40 replies to this topic

[TonyP]

I'm curious to see what everyone's opinion is.

[TonyP]

Although I hate losing I'm expecting to not be very good next year but 2014 we should start seeing improvement. It will be hard not to question the leadership if we are still losing 90+ games in 2014 and beyond.

[Tommy]

I could tolerate one more season if it was because they were flipping veterans at the trade deadline again like they did this year. I do expect that that won't be the case, though. I believe that the FO used this first year to evaluate the talent they had across the organization. I believe from this point forward, we'll be seeing a lot more movement with both major and minor league players.

Also, if you consider the fact that we traded Maholm and Dempster at the trade deadline, then lost Garza - that is a big part of the reason we lost 100 games. I don't know many teams that can lose 3 pitchers off of their starting rotation and not struggle.

To answer your question directly: I won't be happy if we have any more 100 loss seasons. I think we're past that point now with our infield much more defined than it was last year.

[CubChymyst]

I won't be to happy if next year is another 100 loss season, or if 2014 is a 90 loss season. As others have mentioned the past two years have been marked by horrible starting pitching by fringe starters. I'm hoping Theo comes through with his line of knowing who the 7th, 8th, and 9th starter will be when a season starts. Expecting him to do that in 1 year was probably to optimistic, but if by the end of 2014 season if the Cubs don't have a starting rotation that is at least respectable the Front Office would have made a few mistakes. With a respectable rotation, I don't think the Cubs lose 90+ games especially if the minor league talent develops as hoped.

[fromthemitten]

I might be in the minority, but I'd rather go through an unwatchable 100 loss season than a .500 season or being swept in the playoffs. My rationale being at least 100 losses guarantees a high draft pick and lots of money in the international market. I'm young enough to be patient, though I'd like them to have a WS title before the time I'm in my mid-30s for my own personal health.

[CubChymyst]

I might be in the minority, but I'd rather go through an unwatchable 100 loss season than a .500 season or being swept in the playoffs. My rationale being at least 100 losses guarantees a high draft pick and lots of money in the international market. I'm young enough to be patient, though I'd like them to have a WS title before the time I'm in my mid-30s for my own personal health.

The problem with 100 loss seasons is that your not going to go from 100 losses one year to a World Series the next. I went looking for the team with the worst record the year before winning the world series, and I found the 1987 Twins who won the WS went 71-91 in 1986. I'd guess they are the only 90L team to win the WS the next year. I want to see steady improvement because that likely means the long term pieces they are adding are performing well.

http://news.yahoo.co...00062--mlb.html

[fromthemitten]

Well yeah, obviously the best example is the Nats who went from 100+ losses in '08 and '09, 93 in '10, .500 in '11 to being one of the best teams in the NL this year.

My main point is that I'd rather see them go through a prolonged period of awfulness than a prolonged period of mediocrity (like they were in the 90s)

[King Jeff]

I'd be disappointed if they lost 100 games again next year. The way I'd put up with it is if they add to the organization in the same ways that they have this year. As long as they keep stockpiling talent, I will be willing to settle for a team that shows improvement and adds a few building blocks.

[Luke]

0.

I'm not ok with losing any game for any reason, ever. 162-0 or bust. If that's not the goal, give me a new team that actually cares.

But I also know that's not going to happen. I know that the Cubs had a severe talent shortage heading into 2012. I'd rather be cautious and selective in the rebuild in the hopes of building a lasting dynasty rather than slapping whatever free agent happens to be popular at the problem and hoping for the best. Just because I'm not ok with losing doesn't mean I want to do a rush-job rebuild with whatever players happen to be around at the time. There is a right way to build a team, and I'd rather this one get built the right way.

But in the meantime, I wake up every morning expecting a win.

[Spencer]

If in two years they are not around or above .500 i'm going to be annoyed. I'm expecting 90+ losses next season. I'm not okay with it, but I think anything better than that is probably unrealistic. But I don't think losing only 95 games next year is "improvement". I would judge improvement in terms of player talent throughout the system, fundamentals, not making dumbass plays etc. So, I guess 90 losses next year, and then the following year at 500. Not impossible.

[T C]

Really, I could take one more 100 loss season. If 2013 is going to be a 90 loss season, might as well suck a little harder and go for that magic number again. Is Joe Mather available again?

I think its more important for us to ask "how many more semi-planned bad seasons can you handle?" 100 losses in 2013 had better come with a flip of Garza mid season, or something else that we can point to and go "ok well, this season was horrible, but here are some specific events that were planned and do make the team better in the future". If the team went out and bought, like, BJ Upton and Brandon McCarthy and still lost 92 games, I would be really, really distraught. But if they don't make those moves, Ricketts uses $75 mil in saved payroll to start improvements to Wrigley, and Garza + (insert cheap FA signing) are flipped at the deadline for another prospect haul, and they lose 100 games, I'd be ok with it.

However, by 2014 I'd really like to see the team in the 75-82 win range, which could be accomplished despite a horrible 2013 - the FA class will be decent, Baez will be up midway through the season, Jackson should be settling in as a MLB CF'er, Soler should be getting close, guys like Voglebach (no future on the team) will be very valuable in trade, Castillo Rizzo and Castro will all have settled and be approaching their primes.

And by 2015 the team really should be in contention, no ifs ands or buts. Baez and Soler will be MLB guys, Vogelbach Szczur Paniagua Vizcaino and a few other prospects will all be very close or traded away for MLB talent, Rizzo Castro Castillo Samardzija and Jackson will be approaching their primes, and when you throw in a few free agent signings, that team should be very good.

[Mike Taylor (no relation)]

We have the money to pick up a lot of split-contract type of guys this season to use to our advantage. The big, Type A players that will cost us a 2nd round pick are not "worth" going after, especially what they'll fetch on the open market. That being said, there are actually a lot of "fringe" starters with a precious record of success in the market that can easily take a gamble on to flip at the deadline. Some of these guys can pitch out of the bullpen until we start dealing.

Brandon McCarthy, Rich Harden, Dallas Braden, Scott Feldman, Carlos Villanueva, etc.

SP - Matt Garza (flip)
SP - Brandon McCarthy (flip)
SP - Jeff Samardzija
SP - Shaun Marcum (flip)
SP - Travis Wood

LR - Scott Feldman (flip)
CL - Joakim Soria (flip)

We have to understand that there has to be room on the roster to protect our Rule 5 eligible players, so I expect a few trades before that happens. That means we'll probably only be able to flip around 4 or 5.

[Spriggs]

If I knew that a WS title existed at the end of the "rebuild", and if I further knew that my family and I would be alive with 100% of our mental faculties when that happened, I would put up with whatever it took.

But since there are no guarantees, it's really hard for me to accept any more seasons like 2012. I was willing to accept 2012 before it happened and it turned out being a lot harder than I thought it would be. Believe me, I want the Cubs to have the best minor league system in baseball and they should always move in that direction. But from a somewhat selfish viewpoint, I'm getting more and more impatient because I'm getting more and more concerned that I won't ever see a Cubs world series. This has already happened to some dear family members and friends of mine -- they did not get to experience the Cubs winning in their lifetimes.

I do not want to throw in the towel for any more seasons. I want to be competitve in 2013. I want to see real progress every year.

[willis]

We shouldn't have to see any. Not in this market and in this division. So I'm ok with 0. I see the plan and I get the rebuilding of the organization from the bottom up, but really why can't it stay somewhat competitive why building? The coin is there.

I just think it's a slap in the face to all fans to continue occupying the crapper of a small market division. I get there isn't a total quick fix for this mess, but there are some pieces out there that can help now AND later. Why not go after them and try to be competitve? There's no reason to make 2013 a throwaway season. If that happens I'll be very disappointed. Obviously there is a huge talent in this front office, but we can't just blindly follow them. Hopefully they work on some pieces on this offseason as well as build talent that can help in the future. But for the Cubs, to run out onto the field what they were running out there last season is ridiculous.

[Spriggs]

I know this is completely unrealistic at a few levels, but, to flip the question a bit :

If the Cubs were guaranteed a WS win in 2013, how many years of 90-100 losses would you accept after that? For me it just might be unlimited.