Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Is rebuilding worth it

Avatar

Posted: 3/13/2013 8:48 AM

Is rebuilding worth it 


http://www.fangraphs.com/commu...lding-worth-it/

From article -

In baseball, the effects of a high draft pick aren’t seen for years, and the likelihood of landing a franchise player with a high pick is much lower than it is in other sports. The value of simply picking near the top of the draft in baseball simply isn’t as large as it in basketball or football, and it’s not a good enough reason to blow up a mediocre baseball team….


There’s too much variation in baseball for teams to simply accept their most recent record as evidence of their short term future. There [are] too many things that simply can’t be projected — and too much uncertainty around the things we do know — for more than one or two teams per year to simply punt the entire season and lose on purpose. Trading from the present to improve the future is one thing; trading from the present simply because we see no future is another thing entirely, and requires a level of certainty in forecasting that we simply don’t have

Beyond these fairly strict conditions, rebuilding does not show up in the data to be a worthy pursuit. There may be other reasons that organizations decide to go down this path and convince themselves it is right for them, besides simply not having the money to invest further. Perhaps it is out of fear of risk that teams choose not to increase payroll with a losing team, both from an owner’s perspective and that of a baseball operations department. If owners do not have full faith in their executives’ abilities to make decisions with sound judgment, it is very easy to see why they would be quicker to sign off on a plan that calls for reduced spending. From a baseball operations standpoint, selling patience to ownership over a three to five year period while the organization’s talent base gets rebuilt buys some time and job security.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/13/2013 3:43 PM

Re: Is rebuilding worth it 



cubs2007 wrote: http://www.fangraphs.com/commu...lding-worth-it/

From article -

In baseball, the effects of a high draft pick aren’t seen for years, and the likelihood of landing a franchise player with a high pick is much lower than it is in other sports. The value of simply picking near the top of the draft in baseball simply isn’t as large as it in basketball or football, and it’s not a good enough reason to blow up a mediocre baseball team….


There’s too much variation in baseball for teams to simply accept their most recent record as evidence of their short term future. There [are] too many things that simply can’t be projected — and too much uncertainty around the things we do know — for more than one or two teams per year to simply punt the entire season and lose on purpose. Trading from the present to improve the future is one thing; trading from the present simply because we see no future is another thing entirely, and requires a level of certainty in forecasting that we simply don’t have

Beyond these fairly strict conditions, rebuilding does not show up in the data to be a worthy pursuit. There may be other reasons that organizations decide to go down this path and convince themselves it is right for them, besides simply not having the money to invest further. Perhaps it is out of fear of risk that teams choose not to increase payroll with a losing team, both from an owner’s perspective and that of a baseball operations department. If owners do not have full faith in their executives’ abilities to make decisions with sound judgment, it is very easy to see why they would be quicker to sign off on a plan that calls for reduced spending. From a baseball operations standpoint, selling patience to ownership over a three to five year period while the organization’s talent base gets rebuilt buys some time and job security.

First, a housekeeping note. The first 2 paragraphs of your quote are actually from a Fangraph's article by Dave Cameron that Dan Farnsworth references in the article. Dave's article is here:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs...sing-on-purpose/

The last paragraph you pasted was from Farnsworth, just so you know whose words/opinion they are. Both are very thorough articles.

Ok, so now the problems.

Farnsworth's point was that rebuilding isn't "worth" it, from a dollars-and-cents perspective, or from a winning perspective.  The problem with statistical analysis is that while it may apply to the whole, there can easily be outliers. The Cubs are one such outlier. In recent years, when bad, Cubs attendance certainly has not dropped anywhere close to the rate that it has for the Marlins, Mets, Brewers or nearly any other team. As such, the 'worth it' philosophy might not apply here from a cost perspective. Farnsworth acknowledges that there may be outliers in his article.

Next, Farnsworth shows with some strong statistical significance that more payroll equals more wins...no kidding. Nobody said the Cubs shouldn't eventually have a high payroll. But if they have the farm system of a low budget team and the budget of a high-payroll team...that is an advantage that could get you some success. And based on results thus far, being bad has helped grow the farm pretty quickly. Obviously, they then do need to add the payroll or else only the Rays have managed sustained success with this model in recent years with a low payroll. But the Cubs have money to add, so they increase their odds.

Finally, Cameron's point that he is not a fan of 'losing on purpose'. His whole premise is based around statistical inaccuracies that amount to "ya never know", basically advocating almost always adding and "going for it" to slightly increase your odds. Two problems:
(1)He admits there are some cases where you know you will be bad, like the Astros or Marlins...the Cubs are right there. (2)he makes the case like Farnsworth that losing costs you money. Like with Farnsworth, that is much less true (or even not true) for the Cubs as it is for many other teams.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/13/2013 7:09 PM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 


Getting lots of top prospects that will ultimately flame out does not necessarily mean they have to be busts for you. I doubt anyone in management is expecting a lot of our top prospects to pan out. They may be thinking some will like Soler and Baez, but loading up on prospects also gives you valuable trading pieces, and Theo has been willing to trade top prospects in the past to get young, proven talent like Beckett.

So yeah, picking at the top of draft doesn't really look great if you're planning on holding onto those prospects no matter what, but I highly doubt Theo plans on doing that.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/13/2013 7:20 PM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 


Especially with teams signing their good young players to extensions before they reach arbitration. is become a trend. about only way to get top talent, especially pitching, is to trade prospects.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/13/2013 9:52 PM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 


My question is, was there really a choice?

Upon arrival the entire orginization was in shambles. The entire orginization had one player that looked Championship quality, and that was betting on the come. That of course was Castro. A championship team needs roughly, not exactly, 5 core offensive pieces, 3 starters, and 2 relievers. The Cubs had on day one exactly one of these players.

So could the Cubs have dropped the extra $40 million or so and got Fielder, Cespedes, and Darvish last year? Sure, they would have a pretty tapped out budget and roughly speaking have been an 85-90 loss team. Yeah, we still would be a long way to getting to the goal and the payroll would be in much worse shape.

After last year the big club looks to have added two players that could be part of a Championship run in Rizzo, and Samardzija. As for Samardzija I think he is more on the fringe, like a number three guy on a top team, and Rizzo isn't a shoe in either. Of course we wouldn't have Rizzo upon signing Fielder, so that looks like a win for us.

On the farm the FO inherited another top prospect in Baez. He has a ways to go, but the skills are flat out elite, upside a top 10 player in the entire league. In the draft they may have got their CF of the future, and in international FA they may have got a RF slugger.

I say all this in that even if the team spent big we would have been a losing team last year. Fielder and Rizzo would be wash of sorts for future success, and you would be closer to success, but no a whole lot closer. Even spending a lot of money, big success was going to come years down the road.

So again, is it worth $40 mil to win 70 games instead of 60 last year, and still be miles from competing for a Championship? Bottom line this orginization was the 29th best in all baseball and it was going to take a ton of work to change that position, you couldn't buy it away. Some don't like it, but it is reality.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/13/2013 11:43 PM

Re: Is rebuilding worth it 


No, there really wasn't a choice, thanks to repeated missteps of the previous regimes long running,  scorched earth policy.

But, what these non-credentialed bloggers fail to allow for is one very significant variable-- the fact that the Cubs are a big market team commited to a comprehensive rebuild. Not a lot of data to draw upon using comparable franchises. The Cubs won't have to spit out any of the prospects that do hit it big, just as they edge toward their peak preformance years and free agency. 

And beyond all this, the new CBA negated a huge big market advantage. Big market teams used over-slotting and large signing bonuses in the IFA market to keep churning out highly rated prospects to be used in trades with there financialy strapped neighbors, as well as for reloading their budget advantaged ML rosters. It's a thing of the past now and using data from those bygone era years to show that teams that participated in rebuilds rarely fared as well as teams that didn't feel the need to ever go into rebuild mode is more a case study on the inherent advantages of having big budgets to work with along with ready access to highly valued prospects, regardless of wins and losses.

The majority of elite players never make it to free agency. The are typically traded to big money contenders for highly rated young, cost-controlled talent. That farm system talent bardering pool is about to drastically thin out on consistent contenders. The results of the data gathering going forward may tell a very different story. Theo and Jed may be on the cutting edge of the new baseball reality that Bud Selig ushered in.

Last edited 3/13/2013 11:55 PM by HolyMackeral

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/14/2013 8:16 AM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 



SamuraiBears wrote: My question is, was there really a choice?

Upon arrival the entire orginization was in shambles. The entire orginization had one player that looked Championship quality, and that was betting on the come. That of course was Castro. A championship team needs roughly, not exactly, 5 core offensive pieces, 3 starters, and 2 relievers. The Cubs had on day one exactly one of these players.

So could the Cubs have dropped the extra $40 million or so and got Fielder, Cespedes, and Darvish last year? Sure, they would have a pretty tapped out budget and roughly speaking have been an 85-90 loss team. Yeah, we still would be a long way to getting to the goal and the payroll would be in much worse shape.

After last year the big club looks to have added two players that could be part of a Championship run in Rizzo, and Samardzija. As for Samardzija I think he is more on the fringe, like a number three guy on a top team, and Rizzo isn't a shoe in either. Of course we wouldn't have Rizzo upon signing Fielder, so that looks like a win for us.

On the farm the FO inherited another top prospect in Baez. He has a ways to go, but the skills are flat out elite, upside a top 10 player in the entire league. In the draft they may have got their CF of the future, and in international FA they may have got a RF slugger.

I say all this in that even if the team spent big we would have been a losing team last year. Fielder and Rizzo would be wash of sorts for future success, and you would be closer to success, but no a whole lot closer. Even spending a lot of money, big success was going to come years down the road.

So again, is it worth $40 mil to win 70 games instead of 60 last year, and still be miles from competing for a Championship? Bottom line this orginization was the 29th best in all baseball and it was going to take a ton of work to change that position, you couldn't buy it away. Some don't like it, but it is reality.
You could have acquired Cespedes and Darvish and added 2 core pieces that would have been available long term. Hoyer and Epstein have both stated you need to acquire talent when available. That is part of the reason they signed Jackson and made a run at Sanchez.

They added their scouts, development plan, computer system, spent on international players and traded a number of veterans to improve the farm system. Moving forward they always won't be able to draft at the top and should be able to uncover talent later in the round like they did in Boston.

There is no right way to build a team. It is the same formula that is has always been - draft well, make good trades and spend wisely on free agents.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/14/2013 8:49 AM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 



cubs2007 wrote:
SamuraiBears wrote: My question is, was there really a choice?

Upon arrival the entire orginization was in shambles. The entire orginization had one player that looked Championship quality, and that was betting on the come. That of course was Castro. A championship team needs roughly, not exactly, 5 core offensive pieces, 3 starters, and 2 relievers. The Cubs had on day one exactly one of these players.

So could the Cubs have dropped the extra $40 million or so and got Fielder, Cespedes, and Darvish last year? Sure, they would have a pretty tapped out budget and roughly speaking have been an 85-90 loss team. Yeah, we still would be a long way to getting to the goal and the payroll would be in much worse shape.

After last year the big club looks to have added two players that could be part of a Championship run in Rizzo, and Samardzija. As for Samardzija I think he is more on the fringe, like a number three guy on a top team, and Rizzo isn't a shoe in either. Of course we wouldn't have Rizzo upon signing Fielder, so that looks like a win for us.

On the farm the FO inherited another top prospect in Baez. He has a ways to go, but the skills are flat out elite, upside a top 10 player in the entire league. In the draft they may have got their CF of the future, and in international FA they may have got a RF slugger.

I say all this in that even if the team spent big we would have been a losing team last year. Fielder and Rizzo would be wash of sorts for future success, and you would be closer to success, but no a whole lot closer. Even spending a lot of money, big success was going to come years down the road.

So again, is it worth $40 mil to win 70 games instead of 60 last year, and still be miles from competing for a Championship? Bottom line this orginization was the 29th best in all baseball and it was going to take a ton of work to change that position, you couldn't buy it away. Some don't like it, but it is reality.
You could have acquired Cespedes and Darvish and added 2 core pieces that would have been available long term.


There is no right way to build a team. It is the same formula that is has always been - draft well, make good trades and spend wisely on free agents.
Samurai, I think you made an excellent post.

2007, they did bid on Cespedes and Darvish.  They lost.  Hard to fault them for that.
Your last sentence is something I've never agreed with you more on.  If you truly mean that, why do you consistently question many moves the FO makes?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/14/2013 9:21 AM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 



CoachK34 wrote:

2007, they did bid on Cespedes and Darvish.  They lost.  Hard to fault them for that.
Your last sentence is something I've never agreed with you more on.  If you truly mean that, why do you consistently question many moves the FO makes?
I have questioned the 1-2 year deals and players that are either injured or coming off down years they hope to develop into core players.

Are there any moves that you question the front office making ?

Theo has admitted making mistakes yet most don't want to acknowledge any moves that have failed to help the team.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/14/2013 10:33 AM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 



cubs2007 wrote:
CoachK34 wrote:

2007, they did bid on Cespedes and Darvish.  They lost.  Hard to fault them for that.
Your last sentence is something I've never agreed with you more on.  If you truly mean that, why do you consistently question many moves the FO makes?
I have questioned the 1-2 year deals and players that are either injured or coming off down years they hope to develop into core players.

Are there any moves that you question the front office making ?

Theo has admitted making mistakes yet most don't want to acknowledge any moves that have failed to help the team.
How can a short term player be part of the core? Who do you think they signed that was coming off a bad or injured year that they feel would be part of the core.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/14/2013 10:43 AM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 



absolutebadger wrote:
How can a short term player be part of the core? Who do you think they signed that was coming off a bad or injured year that they feel would be part of the core.
A short term player can not be part of the core which is my problem with the strategy. The best you hope for is a prospect after the short term asset is flipped that pans out in a few years.

I really think they hoped for Stewart to reach his potential when they traded for him. Baker could be a player they hope becomes a core player this year but he would not be a cheap player to resign if he pitches well. Vizcaino fits into this catagory. Maybe Rondon for the bullpen.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/14/2013 11:57 AM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 



cubs2007 wrote:
CoachK34 wrote:

2007, they did bid on Cespedes and Darvish.  They lost.  Hard to fault them for that.
Your last sentence is something I've never agreed with you more on.  If you truly mean that, why do you consistently question many moves the FO makes?
I have questioned the 1-2 year deals and players that are either injured or coming off down years they hope to develop into core players.

Are there any moves that you question the front office making ?

Theo has admitted making mistakes yet most don't want to acknowledge any moves that have failed to help the team.
Who would you propose that they sign instead?  I don't think it's just that easy to sign every guy you want.

There are a few moves that I've questioned.  The Dempster fiasco.  Possibly the Stewart-Colvin deal.  I hated watching that rotation at the end of the year.  But, I don't feel the need to question them as I feel they know more than I do. 

Like you said, there is no perfect plan.  Theo is going to make more mistakes.  I'll still support him and the Cubs.  Don't ask me how long that will be.  I don't know.  I like the direction they are going.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/14/2013 4:16 PM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 



cubs2007 wrote:
absolutebadger wrote:
How can a short term player be part of the core? Who do you think they signed that was coming off a bad or injured year that they feel would be part of the core.
A short term player can not be part of the core which is my problem with the strategy. The best you hope for is a prospect after the short term asset is flipped that pans out in a few years.

I really think they hoped for Stewart to reach his potential when they traded for him. Baker could be a player they hope becomes a core player this year but he would not be a cheap player to resign if he pitches well. Vizcaino fits into this catagory. Maybe Rondon for the bullpen.
Your problem with what strategy? Signing short term players? Every team signs players to short term deals.

Vizcaino was not a FA they signed. He is very young prospect they traded for. YOU HAVE STATED SEVERAL TIMES YOU DON'T LIKE THE CUBS SIGNING PLAYERS THAT ARE INJURED OR COMING OFF BAD SEASONS AS PART OF THE CORE, YET YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH ONE EXAMPLE. NOT ONE!!!
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/14/2013 4:40 PM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 



absolutebadger wrote:
Your problem with what strategy? Signing short term players? Every team signs players to short term deals.
This strategy that you refuse to acknowledge -
While discussing the Cubs' blueprint of flipping players for prospects like real estate investors flip houses, President Theo Epstein suggested last month the team could surprise some of the experts.
http://articles.chicagotribune...n-carlos-marmol
Vizcaino was not a FA they signed. He is very young prospect they traded for. YOU HAVE STATED SEVERAL TIMES YOU DON'T LIKE THE CUBS SIGNING PLAYERS THAT ARE INJURED OR COMING OFF BAD SEASONS AS PART OF THE CORE, YET YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH ONE EXAMPLE. NOT ONE!!!
I named a few - Stewart, Baker, Rondon & Vizcaino - It was not just sign - it was acquire which includes trades - throw in Dejesus, Hairston, Feldman, Castillo, Bowden, Camp, Villanueva, Schierholtz, Valbuena, Maholm, Volstad, etc

It is part of throw crap against the wall and see what sticks strategy
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/14/2013 5:12 PM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 




---------------------------------------------
--- cubs2007 wrote:


absolutebadger wrote:
Your problem with what strategy? Signing short term players? Every team signs players to short term deals.
This strategy that you refuse to acknowledge -
While discussing the Cubs' blueprint of flipping players for prospects like real estate investors flip houses, President Theo Epstein suggested last month the team could surprise some of the experts.
articles.chicagotribune...n-carlos-marmol
Vizcaino was not a FA they signed. He is very young prospect they traded for. YOU HAVE STATED SEVERAL TIMES YOU DON'T LIKE THE CUBS SIGNING PLAYERS THAT ARE INJURED OR COMING OFF BAD SEASONS AS PART OF THE CORE, YET YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH ONE EXAMPLE. NOT ONE!!!
I named a few - Stewart, Baker, Rondon & Vizcaino - It was not just sign - it was acquire which includes trades - throw in Dejesus, Hairston, Feldman, Castillo, Bowden, Camp, Villanueva, Schierholtz, Valbuena, Maholm, Volstad, etc

It is part of throw crap against the wall and see what sticks strategy


---------------------------------------------
Again, what would you propose instead? Consider the position they inherited.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/14/2013 5:56 PM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 



CoachK34 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- cubs2007 wrote:


absolutebadger wrote:
Your problem with what strategy? Signing short term players? Every team signs players to short term deals.
This strategy that you refuse to acknowledge -
While discussing the Cubs' blueprint of flipping players for prospects like real estate investors flip houses, President Theo Epstein suggested last month the team could surprise some of the experts.
articles.chicagotribune...n-carlos-marmol
Vizcaino was not a FA they signed. He is very young prospect they traded for. YOU HAVE STATED SEVERAL TIMES YOU DON'T LIKE THE CUBS SIGNING PLAYERS THAT ARE INJURED OR COMING OFF BAD SEASONS AS PART OF THE CORE, YET YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH ONE EXAMPLE. NOT ONE!!!
I named a few - Stewart, Baker, Rondon & Vizcaino - It was not just sign - it was acquire which includes trades - throw in Dejesus, Hairston, Feldman, Castillo, Bowden, Camp, Villanueva, Schierholtz, Valbuena, Maholm, Volstad, etc

It is part of throw crap against the wall and see what sticks strategy


---------------------------------------------
Again, what would you propose instead? Consider the position they inherited.
Absolutely nothing of any substance. Haven't you people learned by now? He spends all his time....day-and-night, night-and-day on here playing devil's advocate. That and the constant refrain "there are many ways to build a team." Followed up with endless ideas on how to get to .500 baseball and stay there. As those Guiness guys used to say "brilliant."

Last edited 3/14/2013 5:56 PM by HolyMackeral

Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/14/2013 6:04 PM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 



cubs2007 wrote:
absolutebadger wrote:
Your problem with what strategy? Signing short term players? Every team signs players to short term deals.
This strategy that you refuse to acknowledge -
While discussing the Cubs' blueprint of flipping players for prospects like real estate investors flip houses, President Theo Epstein suggested last month the team could surprise some of the experts.
http://articles.chicagotribune...n-carlos-marmol
Vizcaino was not a FA they signed. He is very young prospect they traded for. YOU HAVE STATED SEVERAL TIMES YOU DON'T LIKE THE CUBS SIGNING PLAYERS THAT ARE INJURED OR COMING OFF BAD SEASONS AS PART OF THE CORE, YET YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH ONE EXAMPLE. NOT ONE!!!
I named a few - Stewart, Baker, Rondon & Vizcaino - It was not just sign - it was acquire which includes trades - throw in Dejesus, Hairston, Feldman, Castillo, Bowden, Camp, Villanueva, Schierholtz, Valbuena, Maholm, Volstad, etc

It is part of throw crap against the wall and see what sticks strategy
More crap_ dont quote Sullivan- Quote Theo- Show me where Theo has stated they are signing for the purpose of flipping. A team not in contention should flip guys that are leaving anyway.. show me where Theo has said anything differently.

None of your FA signings were ever considered part of the core which you claim. Don't change the parameters now. Last season the Cubs signed Maholm as a possible 4/5 starter that turned into a very good season and a very good trade for the Cubs. They didn't sign him to flip him, they flipped him to improve the team once the team was out of contention.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/14/2013 9:53 PM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 




---------------------------------------------
--- cubs2007 wrote:


SamuraiBears wrote: My question is, was there really a choice?

Upon arrival the entire orginization was in shambles. The entire orginization had one player that looked Championship quality, and that was betting on the come. That of course was Castro. A championship team needs roughly, not exactly, 5 core offensive pieces, 3 starters, and 2 relievers. The Cubs had on day one exactly one of these players.

So could the Cubs have dropped the extra $40 million or so and got Fielder, Cespedes, and Darvish last year? Sure, they would have a pretty tapped out budget and roughly speaking have been an 85-90 loss team. Yeah, we still would be a long way to getting to the goal and the payroll would be in much worse shape.

After last year the big club looks to have added two players that could be part of a Championship run in Rizzo, and Samardzija. As for Samardzija I think he is more on the fringe, like a number three guy on a top team, and Rizzo isn't a shoe in either. Of course we wouldn't have Rizzo upon signing Fielder, so that looks like a win for us.

On the farm the FO inherited another top prospect in Baez. He has a ways to go, but the skills are flat out elite, upside a top 10 player in the entire league. In the draft they may have got their CF of the future, and in international FA they may have got a RF slugger.

I say all this in that even if the team spent big we would have been a losing team last year. Fielder and Rizzo would be wash of sorts for future success, and you would be closer to success, but no a whole lot closer. Even spending a lot of money, big success was going to come years down the road.

So again, is it worth $40 mil to win 70 games instead of 60 last year, and still be miles from competing for a Championship? Bottom line this orginization was the 29th best in all baseball and it was going to take a ton of work to change that position, you couldn't buy it away. Some don't like it, but it is reality.
You could have acquired Cespedes and Darvish and added 2 core pieces that would have been available long term. Hoyer and Epstein have both stated you need to acquire talent when available. That is part of the reason they signed Jackson and made a run at Sanchez.

They added their scouts, development plan, computer system, spent on international players and traded a number of veterans to improve the farm system. Moving forward they always won't be able to draft at the top and should be able to uncover talent later in the round like they did in Boston.

There is no right way to build a team. It is the same formula that is has always been - draft well, make good trades and spend wisely on free agents.

---------------------------------------------
What you miss and continue to miss over time is the Cubs by all accounts made very good runs at both players. Some suggested the Cubs may have had the third highest posting number for Darvish. This is in light that nobody believed before hand that he would go for more than Dice-K. The bids of Toronto and Texas surprised most. The Cubs made a move for Darvish.

Cespedes the Cubs were beleived to be the leader for a while. It wasn't until the A's stepped up both with dollars but more importantly with time to FA that tipped the balance. That is the key though, with less control Cespedes may or may not have been around. But again the Cubs were in the hunt and a top team bidding.

These things don't happen in a vaccum and even the Yankees don't get everyone they want. This isn't the playstation and these things are fluid and dynamic. The Cubs didn't lose these players because they were trying to be a small market team and just acquire picks (see Solar deal), they made a run and came up short. That happens.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/14/2013 11:13 PM

Re: Is rebuilding worth it 


Let's go babbling on about what amounts to manutiae in the larger scheme of things, in what was/is the first steps of a rebuild. They were serious contenders for Darvish and Cespedes BUT, outbid everybody for Soler and AND beleived to have actually outbid the Dodgers staggering offer for Puig. Should tell even the room temperature IQ crowd around here of where there priorities currently are at. But, now back to the regularly scheduled stuper fest.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/15/2013 8:06 AM

RE: Is rebuilding worth it 



SamuraiBears wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- cubs2007 wrote:


You could have acquired Cespedes and Darvish and added 2 core pieces that would have been available long term. Hoyer and Epstein have both stated you need to acquire talent when available. That is part of the reason they signed Jackson and made a run at Sanchez.

---------------------------------------------
What you miss and continue to miss over time is the Cubs by all accounts made very good runs at both players. Some suggested the Cubs may have had the third highest posting number for Darvish. This is in light that nobody believed before hand that he would go for more than Dice-K. The bids of Toronto and Texas surprised most. The Cubs made a move for Darvish.

Even higher, the Cubs were actually 2nd in the bidding for Darvish. The Rangers outbid the field by $35M+ in posting fee. 

http://chicago.sbnation.com/ch...ish-posting-fee

I agree with you that I would not have expected the Cubs to know to bid $35M more to win the bid...no other team did. Even if they did know what it would take, it is a huge price to pay for a guy that had earned his impressive numbers against a league where Matt Murton is Babe Ruth, the season is shorter, they have a different ball, etc.


Cespedes the Cubs were beleived to be the leader for a while. It wasn't until the A's stepped up both with dollars but more importantly with time to FA that tipped the balance. That is the key though, with less control Cespedes may or may not have been around. But again the Cubs were in the hunt and a top team bidding.

These things don't happen in a vaccum and even the Yankees don't get everyone they want. This isn't the playstation and these things are fluid and dynamic. The Cubs didn't lose these players because they were trying to be a small market team and just acquire picks (see Solar deal), they made a run and came up short. That happens.

Really can't blame the Cubs on the Cubans. Of the 2 'marquis' guys available, (Cespedes and Soler), the Cubs got one of them, and the one they got looks pretty good thus far. If the Cubs should have 'just got it done' and signed Darvish and Cespedes, they would have had to ridiculously overbid the field to have any chance of ensuring that, since they don't know what the other teams were really offering...blind post for Darvish and the agent for Cespedes would love nothing more than to get a team to bid against itself. That leads to contracts that look really really bad really really soon...
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >