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

No members are celebrating a birthday today

Photo

How Long will Honeymoon last for the Theotles?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#16 Crockett

Crockett

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 11:55 AM

One thing that I feel pretty confident about now: almost all of the moves this Winter were designed to pick up guys on the cheap whom the front office was hoping they could trade mid-season. Volstad, Stewart, DeJesus, Maholm are the most obvious (and, so, far pretty meh). It was a gamble, but an interesting one that could have paid huge long-term dividends. Still could.

But I'm pretty confident that hoping that those guys turned it around so that the Cubs could be a surprisingly competitive team was never in the plan.


I think you're looking too far off. Stewart and Volstad will still be in their 20s come 2014, and given the amazing payroll space, the Cubs should be able to field a competitive team by then.

#17 DocPeterWimsey

DocPeterWimsey

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 145 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 11:58 AM

If we had Marshall this season, we'd probably be 4-9. Sean Marshall was so very ver very much not the "rug" under the 2012 team. That rug was under the corner infielders, and it was yanked back in November/December.

Put it this way: the Cubs have been outhomered 13-5. If the Cubs had Marshall, then maybe that would be 12-5......

And while I am a big fan of Rizzo...not having Cashner is really proving to be an issue for the bullpen depth. More than I thought it would, to be honest.

Good teams are built around not using their bullpens. To an extent, looking for the bullpen to help a team is sort of like looking at lifeboats as a safety feature on ships.
Gods don't play dice with the universe, they are the dice of the universe: our job is to figure out how many sides and dice!

#18 hardtop

hardtop

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 128 posts
  • LocationThe Queen City of the Plains

Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:06 PM


yeah, for me, its already over. the bullpen is atrocious. marshall for wood was a bad trade. if you're going to pull the rug out from under the 2012 club like that you better be damn sure you're getting something damn good. unnecessary gamble and a bet that they lost.

I just can't understand how people get hung up on this. We sent the Reds a great 60-inning pitcher who was about to be priced out of a job. If we had Marshall this season, we'd probably be 4-9. Sean Marshall was so very ver very much not the "rug" under the 2012 team. That rug was under the corner infielders, and it was yanked back in November/December.


i wouldnt say im hung up on it. im just extremely dissappointed by our bullpen and by travis wood. the marshall deal applies regardles of the weight you place on it. i see the long term logic of trading marshall, but only when it yields decent results. i currently am not considering t-wood decent results. but ill admit its not a fair evaluation period at he could turn out to be the next cliff lee.
considering we've held the lead in all but a couple games, i think with some decent middle/long relief or even a quality 7th-8th inning here or there, we'd be a lot closer to 500 than 4 and 9. at least in the 12 games I've seen or listened to (that's assuming marshall would still tank a few innings or not pitch every game).
if i felt better about t-wood, i would care less about missing quality relief pitching.

#19 Brett

Brett

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,641 posts
  • Twitter:BleacherNation
  • Facebook:BleacherNation

Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:10 PM


One thing that I feel pretty confident about now: almost all of the moves this Winter were designed to pick up guys on the cheap whom the front office was hoping they could trade mid-season. Volstad, Stewart, DeJesus, Maholm are the most obvious (and, so, far pretty meh). It was a gamble, but an interesting one that could have paid huge long-term dividends. Still could.

But I'm pretty confident that hoping that those guys turned it around so that the Cubs could be a surprisingly competitive team was never in the plan.


I think you're looking too far off. Stewart and Volstad will still be in their 20s come 2014, and given the amazing payroll space, the Cubs should be able to field a competitive team by then.

I'm not saying those guys will be gone by next year. I'm just saying that the fact that they might be tradable pieces if they bounced back was probably more important to Theo and Jed this year than the hope that Volstad and Stewart would somehow magically lead the Cubs to the playoffs this year (or be a crucial part next year).

#20 FFP

FFP

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 406 posts
  • LocationWorcester County, Massachusetts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:16 PM

Theodolites; mapping the future.

#21 Robbo

Robbo

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 115 posts
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted 20 April 2012 - 05:05 PM

Everyone knew it would take time to build a perennial winner and tearing in all down to start fresh needed to happen, but patience in this town is hard to come by for our sports teams. Its especially tough when shelling out tall cash to watch the game live. Lets just hope we can add more young assets at the trade deadline and use some of this year's deferred cash to lock up more talent for the future. Soler anyone?

#22 Brian in San Diego

Brian in San Diego

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 20 April 2012 - 07:44 PM

I am trying to fool myself and think this is the Cubs movie.
Of course Cubs suck in the beginning. And something happens. And they win it all.
Get a pair glasses for Jeff, Matt and Carlos!

#23 Crockett

Crockett

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 08:14 PM



yeah, for me, its already over. the bullpen is atrocious. marshall for wood was a bad trade. if you're going to pull the rug out from under the 2012 club like that you better be damn sure you're getting something damn good. unnecessary gamble and a bet that they lost.

I just can't understand how people get hung up on this. We sent the Reds a great 60-inning pitcher who was about to be priced out of a job. If we had Marshall this season, we'd probably be 4-9. Sean Marshall was so very ver very much not the "rug" under the 2012 team. That rug was under the corner infielders, and it was yanked back in November/December.


i wouldnt say im hung up on it. im just extremely dissappointed by our bullpen and by travis wood. the marshall deal applies regardles of the weight you place on it. i see the long term logic of trading marshall, but only when it yields decent results. i currently am not considering t-wood decent results. but ill admit its not a fair evaluation period at he could turn out to be the next cliff lee.
considering we've held the lead in all but a couple games, i think with some decent middle/long relief or even a quality 7th-8th inning here or there, we'd be a lot closer to 500 than 4 and 9. at least in the 12 games I've seen or listened to (that's assuming marshall would still tank a few innings or not pitch every game).
if i felt better about t-wood, i would care less about missing quality relief pitching.


The issue with the Marshall trade is that every single baseball writer with an analysis piece (that I read...about 10) said the Cubs won the trade by a mile even if Wood never was more than a #5 starter. That's because relievers, no matter how good they are in their role, are so valueless over the course of the season. They typically only have an effect in 1 inning per game, 3-5 games a week. To be able to get Wood plus a guy who looks like a valuable 4th OFer and a young prospect with some upside was a coup.

#24 FFP

FFP

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 406 posts
  • LocationWorcester County, Massachusetts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 08:44 PM

Patience. This IS a good topic, Coach.
I used to root for baseball the way I rooted for football. If you grew up in a football house like I did, you know what I mean. Intensity. Effort. Vince Lombardi.

Then one day I was watching Trot Nixon come off the field, and he was bleeding profusely from the mouth. And it hit me. He plays like this is football. Nuts.
I love it, but...Is that going to work?

There are too many games to feel this way every day. And trying really hard in for an instant does not pay off--not like taking an extra 100 grounders every day for a year will. (Starlin!?)

Same for a fan. I'm not as analytical as DocW yet (and I question his lifeboats analogy in this thread above), but I won't need as much patience as a (new) Cubs fan as I did for half a century rooting for my Red Sox. I loved Trot and Mike Greenwell and lots of other hard-asses (like me).

But, I'm here, rooting for the Cubs because I'm learning baseball. And what I know now tells me that this is where the next Big Get is going to be. Soon.

#25 MichiganGoat

MichiganGoat

    Give me a BEER

  • Moderators
  • 3,799 posts
  • Twitter:MichiganGoat
  • Facebook:michigangoat
  • LocationGrand Rapids, MI

Posted 20 April 2012 - 11:04 PM

I have the patience needed (working in Urban Education, living in Michigan, and being a single parent and staying sane will teach you patience), but I will start to be more reflective and critical after this years trade deadline. I saw the off season as a time to get younger and deeper for the future vs. get impact players for the next three years. I'm expecting that model to continue, more moves to get younger and deeper. I expect some FA splash this off season and near .500 team next year. If the trade deadline passes like last year I will voice my frustration. As of now my complaints are purely reactionary and humorous but if the plan becomes stagnat I will complain but my patience will not change. I've got years to spare and years to wait for IT to happen. Oh and beer helps.

MichiganGoat on Twitter

"There are a lot of guys who are respected but not liked" - Ron Santo


#26 Fishin Phil

Fishin Phil

    Wally Pipp of Cubs Calendar

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,034 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 02:17 AM

I'm trying very hard to ignore the record this year. I'm looking at things like improved defense (disappointed so far), more intelligent base running (pleasantly surprised so far), and individual performances of those pieces who may indeed be long term building blocks. So far the most exciting thing for me this year is happening in Des Moines - I think I have a Puppet Crush on Mr. Rizzo.
Please don't feed the psychos.

#27 Stinky Pete

Stinky Pete

    The Woodward AND Bernstein of the Message Board

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 624 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 10:02 AM

I guess I just don't understand the level of control some "fans" seem to think they have these days. Maybe it's the fantasy explosion coupled with twitter/FB/internet in general giving armchair GM's a soapbox. Theo's gonna do what Theo's gonna do. Take a breath and watch. Nothing you can do about it. For heaven's sake, we made it through Ed Lynch and Larry Himes didn't we? I'll be a Cubs fan when they lose 100. I'll be a Cubs fan when they turn into the Pirates and go 20 years with out a winning record. I don't have a time frame on when I'll stop watching. Yeah, they stink. And I hope they'll get better. They have been to they playoffs exactly the same amount of times in my lifetime as they have in my parents lifetimes so in the long run, progress has been made. I apologize for rambling, not a writer and not good at organizing my thoughts. I just have many other things to get angry about other than Sean Marshall being a Red.

#28 Spencer

Spencer

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,560 posts
  • LocationValparaiso, IN

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:14 AM

I guess the way I'm looking at it this year is that I don't want to lose 100 games, but if they DO lose 100 games, I'd rather do it with Epstein and Hoyer in charge than Hendry or other bad GMs/managers. At least gives hope for the future. If things don't improve markedly within the next three years, then it's a problem I think.

#29 rcleven

rcleven

    Bleacher Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,069 posts

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:45 AM

I am going to hold my opionion till I see what they do next winter. Alot of money coming off the books at the end of the season and I would like to see how next years budget is allocated. I really don't care how competive they are this year or next. Just don't want to driven to suiside watching em.

#30 FFP

FFP

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 406 posts
  • LocationWorcester County, Massachusetts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 09:37 AM

We gotta relax and enjoy the show.

Posted Image

Edited by FromFenwayPahk, 24 April 2012 - 10:22 AM.





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).