 2 win player last year as a platoon guy. Barney was a year removed from a 2 win season, and I shudder to think what the Cubs’ run prevention would have looked like without him last year.
This is what we signed up for with a rebuild. If the pieces they currently have don’t take a step forward and become impact major leaguers, and the free agent options they pursue get deals that are considered massive overpays at the time they’re signed and they miss out, then there’s no way to accelerate the timetable. You take the advantage you can get (getting the best possible position you can in the draft and pressing the financial edge that comes with it) and you preach patience. That’s what they’ve done.
You can say they should’ve overpaid for Puig, Darvish, and/or Sanchez. Ok. Should they have overpaid for Fielder? Pujols? Hamilton? How do you know which guys to overpay and which guys not to?
Things in cubdom seem to be very results-oriented to me lately, and people seem to be really overlooking the fact that the process has been as sound as we can reasonably expect. To use a poker analogy, sometimes you just fucking get cold-decked, and you start having trip aces lose to runner-runner straights. That doesn’t mean you change your process, it means you keep doing what you’re doing and wait for your luck to turn, because the odds are in your favor.
This rebuild has been a lot of shitty luck and worst-case scenarios. We should have expected that, because this is the Cubs. I don’t see what has changed over the past twelve months where all of the sudden the situation has become untenable. Castro and Rizzo are likely to have better years in 2014, and that will likely go a long way to make things look a lot better.
sitrickQuote Reply
Cubs traded for Justin Ruggiano. 2.5 win player in 2012 in 320 PA. But he sucked in 2013, so he’ll fit right in.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
Our troubles are over!
GWQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
Better dust off that GED. Guess I wasn’t on OV when you were its mascot. What was your schtick?
SVBQuote Reply
I don’t know the answer. I don’t know who the Cubs could have signed and I don’t know who they could have traded for. I don’t believe I have to supply an answer to that to justify my belief that things could have moved faster had they made different decisions. I think there’s more than enough justification in the fact that this is the third offseason that the new front office has been in charge and we’re going on, what, 5 years of ownership?
If my complaint was that they should have signed someone this offseason then I feel I would have to justify it. It would be difficult. I wouldn’t want them signing anyone other than Cano who has been signed and even Cano, I wouldn’t sign simply because I agree that they aren’t yet at the point where they sink that kind of money into a single player.
Theo has commented about being surprised at the lack of financial support for the MLB team. I think I’m going to have to create a keyboard shortcut for the following: given that support, I have no problems with what the front office has done. The Cubs are getting made fun of by Scott Boras in an offseason that has seen free agent contracts go bananas.
dmick89Quote Reply
JimL wrote:
But even with those guys, the Cubs weren’t a winning team, and with the high minors prospects we had then, there was little reason to expect that holding on to them would reasonably lead to a winning team. Vitters. Bret Jackson. Feldman was a reclamation project that worked. Scott Baker could still be that, if he re-signs and there are others of that ilk out there.
The minors to me look like they’ll contribute in 2015. I’d like to have some guys in the OF now that can be established now for when the young guys come up, like Choo, or Rasmus. It would be nice to stagger in some long term contracts now with the knowledge that there will be even more money when the renovations are done. The Yankees dominated when they were able to bring up kids like Jeter, Pettitte, Posada, etc. and then buy others. Same with the Cards. Over the last three years, the Cubs had no one of value to bring up from the minors, except Russell and Parker, I guess.
SVBQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
This
SVBQuote Reply
Oh yeah, we traded Brian “who cares” Bogusevic for Justin “huh” Ruggiano!
I’ll look into it.
MylesQuote Reply
Cubs lost Marcos Mateo in the Rule 5 draft. Wow. Didn’t even know we still had him!
SVBQuote Reply
He looks like an ideal platoon-mate with Nate Schierholtz. This deal is an unqualified success since Brian Bogusevic is just Ruggiano from the other side of the plate.
MylesQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Okay, this I absolutely agree with. Different decisions could have been made that would have accelerated the process, absolutely.
I get incredibly frustrated with the general aura around the fanbase lately that seems to suggest “YOU SHOULD BE SPENDING MONEY” but can’t point to a guy that they should have spent money on that they didn’t try to get. They can’t make players sign contracts.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ SVB:
Not sure ‘lost’ is the right word.
dmick89Quote Reply
sitrick wrote:
Spending money is one way in which it could have moved faster. I don’t know who, but there was surely someone available at the right cost that they could have signed. I have little doubt about that three offseasons in.
dmick89Quote Reply
And I could care less about Scott Boras making fun of the Cubs. His interests and the interests of the Cubs organization are designed to be inherently conflicting. Boras loved Hendry. It’s meaningless to me.
sitrickQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
I don’t disagree, but without the benefit of hindsight all you can do is offer contracts based on your own valuations of a player, and not go over them if someone else decides to pay more than you feel the player is worth. They were in on all the free agents that turned out to be impact guys. Someone else was just willing to pay more. If you want to criticize the way they’re valuing guys and feel like there should be more money available to pursue the free agents they’re interested in, then that’s a valid criticism and one they deserve.
What was Edwin Jackson, bye the way, if not spending money? He’s not valueless, and is likely to have a better 2014 than 2013. Based on peripherals I don’t think there’s any reason to believe his value to a future contending Cubs team is any less than it was a year ago. He’s still basically the player they signed, just with a season of crappy results.
sitrickQuote Reply
Sorry, I know we’ve had this debate a thousand times around here. Work is boring and I’m argumentative (dying laughing)
sitrickQuote Reply
sitrick wrote:
Like You CareQuote Reply
sitrick wrote:
Bet he used to love Theo more. They’ve had the larger payroll and Boras loves those who spend the most.
I don’t care that he’s making fun of them either. I just think it’s funny.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ sitrick:
I imagine we’ll have this debate again and again. I don’t see either of us changing our view on this.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’m more frustrated that the Cubs aren’t even involved in anything this off season. I can understand not getting too far into discussions with Cano or Ellsbury. Fine. I can concede that they would be too expensive to waste time on.
Corey Hart? Josh Johnson? Ricky Nolasco? All signed for reasonable deals and have pretty good upside and the Cubs didn’t seem to be anywhere near them. Ubaldo Jimenez and Ervin Santana are both out there and are both youngish and again, the Cubs are nowhere to be found.
None of these guys would solve everything and I’m not sitting here demanding that the Cubs suddenly flip into WIN NOW mode. But, like I told the Cubs, how about some fucking good faith from the ownership? Maybe it is pissing money away, but they expect us to piss OUR money away on their shitty product, they could take a bite and share a bit of the pain in this process too.
Maybe that’s naive of me, but I think two fucking years of this should provide something worth watching.
Aisle424Quote Reply
sitrick wrote:
This.
GBTSQuote Reply
I thought Aisley’s entire point was “I’m very happy with how quickly the rebuild has progressed, but that sure as shit doesn’t mean I’m going to pay a sizeable chunk of my personal income to watch the 2014 Cubs.”
If we’re talking about what Thoyer have done in just two years, I give them a high grade. But is it going to provide me with $10,000+ of entertainment at Wrigley this season? Dear god, no. Those are two very different questions.
GBTSQuote Reply
I didn’t really expect the Cubs to get in on the Ellsbury and Cano sweepstakes but I thought they would definitely be in on the Josh Johnson and Jimenez types. I don’t expect the Cubs to be good next year but like most of you, I’d like to see them continue to turn short term assets into long term assets. Doesn’t seem like they are doing much of that either.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
The problem with that argument is that little could change between now and next year and it would be every bit as true. It could not change between then and a year later and still be said.
dmick89Quote Reply
Basically other than monitoring Castro and Rizzo’s progress, the Cubs are an afterthought to me until Bryant gets the call-up. There’s plenty of other baseball to watch. But obviously I can see why someone who actually pays to watch the Cubs would feel completely different.
GBTSQuote Reply
I’m not crazy, I don’t expect all of Bryant-Baez-Soler-Almora-Alacantara to be producing like All-Stars at Wrigley at the same time. Once one of Bryant or Baez reaches the bigs and starts mashing, that’s when I expect the Cubs to go out and start adding pieces. Until then, I honestly couldn’t give a shit whether they’re in on a guy like Ubaldo Jimenez. There are always going to be guys like that available. If Thoyer thinks the best course is to tread water until the Next Generation arrives, fine, I’ll trust them. Again, I don’t have the pipe dream that every prospect breaks through. But when the first one does, that’s when I’ll be expecting the $$$ to come raining again.
GBTSQuote Reply
New Shit!
http://obstructedview.net/commentary-and-analysis/the-case-for-7140-on-choo.html
MylesQuote Reply