FanShot
5 months ago >by puckishcubsfan
1. Of the young or youngish new Cubs who are you most confident in fulling his potential?
2. IS it just me or would anyone else rather win 70ish with a young team full of promise than win 80 with an old team going nowhere?
3. Is it just me or does anyone else have not only confidence in THeo/Jed to get this thing put together but confident that when it comes time and they need a few free agents and money to complete the team Ricketts will go ahead and give it to them?
Castro, yeah, yeah
Cubbiegoon - January 8, 2012
I have the most confidence iN castro but I’m talking about the new players the Cubs got this offseason.
puckishcubsfan - January 8, 2012
My answer to #1 is Rizzo.
More thoughts on the other 2.
2. Let’s face it 2012 at least isn’t going to be a barrel of monkeys. But if we come out at the end winning around 70 but some of the young players look good I’d rather do that than finish about 500 with aging veterans.
That’s why besides Fielder I was against signing any long term deals this offseason. Don’t commit to big money to win 80 in 2012.
I’d rather sit there at the last game saying “They won 70 but I really like this core of kids Theo/Jed has put together. I’m looking forward to next year.” Than “Wow we finished 500, all the good ones are over 30 and they spent 100 million to finish 4th”
3. I have confidence in Theo/Jed to put this together and it’s why I’m patient. But I also firmly believe especially once the big contracts are off the books, in a couple of years with a core they build of young players if they went to Ricketts and said “Tom we feel we’re a few players away. Our core is strong but we still need to go out and get some pieces. We have these guys in mind” Tom will open up the checkbook and put them over the top.
Also an offshoot of question 2.
Does anyone else feel that in 2012 it’s worth risking a few more losses for player development and some answers?
puckishcubsfan - January 8, 2012
rizzo, yarp, yarp
jesus christos - January 8, 2012
derp
dtpollitt - January 8, 2012
Herp
Nunyabidness - January 8, 2012
Slerp
RiskyBusiness - January 8, 2012
mmm...
ballhawk - January 8, 2012
Burp!
RiskyBusiness - January 8, 2012
...
ballhawk - January 8, 2012
Yes to the 70/80.
It would be nice to see some promise, hustle, desire and freakishly talented plays out of our young players and future. Give us something to get excited about.
Although it appears we won’t see Rizzo for a while, I think he may be the one to most look forward to.
To your last question I posted yesterday that after 3 years of posturing and sorting, we should be close to the spot where we only identify one or two weaknesses and go FA to fill them. Hopefully this will result in NL championships for a very long run.
And to puckish, development is going to be a must. I hope the fan base will give manager, coaches, front office all time to get this thing on the right track.
mrcubsfan - January 8, 2012
Rizzo. Sure. You betcha.
I still have this gut feeling that we will do good things in 2012.
Other teams have surprised baseball over the years. I try to minimize my cynicism as a Cubs fan, and I hope we can be a surprising team this year.
Some more pitching would help.
Tat14 - January 8, 2012
Another vote for Rizzo, yes, and yes.
fsuapollo - January 8, 2012
And another for Rizzo, yes, yes
Rammy 4 MVP - January 8, 2012
Questions and responses
1. Rizzo.
2. In any given season I’ll take 80 wins over any number of wins that is less than 80. I would rather lose 70 games with young players than lose 70 games with a team of veterans. That way they can keep the good young players and easily get the others off of the roster.
3. I think TheoJed and McLeod will be good at bringing more players into the system and some of those players will be good players. They need more than one off-season to bring better players into the system. However, if the mixed young and old Cubs lose 70 games in 2012, I would think that they aren’t off to a particularly good start.
AboutTheCubs - January 8, 2012
If they lose only 70 games in 2012,
I would think that to be fantastic.
Not Bruce Froemming - January 8, 2012
Good catch
I meant lose 92…
AboutTheCubs - January 8, 2012
I guess I will fall into lock step.
I like Rizzo. I think Castro can improve, however he has already had two years under his belt.
It will be tough with the ups and downs of 2012, but this is the course this team had to go.
Grockcubs - January 8, 2012
My two cents.
1) Rizzo, but I hope several make every day player impacts.
2) If you are going to lose, lose young. How about the following in the lineup in September? (Jackson, Castro, Rizzo, Vitters, Barney, and Clevenger or Castillo)
3) When we are in position to win, they will do what is needed to win at that time, but not at the cost of the long term. While at the same time they will not trade the future for a one time shot.
jpeters407 - January 8, 2012
No thanks
Sounds like under your definition, “the long term” will be eternal.
Not Bruce Froemming - January 8, 2012
I've been a fan since 1964. In that time the Cubs brought up a few good players in the 60s
and some really good ones under Dallas Green in the 80s. That is it. Only under Green, Goldsberry etc. did they seem to have a clue about how to construct an organization for the long term. Unfortunately, they were not given a long term to do it. A NEAR HALF CENTURY IS ETERNAL. I can wait a few more years if there’s a plan in place. The idea of throwing money at the Fukudomes and Grabows and Burnitzes and the endless list of other hole fillers makes me sick to my stomach. I’d rather the Cubs fail going about things the right way, than chug along “competing” at around .500 and winning a division or two a decade with a team with a six month window of opportunity.
the nth - January 8, 2012
"Throwing money" at the right people
doesn’t make me sick to my stomach at all.
Not Bruce Froemming - January 8, 2012
Does signing the wrong people make you sick to your stomach?
And if so, why were you such a Jim Hendry supporter?
DTJchris - January 9, 2012
I'm with ya...
…and it amazes me to see how much long term damage Hendry did to the organization and people still fail to see it.
The core of any professional sports organization (if you want sustained success) is drafting and player development and Hendry’s track record (remember, he was running the farm system for 8 years before he was GM) is absolutely horrid.
Furthermore, the culture he created within the organization (take care of my buddies first), isn’t the best blue print to follow as a priority. Theo and his team have to start from the depths and rebuild this thing from the foundation on up.
MPH73 - January 9, 2012
But spending on free agents is useless if no organization is in place.
Then you’re paying top dollar for other teams’ development at almost every position including, insanely under Hendry, middle relief. It’s not a plan. It’s reactive and never cost efficient. I’m sure they plan on being in the free agent market at some point. But this thing is so badly broken that to spend tens of millions on a top free agent now would be like installing a nice stereo system in a totaled Yugo.
the nth - January 9, 2012
You have to understand
NBF feels this team is not broken and only a Prince Fielder away from contention. And anyone who thinks differently wants the Cubs to be the next Pirates.
DTJchris - January 9, 2012
You sheeple are meatballs!!!!!@!!!!
ubercubsfan - January 9, 2012
You are
what you is.
Not Bruce Froemming - January 9, 2012
The craziest part about those statements is that they aren't even hyberbole.
For a while I found it frustrating that Bruce refused to see what caused the organization to fall into such a state of disrepair, but now it’s clear he doesn’t even think there’s much that needs to be fixed. Until he accepts that Hendry has done massive damage to this organization, there’s really nothing that’s going to change his mind.
shoemile - January 9, 2012
It's not limited to Hendry
He clings to ideas with such tenacity that the jaws of life couldn’t separate him from them. When presented with evidence, he lashes out against the people presenting it. This is what got me in trouble – I tried showing him that and it degenerated in a hurry.
Shanghai Badger - January 9, 2012
stop picking on him with your fact stuff
jesus christos - January 9, 2012
I'm obsessed with facts.
Shanghai Badger - January 9, 2012
It's not limited to Hendry
He clings to ideas with such tenacity that the jaws of life couldn’t separate him from them. When presented with evidence, he lashes out against the people presenting it. This is what got me in trouble – I tried showing him that and it degenerated in a hurry.
Shanghai Badger - January 9, 2012
No, it wouldn't
You can walk and chew gum at the same time, you know.
Not Bruce Froemming - January 9, 2012
You use that comparison all the time...
You do realize that building a competent organization in which a strong farm system property supports the major signings made is not in any way comparable to something as ridiculous as walking and chewing gum or patting your tummy and rubbing your head?
The fact of the matter is, if this farm system can’t supply more than 1 player in the next year and is 3-4 years from being a more consistent developer of talent, you’re better off acquiring young, cheap, high ceiling talent (Rizzo) than spending $175+ Million on a 6 year 1B option.
bdlugz - January 9, 2012
The thing about signing a Prince Fielder
… which clearly is not going to happen now, is that he’s still young enough that in 3 years, he could still be at the top of his game.
Again, this is moot now, but that’s the one big free agent that actually did make some sense even while doing a rebuild.
Al Yellon - January 9, 2012
And I understand that point as well
I wasn’t looking for a Fielder signing, but I certainly understood where people were coming from when they advocated it.
At the same time, if Rizzo turns out to be the player a lot of scouts think he will be, in 3 years he will still be earning around 500k and will be 24-25 years old. I really believe in Rizzo, and think he will be a cornerstone for this franchise for years to come.
Now… if the Cubs weren’t able to acquire a top tier talent like Rizzo, I agree that going in with LaHair as the only option probably wasn’t in the best interest of the club.
bdlugz - January 9, 2012
I would guess...
…that Theo gave this some serious thought, but it was likely dependent on the Zambrano and Soriano money that was committed. I’m sure they tried to shop Soriano, in hopes someone would take on a nice piece of his contract, but no one was biting. At that point, Theo made a decision that it wasn’t in the best long term interest to be a player in the Prince sweep stakes.
Knowing Boras, I’m sure this dissappointed him greatly, as he knew having the Cubs in the mix, would create a better market for his client. It could also be one of the reasons, there hasn’t been much movement with Prince yet.
MPH73 - January 9, 2012
Yeah, that actually makes a lot of sense.
Really, although seven or eight teams have been mentioned for Prince, only one (the Nats) really makes any sense.
Boras doesn’t have a lot of leverage.
Al Yellon - January 9, 2012
Correct...
…and if you look at it, Jim Hendry and Jerry Angelo with the Bears had a lot of similarities in their shortcomings. What cost them in the end, was the ability to draft and develop their own talent. Both organizations held on to these guys 2-3 years longer than they should have.
MPH73 - January 9, 2012
My plug nickel
1. Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer.
2. I’d rather win 70 games with a young team than 71 games (2011 record) with an older team.
3. My confidence in Tom Ricketts has not wavered.
RiskyBusiness - January 8, 2012
Answers...
1) Rizzo (since Castro doesn’t count).
2) Yes, every time. But the win total is highly irrelevant.
3) Not sure. I’m excited to see what they do with the money, but I won’t really have a good grasp on what they’ll do until they really start doing it… and how much they’ll have to do it with.
jameslcrockett - January 8, 2012
Ok I'll play
Ok I’ll play.
1) The pitching prospects we get for Garza.
2) Not just you
3) Not just you, again.
BrewCrew'sPrinceofDarkness - January 8, 2012
I'll play too
1. Rizzo could be destined for greatness. Wood is a distant 2nd, Stewart a close 3rd.
2. I’m with you. I’d much rather watch development of promising youngsters. No question, this will be Theo/Jed’s team.
3. I’m with you. I thinks that’s been the strategy since day #1.
Eisman57 - January 8, 2012
LaHair
Just kidding
SackMan - January 8, 2012
1. Rizzo
2. I like watching baseball.
3. I’m not sure I understand the question. There’s no way Theo and Jed are simply ruling out FA acquisitions permanently. They’ll build the best team they can using the tools they want to get, one way or another.
drewishdrewid - January 8, 2012
Here goes
1 Rizzo, most likely
2 If the young players are good, it’ll be worth watching. If they are Felix Pie-like, then it’ll simply be depressing.
3 I can’t imagine that wouldn’t happen. If the young guys bust out, then they’ll need to spend a lot in free agency. In theory, at least, that’s something a small-market team can’t do. I hope we don’t have to find out.
Not Bruce Froemming - January 8, 2012
I think this team is going to do better than most expect in 2012
But will not be winning any division title this year. Not having Pujols and hopefully Fielder in the NL Central will reduce competition and should add a few wins to the Cubs.
ak123 - January 8, 2012
I agree with this.
I don’t have any great illusions nor expectations.
I do think this team will play harder and smarter, and that alone will lead to better games to watch, if not wins.
Al Yellon - January 9, 2012
Campana, agree, agree.
katie casey - January 9, 2012
Stop. Who would cross the Bridge of Death must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see.
What…is your name?
What…is your quest?
What…is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
santoswoodenlegs - January 9, 2012
An African or European swallow?
Al Yellon - January 9, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.