Prolonged Losing Leading to Success?

chibears55

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
13,554
Liked Posts:
1,924
God I'm tired of this endless debate. It's always a black and white conversation where one side says losing is the way and the other side bashes the cubs for being losers. The world isn't black and white, rather gray. Even with an amazing farm system the cubs are quite unlikely to be the '27 yankees. They're also unlikely to be what they are now. If you want a realistic look at where they will be look to the current Royals team since in 2010 they had "the greatest farm system ever." Those royals currently sit 52-50 and have been a fringe playoff team the past two years. You can make a valid argument that the cubs will have more payroll flexibility and should be at the very least slightly better given the Royals had to trade away 3 of their top prospects to get Shields.

Is that all that bad? I mean yeah you'd hope after all these losses that the end return is a title. But that royals team is likely to have a 5-10 year run of at least this level of success. Some years will be better than others and if they get the other right pieces to go along with it they could have a special season. Look no farther than the mid-2000's white soxs to see what I mean. For the first 4 years of the decade they were a slightly above .500 team. In 2005, they got the right parts and it lead them to a title. In 2006 they also won 90 games but didn't do enough to win the title or even make the playoffs.

The game isn't about having the best player at every position. It's about giving yourself enough of a base that you're in position to win if the cards fall right. At the end of the day, they have set themselves up with a lot of chances at a very solid base of players. People can suggest that you could do the same thing buying FAs but does that really work any better? The yankees have spent how many countless millions of dollars to be a whole 2 games up on the Royals. Perhaps you can make the argument that the Yankees can retool quicker via FA than the Royals who languished in mediocrity for years but that also assumes a level playing field in terms of money. And if the Tanaka situation shows us anything, even if the cubs outbid 28 other teams if the Yankees want a player they have deeper pockets. And if you need one specific player in FA to win and the Yankees want him you're screwed. As such, building largely via FA is a fools errand.

I agree with everything you wrote BUT I think the cubs in a couple years once they get the signage up and tv deals done they will be closer to what the Yankees can do as far as signing needed/wanted FAs then the Royals and will be able to sustain a winnable roster ...

the cubs will be able to over pay if needed in the Amat. draft and IFA signings to keep their system loaded, and they will be able to extend their own young talent before they become FAs.

I think the biggest thing they will be able to do and what hurt Hendry somewhat is because they don't give away NTC they will be able to move older vets via trades easier if they have a younger player ready and gain prospects in return to keep system loaded..
 

Boobaby1

New member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
2,236
Liked Posts:
1,180
God I'm tired of this endless debate. It's always a black and white conversation where one side says losing is the way and the other side bashes the cubs for being losers. The world isn't black and white, rather gray. Even with an amazing farm system the cubs are quite unlikely to be the '27 yankees. They're also unlikely to be what they are now. If you want a realistic look at where they will be look to the current Royals team since in 2010 they had "the greatest farm system ever." Those royals currently sit 52-50 and have been a fringe playoff team the past two years. You can make a valid argument that the cubs will have more payroll flexibility and should be at the very least slightly better given the Royals had to trade away 3 of their top prospects to get Shields.

Is that all that bad? I mean yeah you'd hope after all these losses that the end return is a title. But that royals team is likely to have a 5-10 year run of at least this level of success. Some years will be better than others and if they get the other right pieces to go along with it they could have a special season. Look no farther than the mid-2000's white soxs to see what I mean. For the first 4 years of the decade they were a slightly above .500 team. In 2005, they got the right parts and it lead them to a title. In 2006 they also won 90 games but didn't do enough to win the title or even make the playoffs.

The game isn't about having the best player at every position. It's about giving yourself enough of a base that you're in position to win if the cards fall right. At the end of the day, they have set themselves up with a lot of chances at a very solid base of players. People can suggest that you could do the same thing buying FAs but does that really work any better? The yankees have spent how many countless millions of dollars to be a whole 2 games up on the Royals. Perhaps you can make the argument that the Yankees can retool quicker via FA than the Royals who languished in mediocrity for years but that also assumes a level playing field in terms of money. And if the Tanaka situation shows us anything, even if the cubs outbid 28 other teams if the Yankees want a player they have deeper pockets. And if you need one specific player in FA to win and the Yankees want him you're screwed. As such, building largely via FA is a fools errand.

Maybe a comparison would be a team like the Nationals. They kind of had the same players the Cubs have in the system, with a stronger pitching staff, but less hitting prospects. So I think that kind of balances it out on that end. The Nats were able to trade for Gio Gonzalez, but the free agent signings to me is where I think the Cubs could net a little better than Adam LaRoche and Jason Werth if they need to, and maybe ink an ACE.

And yes, in the end, it is how they will mesh together as a unit.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
Maybe a comparison would be a team like the Nationals. They kind of had the same players the Cubs have in the system, with a stronger pitching staff, but less hitting prospects. So I think that kind of balances it out on that end. The Nats were able to trade for Gio Gonzalez, but the free agent signings to me is where I think the Cubs could net a little better than Adam LaRoche and Jason Werth if they need to, and maybe ink an ACE.

And yes, in the end, it is how they will mesh together as a unit.
The Nationals were/are very balanced
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,679
Liked Posts:
9,491
Or most of the past century.

2004 to 2006 was the injury fuckness of all fuckness. We kept relying on Wood and Prior to come back healthy. It never happened. 2007 the owners wanted a winner. Jim Hendry went and bought himself a winner.
 

dabynsky

Fringe Average Mod
Donator
Joined:
May 17, 2010
Posts:
13,947
Liked Posts:
3,118
2004 to 2006 was the injury fuckness of all fuckness. We kept relying on Wood and Prior to come back healthy. It never happened. 2007 the owners wanted a winner. Jim Hendry went and bought himself a winner.

True, but it gets tiring as if people seem to act like this team has had some rich tradition of winning. I have experienced in my lifetime 90 loss seasons over twice as frequently as 90 win seasons, but this is the last straw? C'mon, I figured the discussion would devolve into the usual crap, but it was too interesting of an article to not share by the clearly kool-aid drinking publication Baseball America.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
17,960
Liked Posts:
2,775
Location:
San Diego
This team has a shot a decent run. They have resource and have been stock piling talent. I believe it will take 2 pitchers that are TOR and Bryant and Baez to mature.

They can go at it a few ways but I would trade Castro for a TOR prospect (trade deadline next year) then sign a legit TOR. Arrieta, whom I believe is not a 1 but a low 2 or 3, I don't feel he matches up vs other aces in the league.

This team could parallel 2007 next year if they spend on a legit TOR and let the kids mature. I don't see any reason not to get this team geared up.

What I don't feel ok about is banking on Johnson and Edwards to be a solution going forward. If they prove that they are that quality sure but both seem injury prone up to this point.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,723
Liked Posts:
3,723
True, but it gets tiring as if people seem to act like this team has had some rich tradition of winning. I have experienced in my lifetime 90 loss seasons over twice as frequently as 90 win seasons, but this is the last straw? C'mon, I figured the discussion would devolve into the usual crap, but it was too interesting of an article to not share by the clearly kool-aid drinking publication Baseball America.

It was a good article I'm glad you posted it. Shit's gonna devolve into this no matter what's said. Some people get way to much pleasure winding others up.
 

Boobaby1

New member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
2,236
Liked Posts:
1,180
The Nationals were/are very balanced


They are balanced because they went out and got Gonzalez to pitch, with Werth and LaRoche as free agent complimentary power hitters. The Cubs are hitter heavy. We know that.

Like I said, the Cubs can easily balance that out by landing a free agent TOR pitcher, and/or trade someone to land another pitcher. Plus land a free agent complimentary outfielder.

That isn't an impossible task considering the Cubs flexibility in payroll now which would be two free agent moves, and one trade to balance things out.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
They are balanced because they went out and got Gonzalez to pitch, with Werth and LaRoche as free agent complimentary power hitters. The Cubs are hitter heavy. We know that.

Like I said, the Cubs can easily balance that out by landing a free agent TOR pitcher, and/or trade someone to land another pitcher. Plus land a free agent complimentary outfielder.

That isn't an impossible task considering the Cubs flexibility in payroll now which would be two free agent moves, and one trade to balance things out.
My point was that the Nats were balanced all along. The Cubs are not. Its a legit difference.
 

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,718
Prolonged Losing Leading to Success?>>>

>>>Prolonged Losing Leading to Successful Ticket Sales.

Sorry, couldn't pass on the humor.
 

Boobaby1

New member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
2,236
Liked Posts:
1,180
My point was that the Nats were balanced all along. The Cubs are not. Its a legit difference.

Don't think for a minute that they won't balance this out. They know they are devoid in the pitching department, and they will use whatever resources to strengthen that up, and they have the two biggest chips in the world with good prospects, and a boat load of money.

Lethal combination if you ask me.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
Don't think for a minute that they won't balance this out. They know they are devoid in the pitching department, and they will use whatever resources to strengthen that up, and they have the two biggest chips in the world with good prospects, and a boat load of money.

Lethal combination if you ask me.
I think they might have one in Arrieta
 

Top