Jump to content





Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays


Photo

How many 90-100 loss seasons are you okay with during this rebuild?


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#16 King Jeff

King Jeff

    King of all Cubs fans!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,478 posts
  • Twitter:@peaceknuckle
  • LocationSouth Florida

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:31 PM

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.

That might be the most loaded question ever. I just can't answer that. Winning one would be great, but to lose 100 games the next year? Then keep losing? I don't know if I could handle that kind of collapse, but then there is the guaranteed win to consider.

#17 Spriggs

Spriggs

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,018 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:37 PM


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.

That might be the most loaded question ever. I just can't answer that. Winning one would be great, but to lose 100 games the next year? Then keep losing? I don't know if I could handle that kind of collapse, but then there is the guaranteed win to consider.


I would suspect that the older the fan, the more likely to readily accept this and say something "I'd take the WS win for 5 straight 100 loss seasons anyday!". I'm there. I need to see it happen. Plus it would negate the "1908" and "100+ years" snap responses to everything.

#18 Cubbie Blues

Cubbie Blues

    The Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,369 posts
  • Twitter:@timhall76
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:40 PM


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.

That might be the most loaded question ever. I just can't answer that. Winning one would be great, but to lose 100 games the next year? Then keep losing? I don't know if I could handle that kind of collapse, but then there is the guaranteed win to consider.

None, when we get there I don't ever want to return to the dismal reality that has been the Cubs the last couple of years. The hurt we are going through now is supposed to keep us from going back down to the cellar. I am willing to take the pain up front but I don't want a back-end loaded contract.

"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy

 

"Ow" - Dylan Bundy


#19 Spriggs

Spriggs

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,018 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:49 PM



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.

That might be the most loaded question ever. I just can't answer that. Winning one would be great, but to lose 100 games the next year? Then keep losing? I don't know if I could handle that kind of collapse, but then there is the guaranteed win to consider.

None, when we get there I don't ever want to return to the dismal reality that has been the Cubs the last couple of years. The hurt we are going through now is supposed to keep us from going back down to the cellar. I am willing to take the pain up front but I don't want a back-end loaded contract.


One more twist. What if that guaranteed WS title could consist of beating the NL team of your choice, in whatever fashion you wanted (dramatic game 7, crushing 4 game sweep). AND then be followed by beating the AL team of your choice in whatever fashion you wanted. So for example mine would be CRUSHING, HUGELY LOPSIDED SWEEPS of the cardinals and white sox.

So would you trade that for 5 ensuing years of 95 loss seasons??? I would for sure.

#20 Cubbie Blues

Cubbie Blues

    The Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,369 posts
  • Twitter:@timhall76
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:54 PM




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.

That might be the most loaded question ever. I just can't answer that. Winning one would be great, but to lose 100 games the next year? Then keep losing? I don't know if I could handle that kind of collapse, but then there is the guaranteed win to consider.

None, when we get there I don't ever want to return to the dismal reality that has been the Cubs the last couple of years. The hurt we are going through now is supposed to keep us from going back down to the cellar. I am willing to take the pain up front but I don't want a back-end loaded contract.


One more twist. What if that guaranteed WS title could consist of beating the NL team of your choice, in whatever fashion you wanted (dramatic game 7, crushing 4 game sweep). AND then be followed by beating the AL team of your choice in whatever fashion you wanted. So for example mine would be CRUSHING, HUGELY LOPSIDED SWEEPS of the cardinals and white sox.

So would you trade that for 5 ensuing years of 95 loss seasons??? I would for sure.

Actually, after thinking about it a little more I would never sign up for a guaranteed WS win no matter how it came. For me it has to be earned or nothing. I don't want anything given. That would take the pride out of winning it.

"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy

 

"Ow" - Dylan Bundy


#21 Spriggs

Spriggs

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,018 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:18 PM





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.

That might be the most loaded question ever. I just can't answer that. Winning one would be great, but to lose 100 games the next year? Then keep losing? I don't know if I could handle that kind of collapse, but then there is the guaranteed win to consider.

None, when we get there I don't ever want to return to the dismal reality that has been the Cubs the last couple of years. The hurt we are going through now is supposed to keep us from going back down to the cellar. I am willing to take the pain up front but I don't want a back-end loaded contract.


One more twist. What if that guaranteed WS title could consist of beating the NL team of your choice, in whatever fashion you wanted (dramatic game 7, crushing 4 game sweep). AND then be followed by beating the AL team of your choice in whatever fashion you wanted. So for example mine would be CRUSHING, HUGELY LOPSIDED SWEEPS of the cardinals and white sox.

So would you trade that for 5 ensuing years of 95 loss seasons??? I would for sure.

Actually, after thinking about it a little more I would never sign up for a guaranteed WS win no matter how it came. For me it has to be earned or nothing. I don't want anything given. That would take the pride out of winning it.


That's the only reason I might not go for the guarantee. But the temptation to see those CRUSHING SWEEPS and to end the 100+ year thing would be too great for me. I'd sell my soul. I think it would be irresponsible of me not to - if I had the chance to end all that pain for all my fellow Cubbie fans!

#22 hansman1982

hansman1982

    King Regent of The Calendar Trivia Empire

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,939 posts
  • Twitter:JoeHansman
  • LocationDes Moines, IA

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:56 PM

One more twist. What if that guaranteed WS title could consist of beating the NL team of your choice, in whatever fashion you wanted (dramatic game 7, crushing 4 game sweep). AND then be followed by beating the AL team of your choice in whatever fashion you wanted.


For me it'd be Cards - Red Sox. Go down 0-3 in both series to comeback and win it. Against the Cards I'd take a lead into the 9th and Alfonso Soriano robs a grand slam from Ryan Theriot.

Against the Sox, I'd take a walk-off grand slam after trailing by 3 runs and Soriano quickly gets 0-2, watches 3 straight low and away sliders go for balls before he crushes a FB off the scoreboard.

#23 Spriggs

Spriggs

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,018 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:04 PM


One more twist. What if that guaranteed WS title could consist of beating the NL team of your choice, in whatever fashion you wanted (dramatic game 7, crushing 4 game sweep). AND then be followed by beating the AL team of your choice in whatever fashion you wanted.


For me it'd be Cards - Red Sox. Go down 0-3 in both series to comeback and win it. Against the Cards I'd take a lead into the 9th and Alfonso Soriano robs a grand slam from Ryan Theriot.

Against the Sox, I'd take a walk-off grand slam after trailing by 3 runs and Soriano quickly gets 0-2, watches 3 straight low and away sliders go for balls before he crushes a FB off the scoreboard.


Interesting! I would still prefer the crushing lopsided sweeps. Maybe go down in history as the most dominant post season ever.

#24 Mick(City)

Mick(City)

    I'm New

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:17 PM

I'd go 2 more seasons of non-competing before I'll be up in arms. And by non-competing I would use last season as the example. We all knew the plan was to rebuild the entire organization and it's unrealistic to think that could happen in just 1-year. If you analyze our farm system, you see most of our top prospects are at the lower levels. On the MLB level we've only got a core of about 6 players to build from. Finally, we've got a few players like Soriano, Marmol, and Garza who are nearing the end of their stay in Chicago and can be traded for (preferably pitching) prospects. It would make sense, in following this rebuilding plan, to sign the best players who are willing to sign short-term deals and trade them as well at next year's deadline. It will take this next season to trade the rest of our tradeable assets and possibly 2014 to start promoting the prospects. By 2015 we should have young MLB'ers at every position and finally it would make sense to start flexing our financial resources on filling in the gaps.

Here's who I think we should sign this offseason to trade at the deadline:

Melky Cabrera
Jeff Keppinger/Placido Polanco/Casey McGee
Jonny Gomes
Francisco Liriano
Scott Baker
Scott Feldman
Jason Frasor
Ryan Madson
Matt Capps

That's maybe $35 million in free agents that could help us compete but also be flipped at the deadline for prospects.

#25 Rated Rookie

Rated Rookie

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Twitter:@Frankieaaron

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:01 PM

What bothers me is that it's almost as thought they want us to suffer through shit before the supposed home grown, perenial 95 win dream team materializes.

The Cubs are a big market, high revenue team. While ther'es no reason to back to the Hendry was and go after the shiniest, most expensive thing available every season. there's ne reason to to put together a team capable of contending now. We have some quality pieces. I see no reason why we can't sign some free agents to 3-5 year contracts. Just make sure they're the right players.

To be honest, there's really nothing available this offseason that I'd be crushed over missing out on. I also see no reason to sign guys that won't be major difference makers to 5-6 year deals. However, if guys like Upton,Marcum, or Jackson are willing to sign 3 year deals, we should pursue them.

It's one thing not to expect a championship in the next few years. It's another to put an unwatchable, 95-100 loss team on the field for the foreseeable future.

#26 Cubsin

Cubsin

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • LocationO'Fallon, IL 62269

Posted 05 November 2012 - 08:36 PM

I'll accept any number of losses up to 110 in 2013 if it's due to injuries and flipping veterans for more prospects, as long as our top prospects are performing well and moving up the system. We won't win anything in 2013, so let's continue to build the farm system, draft early, acquire more good prospects in trades and have a large pool for international free agents.

I expect a .500+ team in 2014, and a contending team in 2015 and beyond.

#27 Ron

Ron

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 173 posts
  • Twitter:@RonPSchwery
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:41 PM

I would accept it this year if they landed at least two pieces that are a part of the success (being at least 500) in '14. At some point you have to have mlb talent and just flipping veterans for prospects is not enough. I think this year 13 would be beyond disappointing if we do not see at least two cubs that are definite plans for a 14-15 run.

#28 TWC

TWC

    Hippie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,052 posts
  • Twitter:@thomaswconroy
  • LocationHMB, CA

Posted 06 November 2012 - 10:18 AM

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.

Honestly, I would never accept these terms, only because a guaranteed World Series victory would take 99% of the fun out of the season for me. The '98 and '03 seasons were huge surprises that made the season exciting down to the last day. I don't think there's be as much fun in the season if you knew they'd end up on top. The '07 team was as close as a "sure thing" as the Cubs have ever had in my lifetime (thank YOU Nate Silver and Sports Illustrated for your predictions),.

#29 Spriggs

Spriggs

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,018 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 06 November 2012 - 11:30 AM


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.

Honestly, I would never accept these terms, only because a guaranteed World Series victory would take 99% of the fun out of the season for me. The '98 and '03 seasons were huge surprises that made the season exciting down to the last day. I don't think there's be as much fun in the season if you knew they'd end up on top. The '07 team was as close as a "sure thing" as the Cubs have ever had in my lifetime (thank YOU Nate Silver and Sports Illustrated for your predictions),.


Listening to joe buck and tim mccarver do a Cubs - Cardinal NL Championship series, where the Cubs unmercifully thrashed them in 4 straight 4 hour plus games would be all I needed.

#30 hansman1982

hansman1982

    King Regent of The Calendar Trivia Empire

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,939 posts
  • Twitter:JoeHansman
  • LocationDes Moines, IA

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:03 PM

What bothers me is that it's almost as thought they want us to suffer through shit before the supposed home grown, perenial 95 win dream team materializes. The Cubs are a big market, high revenue team. While ther'es no reason to back to the Hendry was and go after the shiniest, most expensive thing available every season. there's ne reason to to put together a team capable of contending now. We have some quality pieces. I see no reason why we can't sign some free agents to 3-5 year contracts. Just make sure they're the right players. To be honest, there's really nothing available this offseason that I'd be crushed over missing out on. I also see no reason to sign guys that won't be major difference makers to 5-6 year deals. However, if guys like Upton,Marcum, or Jackson are willing to sign 3 year deals, we should pursue them. It's one thing not to expect a championship in the next few years. It's another to put an unwatchable, 95-100 loss team on the field for the foreseeable future.


The problem is the guys who you can sign to those medium term contracts are 50/50 in terms of producing at the same level next year, meaning that you could just as easily spend a bunch of money just to spend it without getting a post-season berth out of it. Basically, if you are going to get a guy on the FA market you might as well go for the Verlander/Pujols route (years and years of great production) but at the end of the day you are still grossly overspending.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).