Epstein: "We haven't accomplished anything yet"

Boobaby1 · Jul 25, 2014

Mongo_76 said:
My point is that winning NOW is not mutually exclusive from building a sustained winning team.

The goal of every season should be to win. Not to build a farm...

Mongo, everyone here is tired of them losing. No one is denying that.

We were spoiled during the Hendry administration that payroll could seemingly buy winning. But, also factor in there that some key components that built that specific team were acquired via the farm. Lee and Ramirez.

The Cubs are just now getting there with the farm. Let the FO make some moves whether it be by trade, or better yet, that they go out and spend some money which they have no excuses for not doing since they have an abundance of it.

This FO is not going to just sit idly by and not throw some money into this team this year. How much? We will soon see.

But don't think that they don't know that they have little to no pitching on the ball club, and that is one area where they have at least concentrated on improving. The names aren't sexy, but they are young and mainly cost controlled. It's just not like some would want it to be because the big name free agents aren't in the discussion.

There are a couple of big fish out there this year, and a lot of pitchers from some low market teams that will be hitting free agency very soon that those teams probably won't be able to retain all of them.

The Cubs need a strong two to front the rotation. How they get them is yet to be determined.

brett05 · Jul 25, 2014

Dabys...why is both the wrong interpretation? Its the simpliest and most logical, no?

Mongo_76 · Jul 25, 2014

We were spoiled during the Hendry administration that payroll could seemingly buy winning. But, also factor in there that some key components that built that specific team were acquired via the farm. Lee and Ramirez.

Lee was acquired in a trade with the Marlins - he was never in our farm. Rameriez was with the Pirates.

I question the word "spoiled".

It implies that Hendry was allowed to do something he really shouldn't have. Spending on talent isn't a no-no...

The Rickets own a major market team - the most profitable in baseball. This leads right into the payroll discussion - which we don't need to rehash...

dabynsky · Jul 25, 2014

brett05 said:
Dabys...why is both the wrong interpretation? Its the simpliest and most logical, no?

Because the most reasonable explanation is that they are prioritizing the long run or the future with these comments. Every time they said they are going to try to win now but not at the sacrifice of the future. And you can take a step further by reading the entire of what they said which is placing the emphasis on developing streams of talent and that free agency represents a failing in the organization, etc.

This is a pretty fair piece about the parallel fronts comment from February.

dabynsky · Jul 25, 2014

Mongo_76 said:
My point is that winning NOW is not mutually exclusive from building a sustained winning team.

The goal of every season should be to win. Not to build a farm...

Okay so you have no example of a team that has been able to both restock a farm system and compete at the major league level under these circumstances?

dabynsky · Jul 25, 2014

Mongo_76 said:
Lee was acquired in a trade with the Marlins - he was never in our farm. Rameriez was with the Pirates.

Right but the point is that the farm system produces currency that can be traded as it was for Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez.

brett05 · Jul 25, 2014

dabynsky said:
Because the most reasonable explanation is that they are prioritizing the long run or the future with these comments. Every time they said they are going to try to win now but not at the sacrifice of the future. And you can take a step further by reading the entire of what they said which is placing the emphasis on developing streams of talent and that free agency represents a failing in the organization, etc.

This is a pretty fair piece about the parallel fronts comment from February.

That doesn't seem reasonable. If that was the case one doesn't mention sacred seasons...you can make moves to try to win without jeopardizing the future.

theberserkfury · Jul 25, 2014

Mongo_76 said:
Lee was acquired in a trade with the Marlins - he was never in our farm. Rameriez was with the Pirates.

I question the word "spoiled".

It implies that Hendry was allowed to do something he really shouldn't have. Spending on talent isn't a no-no...

The Rickets own a major market team - the most profitable in baseball. This leads right into the payroll discussion - which we don't need to rehash...

He means that Lee and Ramirez were acquired using assets from the farm.

JP Hochbaum · Jul 25, 2014

Mongo_76 said:
This makes no sense. This is clearly just another failed attempt at being an apologist for him.

Your saying that because he talked out of both sides of his mouth, I should ignore anything that he says that indicates he wants to win???

It doesn't make it Ok to bullshit people just because you throw in a "just kidding" in the fine print.

You are implying they are mutually exclusive.

They don't have to be.

I don't get how people are considered apologists for taking Theo for what he said, and not what we think he is saying. If you think he built a team to make the playoffs the last 2-3 years then you are just not smart enough to get it.

Every GM in every sport is going to say they are attempting to win it this year. If you are gullible enough to have taken Theo's words as him saying he was going to buy a team every year, then you just didn't see what Theo's past was. He didn't do that in Boston, until they were competitive enough (Ortiz). And the plan he is following from Cleveland, didn't do that either.

Here are Theo's words exactly:

""There is going to be a time when we are a financial superpower again," Epstein says. "We'll have the entire landscape available to us. In this interim, we have to be focused on scouting and development."

If you interpret the above as meaning that they would spend money, then you have no ability to comprehend sentences.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/1...d-chicago-cubs-blueprint-boston-espn-magazine

Not only has Epstein been saying that the plan was player development for the long term and opening the finances when they were ready, but writers who weren't meatballs recognized it to, and reported on it.

http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2012/12/2/3717446/theo-epstein-red-sox-cubs-plan-player-development

dabynsky · Jul 25, 2014

Mongo_76 said:
Again. You're missing the point. He said "every opportunity to win is sacred". Can we agree that this means the Cubs should try to win?

If so, nothing he has done since saying that jives with that.

Even if right after, he said "winning longterm is sacred",it does not mean it's OK to contradict the first thing he said. It doesn't make it OK to tank seasons. More. winning long term does not HAVE to mean throwing seasons.

Again. Many many teams build successful long-term winning organizations without tanking.

Btw, after he said the above, contrary to what you have said, Theo didn't mention long term anything. He actually said "It's sacred to us inside the organization and it should be sacred to the fans as well. They deserve our best efforts to do what we can to improve the club, and put the club in position to succeed in any given season."

More horsehit...

Well we can talk about missing the point and other semantic arguments until we are blue in the face. He pretty clearly laid out in his comments that it was going to take time ("you can't turn an ocean-liner on a dime") and that the priority was going to be on developing the farm ("there are no shortcuts") etc. Either way at the end of the day it changes nothing. You will still be pissed off about losing at the major league level as if it something that is foreign to this organization. And I will wait and see what this front office does with a full deck at its disposal for the first time since it took over this organization.

dabynsky · Jul 25, 2014

brett05 said:
That doesn't seem reasonable. If that was the case one doesn't mention sacred seasons...you can make moves to try to win without jeopardizing the future.

Actual every move has a cost both short and long term. The Cubs have added free agents, but they have refused to give up draft picks. And they've avoided long term contracts. What moves could they have made that wouldn't have a cost on the Cubs future?

Hurvatat · Jul 25, 2014

Honsety is the best policy or so I am told.

Mongo_76 · Jul 25, 2014

I don't get how people are considered apologists for taking Theo for what he said, and not what we think he is saying.

He said "every opportunity to win is sacred". He then immediately put together a team that can't win and hasn't since he took over.

There is no ambiguity there. It's not "what I think he said". He literally said those exact words. And he literally, did the exact opposite. With intent.

Not only has Epstein been saying that the plan was player development for the long term and opening the finances when they were ready, but writers who weren't meatballs recognized it to, and reported on it.

Again. "Player development", "building a farm", "long term success".

None of those things preclude a team from trying to win now.

"Winning now" is not mutually exclusive from "winning long term".

Sorry. There is no way in the world you can convince me that it does.

Mongo_76 · Jul 25, 2014

What moves could they have made that wouldn't have a cost on the Cubs future?

If you haven't noticed, "What ifs" are not a game I play.

dabynsky · Jul 25, 2014

Mongo_76 said:
He said "every opportunity to win is sacred". He then immediately put together a team that can't win and hasn't since he took over.

There is no ambiguity there. It's not "what I think he said". He literally said those exact words. And he literally, did the exact opposite. With intent.

Again. "Player development", "building a farm", "long term success".

None of those things preclude a team from trying to win now.

"Winning now" is not mutually exclusive from "winning long term".

Sorry. There is no way in the world you can convince me that it does.

This is the heart of the matter. You are convinced of your position and there is no way I am going to change your mind.

Here is my question to you can you acknowledge that it would have taken longer to develop the farm system by not focusing so many resources to developing the farm?

Mongo_76 · Jul 25, 2014

He pretty clearly laid out in his comments that it was going to take time

Sure. No disagreement there. He at one point even mentioned a "2 year plan" on 670.

That doesn't change the fact that there are things the team could be doing now that help them win now.

All you have to do is look at gross revenues versus operating expenses.

JP Hochbaum · Jul 25, 2014

Mongo_76 said:
He said "every opportunity to win is sacred". He then immediately put together a team that can't win and hasn't since he took over.

There is no ambiguity there. It's not "what I think he said". He literally said those exact words. And he literally, did the exact opposite. With intent.

And under the pan of building for the future, they tried to put teams together that would win games. They didn't have the finances to sign Pujols or whatnot, and he has said that.

Saying winning is sacred isn't the same thing as saying they were going to mortgage the house to make sure they won, or that they would pay for high priced free agents. He never said he would do that, not once.

dabynsky · Jul 25, 2014

Mongo_76 said:
If you haven't noticed, "What ifs" are not a game I play.

Alright, but that was not directed to you in the first place and second of all can you acknowledge that moves that would have improved the major league team come at a cost for the future.

JP Hochbaum · Jul 25, 2014

Mongo_76 said:
Sure. No disagreement there. He at one point even mentioned a "2 year plan" on 670.

That doesn't change the fact that there are things the team could be doing now that help them win now.

All you have to do is look at gross revenues versus operating expenses.

The please enlighten us on who would have helped us win now.

dabynsky · Jul 25, 2014

Mongo_76 said:
Sure. No disagreement there. He at one point even mentioned a "2 year plan" on 670.

I would love to see that quote because I have never ever seen a direct comment indicating a timeline until this year.

Mongo_76 said:
That doesn't change the fact that there are things the team could be doing now that help them win now.

Agree but those would come at the cost of developing future assets.

Mongo_76 said:
All you have to do is look at gross revenues versus operating expenses.

What official records of those things are available to us?

Epstein: "We haven't accomplished anything yet"

New member

867-5309

Well-known member

Fringe Average Mod

Fringe Average Mod

Fringe Average Mod

867-5309

Active member

Well-known member

Fringe Average Mod

Fringe Average Mod

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Fringe Average Mod

Well-known member

Well-known member

Fringe Average Mod

Well-known member

Fringe Average Mod