You did?

I intentionally took out "across the minor leagues". That was the first part of Theo's statement and I agree with it.

You run a Major League Baseball club. Therefore you simply cannot say you had an excellent season as an organization when:

1. Your MLB team loses 90+ games the second year in a row
2. Your year to year attendance decreased, following a disturbing trend
3. Your revenue panacea is over a year late in delivery and has cost you goodwill
4. Your MLB level development hit a MLB level speed bump

The interview was frank and insightful so I got no feeling that he was puffering for the fan base.

There were a couple of other interesting things I gleaned from the interview:

1. The rebuild is further behind than he expected at this point (believe he stated that expressly)
2. It seems pretty clear he didn't understand the Rickets' financial position in owning the team

I like Theo. He comes across as genuine in just about every interview I have heard. He seems well grounded and embarrassed by some of the devotion to him by the media/fans.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Time to load up the attacks on the poster for speaking the truth!

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I'm not devoted.

GD,
You like to troll in Cubs business,but you are correct of course.

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."

The bottom line never looked better.

_________________

BYLINE: Jim Morrisey (or is it me?)


Is it acceptable for a team to purposely lose games to get a higher draft pick?

That was a topic on Comcast SportsNet Chicago last week, and it was “inspired’’ by the White Sox, who were suddenly winning games after spending more than four months being godawful. If they were going to be bad, the idea went, they might as well be really, really bad to help themselves in the draft.

Most of us on the “Sports-Talk Live’’ panel said tanking was morally wrong, but host David Kaplan suggested that if the 1997Bears had concentrated on it, Peyton Manning might be in his 16th season with the organization.

We suggested right back that, given their innate Bear-ness, they would have taken Ryan Leaf in the ’98 draft.

A much more interesting question deals with the Cubs: How do you feel about a major-market team knowingly going into a season with a small-market roster and making no apologies for it? Isn’t that, at the very least, a cousin of tanking? I’m not suggesting that Cubs manager Dale Sveum or any of his players have ever purposely tried to lose a game. But they went into the season without the weapons to compete.

Even though management said it would wait until June or July before it decided on whether to add or subtract from the payroll, anyone with an idea of what good baseball is supposed to look like knew there was no chance of the club doing anything but losing spectacularly.

At least in the past they appeared to be trying to win.

To be clear, president of baseball operations Theo Epstein and his staff did not set out to lose on purpose. But under the financial constraints placed upon them by team chairman Tom Ricketts, the losing was inevitable right from the start.

And that, friends, is how the Cubs became the first big-market team in history to go into a season admitting it wasn’t going to win. That is usually the territory of Pittsburgh or Kansas City. And that’s why the Cubs are a lot closer to the terrible Marlins, whom they lost to Monday, than to the Cardinals, who always seem to field winning teams.

Whether you believe in Epstein and his plan doesn’t change the fact that the Cubs told their fan base they were going to serve thin gruel, then started spooning it out. If there’s no payoff on the immediate horizon, the franchise should reward its long-suffering fans with lower ticket prices next year.

I doubt that’s going to happen, not while ownership is wrestling with a bear of a debt load.

Forbes magazine recently reported that the dreadful Astros are on pace to make almost $100 million, thanks, in part, to a lucrative local TV contract. A few days later, it ran another story refuting the original article. Whatever the truth, what struck me was how similar the Astros and Cubs are. Like the Rickettses, Astros owner Jim Crane is trying to pay down the huge debt he took on when he bought the franchise. He vows that once he finishes replenishing what has been a weak minor-league system, he’ll start adding to the big-league payroll. Sound familiar?

The difference, of course, is that the Cubs are a major-market team and have a responsibility to act like one. Houston might be in the top five in terms of population but not when it comes to baseball pedigree.

The Cubs will be looking for a big TV contract of their own. They are opting out of their deal with WGN after the 2014 season with a large payday in mind. And they should get it. The Dodgers have a tentative 25-year, $8.5 billion agreement with Time Warner Cable, with $2 billion of it going to Major League Baseball revenue sharing. Their ownership group said it would be able to afford to hand two players $200 million contracts each — one likely going to pitcher Clayton Kershaw — as well as throw $100 million into its stadium, if necessary.

Given what we’ve seen from the Ricketts family, how can anyone be convinced that ownership will ever throw big money like that at the major-league product?

The Cubs’ $104 million payroll ranks 14th among 30 teams, which, if this were college basketball, would make them Ball State.

You fans knew there was going to be pain before there was gain. But did you know it was going to hurt this much?

In the meantime, how about those Pirates?

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."

Sun times side fact:

OVERHAUL FOR THE LONG HAUL?

Complete, ground-up restructuring and reinvention of the Cubs? If that sounds like an expansion-team process, buckle up for a long ride. Six of the 10 expansion teams founded in the last 50 years are still looking for their first World Series championship, and the average number of years it took them to reach the playoffs was 9.9 – and 8.7 years just to produce a winning season. Those teams’ inaugural years, and first seasons with a winning record, postseason appearance, first-place finish, league championship and World Series title

Debut .500+ Post 1st Pl Pennant WS

Royals 1969 (.426) 1971 (.528) 1976 1976 1980 1985

Brewers* 1969 (.395) 1978 (.574) 1981 1981 1982 None

Padres 1969 (.321) 1978 (.519) 1984 1984 1984 None

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."

Is this really true? I remember some pretty hideous teams in the 90's & early 00's teams that had zero chance of winning.


Has this writer been living in a bunker for the past 5 years. Aren't the Mets and Dodgers big market teams?


No shit, why should he? Still a decent number of tourists, fans and opposing fans have been buying tickets. If I could pull off 30K in paid attendance for this dog shit team why wouldn't I?


Why? Does winning a World Series with a large payroll make it more satisfying? Obviously his bunker did not have Google. Houston isn't some dying rust belt city.


Didn't the Cubs give a $50 million contract for bum ass Edwin Jackson? Wasn't Anibel Sanchez offered a $80 million dollar contract? The Cubs didn't attempt to offer Shark a $50 million contract? Signing Rizzo and Castro for $41M and $60M didn't occur? Sunk costs like Zambrano and Soriano weren't eaten?


No, I did not. My advice would be not to write such a shitty article to reflect your disappointment.

"The first big market team to set out to lose" is a hilarious lie that keeps getting perpetuated. Big market teams have done this forever and they will continue to do it long after this


Phillies
Mets
White Sox
Dodgers


And even the Yankees had lean years in the nineties when there were no realistic aspirations of winning

So what I'm reading from dolphins post is that he likes Theo, thinks hes doing a decent job with the tools he's been given and really the problem with this rebuild is Ricketts


Welcome to the club gd

I think you're mistaking having little or no chance to win with actively pursuing losing with the specific moves you make.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

I wouldn't oversimplify it. I'd be unhappy if my GM thought the organization had an excellent year with so many MLB problem failures.

Overall, Theo gets about a C- in his time with the Cubs.

His drafting appears to be going well, although honestly I think some of these analysts see who drafted a guy and hold the player in higher esteem (like Lemming used to do with ND recruits). I will rely on what I hear and say he is doing well.

His trades have not been anything special. I don't think he did a particularly good job at shedding salary (they ate a lot). When he held the upper hand in negotiations he got more quantity than quality (which really is a problem with being in the seller side of MLB disparity).

His FA work has not been particularly good and it seems schizophrenic within the framework of apparent organizational principles.

His current organizational principles are not acceptable to me. We will be going into year 3 with maybe one of those prospects being on the team. There was no reason they could not have signed 2-3 year deals with reasonable FA before year 1 and placed an acceptable team on the field. I don't think that is even debatable at this point. There was simply no need to preach patience. Simultaneous upgrading at the minor and major league levels can occur.

Finally, I know it is early, but has the Cub Way I heard so much about been defined? That is the type of thing you should hold out as goal to the public (minus trade secrets) to ensure accountability. I want to know exactly what they, and I, should expect out of each of these players. I should also see "the Way" emerging in the way the rookies and second year players play the game. I think the Soler incident is particularly troubling for an team that was going to follow an organization wide plan.

So overall, C-. The ultimate grade will be on the development of the prospects.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

I disagree with you that there's a difference

Putting a bad team out with no chance to win is what the cubs have been doing and any team that has ever traded for prospects has been making specific move towards losing in the short term

Of course there's a difference. The other teams never actively tried to lose and they certainly didn't present losing as part of a "plan". Everyone has bad teams sometimes. There's vast difference between failing to win and planning to lose.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

You know many of my thoughts on some of those subjects so I'll just respond to a couple of them

If Ricketts is being tight of the pocket books why fight him to get a couple of average free agents and go for the glory of 79 wins?

I think he did well in shedding salary. Personally I didn't think they'd get anyone to pay anything for Soriano beyond maybe the league minimum and they got a good chunk of change for him and the other trades that you have got some salary relief or some prospects only time will tell on that


I agree with you on the Cub way. I'm very interested to see how that manifests itself with these guys coming up I think it has a lot to do with plate dicipline and approach I don't think Solers thing really matters. I don't think it has a lot to do with how someone carry themselves it's all about how they play the actual game ....you may say that getting thrown out of game/suspended deters hus ability to play the cub way....that I can agree with...but I don't think it's about having some great personalities or anything like that

You think the Cubs go out there and throw games? is that what you're saying ? because other than that I don't know what you're talking about... of course teams go out there planning to lose the only difference is the cubs have honest about it

Should we take a look at some opening day lineups over the years to decide who was planning to lose?


Putting a team out that at the very best wins 77 games is planning to lose. Many teams do it every year

Other teams try to sell their rebuilds with talk about how these young kids are good but in reality everyone knows if they had a plan at all it doesn't include winning this year


When the Phillies went young with Rollins, Howard and Utley, were they expecting to win those first couple years?

Do you really think "The Cubs Way" is something beyond a marketing term? It strikes me as bullshit. Theo reminds me of the kid played by Topher Grace in that movie where he takes Dennis Quaid's job and talks about "synergy".

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

No, I don't think the players are throwing the games. The management is by refusing to use the resources available to attempt to win. There's no reason for the Cubs to field the kind of big league team they have for the past two seasons and likely will again next year.

I'm sure there have been plenty of teams in your lifetime you believed were only capable of winning 77 games who won a lot more. A lot of people thought that about the '05 White Sox prior to the season.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

Yeah, I can see you seeing him that way.


I 100% believe they want to implement an organizational way of doing things. Its not unique or new. I think a team would be foolish to NOT at least attempt that

That is true of many teams every season


No that's not the type of team im talking about . The O five white Sox were supposed to be average they had a bunch of decent players

I'm talking about teens that likely win 65-70 games. When I said 77 I meant a team where everything breaks right now they still win 77 games

Correct, and therein lies my problem, not with Theo, but with the way he is regarded by those covering the sport. Everything he does is treated as if he invented the wheel and nothing ever seems to be his fault. It's good work if you can get it. Hell, I admire the guy. I just don't think he knows anymore about putting a ballclub together than a bunch of other guys.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

I agree. I am sure there are some unique aspects for people with higher grades of security in the organization.

I think you heard a little bit of it in the interview yesterday. Each player has a development sheet with expectations and development goals. The player is required to participate in the specifics within that document in order to take ownership of the statements.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Agreed except I don't see it as a big problem. Who cares what the media thinks?

I just disagree that the big market teams ever go into a season believing the best they can possibly do is win 77 games. It may turn out that the don't win that many, but they aren't planning it. Schilling may get hurt and they may overestimate the ability of a guy like Pat "No Bat" Burrell, but the plan isn't to fill holes with shitty guys and pitchers that they are hoping to flip at the deadline.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

If thats true then I think they're just lying to themselves and I don't think that's better

But there can be no doubt that The Mets have gone into seasons knowing they'd lose. Even the early Reyes-Wright days were lean

1.I think he said some of his younger players (Rizzo and Castro) have not progressed as he has hoped, as I know for fact they have had some issues with Rizzo accepting the coaching suggestions and not just going for HR's.

2. He fully acknowledges he/they have asked the fans to have some incredible patience and knows he will owe them some incredible results.

I give Theo credit as the guy could have rested on winning 2 Rings in Boston. He could have gone to a number places with much less pressure and just retired as the guy who broke the curse in Boston.

We will see if I am INCREDIBLY pissed or happy one day.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

You're right. In some ways it may be worse. For example, I disagree with you about the Mets. I think they have overrated their starting pitchers on many occasions. Whether it was believing an old guy had more left, e.g. Glavine or thinking way too highly of a young guy, e.g. Pelfrey.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

I understand that he acknowleged those two points but if those two points are true you cannot characterize this being an excellent year

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

AllI know is what I see. I follow the Cubs and they suck. Don't tell me about how well the minors are doing. Hendry's minor league teams also had success during his tenure. Ricketts is 0 for 4 as owner and the teams record is getting worse each year PERIOD EXCLAMATION POINT

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."

Strikes me as bullshit too. Creating a "_____ Way" consists of finding the best and brightest coaches and instructors and having them all work as a cohesive organization. You don't just walk up to a lectern (or stand next to one) and say "I hereby declare that WE WILL DRAFT AND DEVELOP THE RIGHT WAY!" to a standing ovation of approving hoots and hollers. Well, in theory, you shouldn't be able to, but that's basically what the Cubs have gotten away with for years. You actually have to do it, too. And when you look at teams that did the whole heads-of-the-hydra thing like the Orioles, Braves, Expos, Twins, and now the Cardinals, they did it because they quietly and meticulously assembled a staff that drafted the right players and then taught the fundamentals both properly and uniformly. And that's hard work. The people you need to do this right are limited. If it were easy, everyone would do it, and we'd be talking not about the '70s Orioles and '90s Braves but the everyone of forever. When you start to assess just how much has to go into building the kind of pipeline that pays off, and how with so many moving parts there are so many things that can go wrong, it's no wonder GMs like Hendry look up and down and say "well, fuck it, just get some guys who can play."

_________________