Advertisement:

The man who dared criticize Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer

The man who dared criticize Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer

Paul Sullivan went there, on television no less.

He dared to question and criticize the boy-wonder front office of the Cubs. There he was appearing on Chicago Tribune Live as he often does, this time questioning Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer’s moves.

You just don’t hear or see this too often these days. It was near blasphemy.

Sullivan was met with laughter and resistance from host Dave Kaplan and guest WSCR Cubs reporter and host/producer Matt Abbatacola regarding many of his gripes.

Sullivan claimed the Cubs pushed Carlos Zambrano too quickly out the door to appease media pressure and could have gotten more at this point for him.

It’s hard to imagine the Cubs opening this season with Zambrano as part of this clubhouse. Regardless of the return, I think this was a move that had to happen for Dale Sveum’s sake. Chris Volstad hasn’t exactly paid off just yet, but was a worthwhile gamble.

Sullivan went on to say Theo and Jed lost their other deals such as Tyler Colvin for Ian Stewart, Sean Marshall for Travis Wood and prospects, and Marlon Byrd for Michael Bowden.

We can defend all of these deals on many levels, Colvin didn’t fit in this regime’s plan, anytime you can get a young starting pitcher for a reliever you do it, and Byrd had very little value. Is it possible the front office could have done better on any of these deals in hindsight?

Maybe, but it really is immaterial.

Sullivan also questioned why the Cubs didn’t bring up Anthony Rizzo when the team was playing well a few weeks ago. He thinks Rizzo could have injected some much-needed offense and kept the ball rolling.

Sullivan really sounded much like some of the fans that don’t understand what the long-term plan is.

However, it got me thinking do we put this front office on too much of a pedestal? We have to at least allow ourselves to think about that for a minute.

Now don’t question my love for Theo and the gang. I was banging the drum for the Cubs to not settle for anything but Theo when many didn’t think it was a real possibility.

I think without a doubt this organization is in the right hands and the future will be bright. However, there have been some that have pointed out that after many fruitful years, the Red Sox organization has dried up a bit.

On the other hand, you have to look at San Diego’s stellar system and wonder if Jason McLeod is the guy that should have been walking on water on the Sun Times cover.

This front office isn’t flawless, but they are one hell of a get for the Cubs. Now if Paul Sullivan can’t see that, you can always come here for some unbridled love, for now.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I have no problem with the FO, but I have to admit I never thought this season's team would be this bad.

  • This just seems like Monday morning quarterbacking by Sullivan.

  • In reply to Carne Harris:

    Thinking the same thing. And I think the idea that they were going to bail out a sinking ship in 2 months is almost laughable.

    We all knew this was going to be tough going in. We needed every flyer like Stewart/Volstad to work, for Soto and Byrd to bounce back...none of it happened.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    John, you're SO RIGHT about the flyers not working, and you can add Bowden to that list too. If you remember we talked/agreed Before the Season that the corner infield production AND the bullpen were the deepest concerns. WERE WE RIGHT, OR WHAT.

    11 in a row...,and counting. Stewart on the bench and LaHair in a slump. Dolis giving up a run every time out. Stressful..,and 100 games to go.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Yeah, I'm sure I can find tons of articles where Sullivan was talking about holding onto Byrd for value when he was hitting .090. Mmm hmmm.

    If anything, I have even more confidence in this front office since they're staying the course in the face of media bullshit like this that's arisen during the losing streak.

  • Sullivan could also be trying to get more info out of the new front office that has shut-out the local media, from their inside scoops, that were dished out like ice cream by Hendry.

  • In reply to Clark n Addison:

    Maybe a little resentful too?

  • fb_avatar

    I think first, you have to consider that this FO has never seen these players play! They had no clue coming into the season, as to what they Cubs players were really capable of. So I think we're seeing a 3 month tryout to access what they have and don't have. Since they never tell you their plans, we have to guess as to their plan.

    I think the second half of the season will be moves to upgrade the team for next year. You can't look at players for 6-8 weeks and determine their worth to the team, in most cases.

    I believe the patience by the front office will pay dividends later on. Perhaps half of the current roster will be changed before September.
    It's impossible to fix something a machine without knowing what all the different parts do and how they interact with all the other parts.

    Right now, Theo and Company are learning about the parts. Major reaprs to come sooner than later.

  • fb_avatar

    The question isn't whether or not mistakes were made in Boston under Theo's watch. There were, though fried chicken and beer weren't two of them. Theo isn't perfect. The question is how much of the real responsibility for those mistakes are his, and regardless of the amount of responsibility, was anything positive learned from those mistakes?

    As for Sullivan, what's his motivation here. He Hendry were buddies, and the front office doesn't spill the beans the way the last one did. Also, Sullivan probably doesn't get what this front off is trying to do, because you baseball intellect just isn't all that good.

  • I think anytime a team goes on a 10 game losing streak with one of the worse records in baseball there will be questions regardless if the Cubs are rebuilding or not. I think the Zambrano and Byrd deals where not good, and wished they would have waited it out a bit more.
    But my biggest concern is if all the Cubs care about is building the farm system that could take 5 years or more. The guys they will be drafting in the coming years wont pay off until way down the line By then TheoJed will be out of town, and could lose a fan base big time.

  • Show me a writer for the Tribune that ISN'T a complete idiot. Their coverage of the Cubs is unreadable because of their stupidity, either of the game itself, or for the fact that a team can no longer just throw as much money at players anymore, and that trying to be competitive for 2-3 seasons just didn't get it done on the north side. They conveniently forget that the team has been saddled with awful contracts complete with no-trade clauses for many. This is the same group of guys that talked up wanting to steal Joe Madden from Tampa Bay, then conveniently forgot what it took to actually build that team up first. Anybody who thought this team was going to actually compete was either the typical fan who doesn't really follow baseball and assumes that any changes in personnel will mean improved play, or a complete homer. We've always known this was going to take time, and there were going to be some road blocks along the way. Sullivan and others are simply taking advantage of a story, and the truth is losing ten straight in Chicago is a big story right now.

  • fb_avatar

    Sully is a weasel !!! First off, Zambrano had to go by keeping him as a Cub you'd be setting a bad precedent because his behavior goes against everything that Theo and Co laid out for this organization, you can't saddle Dale Sveum with that kind of mess..Secondly, I loved Tyler Colvin and felt that he got screwed by Quade and Piniella (to an extent) but the Cubs needed a 3rd baseman and you know what, despite the fact that his average doesn't show it, I'm glad Stewarts a Cub..he plays stellar defense at 3rd, hits from the left side and has power..Byrd had to go, realistically he along with Soto and Marmol should have been moved at the deadline last summer but per Mr Ricketts wanting to keep pieces for the new front office they remained!! Marmol will never bring back the pieces that were offered by the Rangers for him last summer and it's unfortunate cause Jed and Jason MacLeod acquired 2 of the 3 guys offered (2 arms) for the Pads in exchange for Mike Adams...The Cubs did get good value for Sean Marshall and you can't judge that kind of deal in year one anyway because all three have been in the minors except for 2 quality starts by Travis Wood..Sappelt will be the next Reed Johnson on this team and Torreyes can very well be the starter at 2b in 2-3 years he's not even 20 years old yet, patience Sully, PATIENCE!!!!!

  • fb_avatar

    Michael, yeah there were mistakes made under Theo during his latter days with the BoSox..However, he ALWAYS had to answer to Lucchino..no move got made without that egomainiac around and I guarantee that Carl Crawford was more Lucchino than it ever was Theo..Theo's departure gave Henry and Lucchino the chance to pawn it off solely on him

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    I wonder how much of what happened in Boston was John Henry trying to keep up with the Steinbrenners.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Definately.....and Lucchino tooth the guy is unscrupulous as they come!!!

  • Many good points made here. I believe Zambrano HAD to go to demonstrate the end of long standing tolerance of prima donnas and clubhouse cancers. Stewart's glove is great and I understand the gamble on him. It IS too early to judge the Marshall deal. All that said, I expected a terrible couple of years and some mistakes along the way because the rebuilding necessary for this organization will take time. I may not be around to see success but after decades of PK Wrigley and incompentence of The Trib I am ok with this effort.

  • fb_avatar

    It's worth pointing out that the Marshall deal hasn't exactly worked out for Cincinnati either. I live in Reds country. There are a lot of Reds fans, probably most, who think the Reds got hosed on this trade.

    Torreyes and Sappelt haven't exactly been stellar, but here is something to keep in mind. They're learning a new way of doing things. The Reds are not an organization that cares about drawing walks and grinding out at-bats. So what is being asked of them now is something completely different from what they were used to in the Reds' organization.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Awesome point Michael !!! Lets judge that trade after Dusty destroys Marshall's arm by pitching him everyday this summer...Those 2 kids we got are good hitters and like I said Torreyes is like 19, give him a break...

  • In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    Agreed, and not just Torreyes and Sappelt -- but really tough to make a definitive judgment on anyone after 2 months. This is really early in the process for everyone.

    I do know that being patient is difficult once the season has started and I get as discouraged by these losses as anyone. But it's a long process ahead to get this thing right.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    John, i get upset too and I hate to lose, but what upsets me most, are idiot hacks like Sullivan who pretty much know what the Cubs are doing and still ripping on them for personal reasons..Didn't Kap tell him "miss your buddy"? Hendry i'm assuming..There's no place for that, and these guys need some time away from the scrutiny to fix the mess they inherited!!! But alas it doiesn't sell papers....Hey doesn't sully remind you guys of Beavis and Buttheads teacher?? LOL

  • In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    LOL..he does a little. Agreed on that -- I don't think they can be that obtuse. They know what's going on, they're just crying for attention.

  • fb_avatar

    I just watched the Paul Sullivan video on Comcast, what a smug little piece of crap!!!! Ripping the Zambrano deal the way he did was stupid,,,there is no way ne was welcome here anymore after all the years of BS..If he is behaving now it's because he is in a contract year....Saying that Colvin's great and Stewart "stinks" is absurd...Granted Stews average is near the Mendoza line, he still has more homers and rbi's than Colvin and is a superior defender and works the count the way it's supposed to be worked..he's also made harder outs than anyone in the National League for sure...Good thing Sully wasn't around when Ryno started out 1-31 in 1982, he'd have crucified him... His points about Rizzo are dumb, servicetime is HUGE and 3 weeks more won't stunt his development plus he totally ignores the pressure that will be placed upon him, the Cubs gave upa lot to get him and they want him to succeed..

  • In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    Colvin has a .303 OBP, which is par for the course for him. Nice slugging pct., but they're protecting him with good matchups. I don't think he's an everyday player at this point -- neither do the Rockies He only has 89 ABs.

  • Only Sullivan, who attacked Zambrano like a racist, who lambasted the man for leaving during the season to adopt a needy, South American child, would say, "We trade Zambrano too hastily."

    Each one of the organization's moves has been easily defended -- and even the moves that for the Red Sox have since become problems (Lackey, Crawford, etc.) were defendable at the time (which means they are still defendable because you evaluate trades when they happen, not fifteen months later when, say, Chris Volstad struggles to start the season).

    Sullivan is and likely shall remain a Published Troll. Such has become the fare of major media outlets of the Old World Press as they scramble to retain the dying business model.

    Thanks, Tom, for bringing a little logic to the matter. And I agree that Epstein/Hoyer should not be overly praised or undoubted. There are sound counterarguments to the contract they gave Crawford.

    Fans and writers need to post a sign over their television / game-watching device that says, "This is what rebuilding looks like." Not a soul in the front office said we were in contention for the NL Central in 2012. Being terrible right now is part of what will make the team great later.

    (And no, "defendable" is not a word. At least it wasn't until I made it one.)

  • In reply to bwoodrum:

    Good points, Brad.

    Sullivan has resorted get people riled up and appeal to their base emotions, get them be reactionary as opposed to rational. Newspapers have been going in this direction for a while now, and it's sad to see newspapers stoop so low to get readers. Not only does it make for bad reading, but it completely disregards those out looking for realistic and rational analysis.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Yeah, Sully seems to be doing some kind of sports radio shtick here to incite some blowback to the Cubs. He might be bitter, or he might be that dumb. However, I learned long ago there are no magical coaches or GMs. It takes a plan and execution to see it work. Keep in mind though that Dallas Green did get somewhat lucky and help the big club out in hurry while still rebuilding the system so there is some hope.

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    True..but it even took Green 3 years to field a winner, and he had to do it with some vets who broke down the next season. The first team to succeed as far as the Green/Goldsberry long term rebuilding plan was the 89 Cubs, but by then Jim Frey had already started the process of dismantling it all.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    True John they were set up to win in the early 90's and big, too bad.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Tom Loxas:

    Tom, Harry Carray always said if they'd have kept Dallas Green they'd have won a championship..I always agreed...Jim Frey was the worst hire from a baseball side of it,,,

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    That being said, I think Theo/Jed will do something similar. They'll build for a couple of years, then surround them with more established vets in year 3 and make an early run while they continue to build behind the scenes.

  • In reply to bwoodrum:

    Thanks Brad.

  • I'm fine that Sullivan was on the front office. He's wrong, but that's his right.

  • In the old days, the front office of a baseball team had to keep the beat writers happy, because those writers were the ones who framed the team for the public at large. But being part of a younger generation, Jed and Theo know that the opinions of guys like Sullivan and Rogers and Rosenbloom don't really matter anymore. Casual fans will see the highlights on Sportscenter and rabid fans will be informed enough to know that the Tribune's reporters are hacks. There was a personal edge to Sullivan's diatribe, and I think it's because he feels like the new FO doesn't treat him and his colleagues with as much respect. But who cares? The FO has more important things to worry about than Paul Sulllivan's feelings.

  • In reply to Taft:

    Excellent points Taft, you may have something there.

  • In reply to Taft:

    Yeah this FO told even the respected guys in town they weren't getting much from them.

  • In reply to Taft:

    Well said Taft. What I love is that this is some good old fashioned poetic justice given that Sullivan has never respected his readers and has openly flaunted that disrespect. As they say, karma is a b*&#h.

  • A season and a trade can't be judged after 2 months. Trading Joe Carter
    looked good after 2 years, then bad later.

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    You can still defend the Joe Carter deal. Sutlciffe was an ace without a doubt and those aren't cheap.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Tom Loxas:

    I was 14 at the time of that deal and the original was supposed to be Mel Hall, Keith Moreland , Darryl Banks and Don Schulze for Sutcliffe and Ron Hassey..The Cubs wanted George Fraizer to bolster the pen and had to replace Moreland with Carter...still a no brainer...I did hate the Krukow to the Phillies deal though..he may not have been an ace but he was a solid 1b or a #2 for sure

  • "Sullivan claimed the Cubs pushed Carlos Zambrano too quickly out the door to appease media pressure and could have gotten more at this point for him."

    Seriously, Paul Sullivan? Who was the guy who was sticking the knife in Zambrano's back and generating all that media pressure? Just a few highlights

    http://www.obstructedview.net/news-and-rumors/today-in-cognitive-dissonance.html

  • Aw hell. Why do I always find myself in the minority opinion? Well, here goes nothing.

    I for one, appreciated and respected Sullivan for at least questioning the Theocrats. This whitewashing and flat out excusing of a 15-30 team is getting to "The-leader-is-good-the-leader-is-great-we-surrender-our-will-as-of-this-date" proportions. It's entirely possible to say that Jed and Theo have made some bad moves while still thinking that they were and are the best choices to run the club. They're not mutually exclusive.

    The Cubs could have flat out released Carlos Zambrano. Would have cost the same amount of dollars. But they CHOSE to take on Chris Volstad as a reclamation project. that CHOICE looks incredibly poor right now. I agree that trading Sean Marshall was probably in the Cubs best interests. And from the two measly games I've seen Cooter ( Travis Wood.....I'm convinced this guy drives a tow truck to Wrigley Field.) pitch, I can see him going the Jon Tudor-Ted Lilly-Jimmy Key route and becoming a very good starter later in his lefty starting career. But Sappelt and Torreyes haven't matched any of the hype that have come with them and its not inexcusable to ASK i this was the best possible return you could get for one of the best lefty relievers in the game. ( which is what Marshall was when he was traded.)

    Look, if Jed/Theo/Pi/Epsilom are going to be called saviors and geniuses and leaders of the great turnaround, then they should be held to HIGHER standards. And while it's so early....ridiculously early.......1st course of a 7-9 course meal kind of early, I can certainly comment on what I've been served and tasted. and 15-30, even on this long plan rebuilding team, tastes shitty.

    As an ardent Blackhawk fan, I'm used to the beat reporters acting like horn playing seals and simply reciting what the Coach or GM says. No views, no angles. They're pretty much stenographers. While I disagree with some of Sully's specifics, his STANCE, His view is original and very refreshing.

  • I'm happy with the new FO--I don't agree with everything they've done, but I think, in the scheme of things, their plan has been good: get what they can for guys like Marshall, pick up guys from the waiver wire, tighten of the defense, add depth, etc.

    The biggest complaint I have so far--and the thing I question most--is the hiring of Dale Sveum. There's a lot to like about him in terms of the way he handles the players on a day-to-day basis, but he has a nasty habit of putting together really ugly lineups 3 times a week...and then he complains about the fact the team is not scoring any runs. We haven't yet seen the equivalent of Marvelle Wynne hitting cleanup like we did with Zimmer, but it's been ugly.

    A perfect recent example is this: the other day, Sveum was talking about getting Mather more playing time, but he was talking about it being in CF at the expense of Campana, who has been playing very well and is one of the few bright spots--instead of cutting into the playing time of Stewart or Soriano.

    Regarding the FO, Sveum and the offense, I've been surprised and disappointed that "brilliant baseball men" would keep trotting Soriano and Barney out there day after day, when they clearly have better options. That's two starters with a composite 660 OPSs over the last calendar year, playing in spots that usually give you some offense. Does anyone really expect that either of them going forward are going to be productive players?

    We could afford to carry guys like that in the lineup if we had a bunch of stellar bats elsewhere and one of the league's best offenses, but if we scraping and clawing for ways to incrementally improve a horrendous team without sacrificing the future, benching Barney in favor of Cardenas and releasing Soriano, giving his time to Mather or Rizzo, would be excellent places to start.

    I can understand that there may be the argument of boosting Soriano's trade value, but who really thinks that we could get anything of value for him at this point when he's been replacement level or worse over the last calendar year? And if we have better options who make the league minimum or close to it (Mather, Rizzo, etc), then how can you justify keeping him around? We still have to pay him one way or another, but he helps the team more by NOT playing than by playing, so we'd be better off paying him to be OFF the roster.

    Having said all that, I'm still excited about the future. This is the best ownership/FO combination we've had in my lifetime.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to SVAZCUB:

    In regards to Barney, the guy at Hot stove Cubbies was talking the other day about the Cubs and Nats were close to pulling off a Byrd, Barney and PTBNL for 2nd baseman Danny Espinosa and John Lannan.If true it shows that the front office isn't blind to the lack of offense there

  • In reply to SVAZCUB:

    Yeah it sure does seem silly to think we are getting anything for Soriano at this point, no one can be that stupid. He is about done.

  • On a different note, John and Tom what type of yield can we expect from Demp even with a little regression from his current numbers? Also, do you think we'd get a noticeacbly better haul , if we traded him right after the draft, instead of waiting til the end of July?

  • In reply to Carl9730:

    I think waiting til July could be a risky but smart move. Let's hope he keeps up the good performances but come July you could have a mini-biiding war.

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    KG said-via Twitter- that he'd be surprised if Demp netted a top 100 prospect. That is a bit discouraging, not that his word is necessarily gospel.

  • fb_avatar

    Speaking of the plan, Dempster has sold his home in Chicago, and there are rumors that Dempster and his agent had a sit down with Epstein and Hoyer to discuss the future during spring training. Read into that whatever you like.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Also, Dempster's comments to the Sun Times after last nights game were telling. He knows the score.

  • I think your point about McLeod is one that a lot of average fans have missed. Everyone was excited about Theo, but in reality, McLeod will be the one most responsible for restocking the farm system which is how the Cubs will achieve sustained success. Especially since the new CBA rules have turned the draft into a level playing field which puts even more emphasis on making good draft picks and not just overpaying guys with signability issues. I still can't believe the Padres let McLeod go, let alone for compensation that is apparently never coming.

  • In reply to North Side Irish:

    Great catch Irish! I am shocked not many commented on that. I know John has mad love for him though.

  • IMO, i think those moves were made because of how the new CBA sets up. The worse you are, the more money you get on the international front pool, plus there are less "sandwich" picks in the first few rounds, so the worse they get, the better they set up for the draft, which it seems something "Sully" doesn't understand.

  • For the most part, I find it hard to muster any respect for writers who for the most part graduated with a degree in English and are skilled in diagramming a sentence rather than having a knowledge in a sport that they will end up reporting. They need to stick to reporting what goes on between the lines and leave the commenting to someone who knows the game, like a former player. That's why listening to an ex-player talk about what happened is always better than being subjected to a know-nothing hack like say, Skip Bayless.

    This is a major reason that television and radio is better than the written media (for the most part) in sports commentary.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to SFToby:

    Statement is so true I have to give props. I'd even settle for commentary from someone who may not have played ML ball but at least has been around the game or a certain team for year , talking with executives, scouts etc. and has worked hard at making baseball a profession like John and Tom for instance....those two could sulliwack and rosenfail's jobs with their hands tied behind their backs and out out better articles.

  • In reply to Marcel Jenkins:

    Wow thanks Marcel. I have been consuming this stuff since I could read and I talk a lot with people I trust to formulate some information, but my opinions come from my heart and less of an angle like some of the writers have to do these days. That is why I think many are turning to bloggers, it's unfiltered and also agenda less for the most part.

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    There's not even a shred of doubt that Sullivan and Rosenbloom can't hold a candle compared to John and Tom. That's probably why we all consume and digest these articles. Sullivan and Rosenbloom have to sell their readerships. Every so often Sullivan and Rosenbloom make sense, but for the most part their articles incite negative emotions and they're approach is so hard to take either due to arrogance, plain stupidity or thoughtlessness.

    Tom and John have sense in what they say, view a minute detail and shed light on what's not apparent or help us see the process isn't exactly linear. Anymore, I quickly peruse Sullivan's articles to get to these articles. At the very least with these articles, I know I'm going to learn something new and/or gain a perspective. Sullivan just seems to bring me feeling like the Cubs are born losers and frustrations are the inevitable expectation. So, live it up.

    I always have to remind myself that at one time, albeit a long time ago, the Cubs were the class of MLB and it just takes a collective group think like this FO and an accruement of talent to reverse this fortune. Lord knows we have the fans and financial capabilities to do this.

  • In reply to SFToby:

    Mostly true Toby, but I have talked with some ex players that give you a lot of dumb analysis too. There are plenty more that have some good thoughts and I tend to listen closely to what they have to say.

  • As always great discussion everyone, putting out these posts are half the fun, the other half is discussing it with you guys.

  • I remember from Theo's introductory presser that he said something along the lines that success will follow if around 55 % of the moves are good ones. Yes, maybe some mistakes have been made, but that is only to be expected. Just make more good moves than bad.

  • fb_avatar

    The struggles of the current roster go back to the lousy contracts and player evaluations made by Jim hendry and and his assistants, which include crane kenney and john McDonough. In 06–09 nobody was calling for Hendrys job, because he was super friendly to the media, there wasn't a story that wasn't leaked first. Paul Sullivan is a little runt that is struggling to stay relevant with all the blogs of knowledgeable fans that know more than he does. As a season ticket holder, the current club is unacceptable at current ticket prices. Rickets is getting a bye this year with the Epstein hiring, which I applauded wholeheartedly, but should have tried to beef up roster to be competitive.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Niren Desai:

    I feel like beefing up the roster has to be done a certain way from now on. If by beefing up you mean signing a 30+ yr old player to a big deal or reading a bunch of our prospects for 1 player then no. Things like that are what got us in this mess in the first place and lead to 2-3 year stints of success followed by mediocre teams with bad contracts and a terrible farm system. Any player they acquired from this point forward should only be giving big contracts when their best years are ahead of them not behind and destroying the farm system in trades should never be done again unless its from a position of strength. I'm sure most of us would be happy of.they would just lower ticket prices until they are competing yearly.

  • Not too long ago people considering we might be able to contend... now some people are calling for there heads...

    Your not gonna be able to fleece the other gm in every trade.. Sometimes these deals don't workout.. They were lightning in a bottle moves and unfortunately for us some of them aren't exactly panning out.

  • In reply to furiousjeff:

    Good points, furiousjeff. Especially the part about fleecing other GM's. Every so many years a new GM will fleece another GM. Then the "fleecer" won't pull those kinds of deals again. Even though I'm a feirce CWS opponent, Williams fleeced the Phillies a few years back and he hasn't been able to do that since. He gave them Tadaguchi a few years after the Garcia trade, but I don't see the Phillies getting taken again. I remember when Hendry fleeced the Dodgers with Hundley and I thought he better be careful, people will take notice. Well, he was always doing the giving after that trade, by and large.

  • It's way, wayyyyy too early to judge Epstein and Hoyer. We don't know how well the prospects they got back in trades will do down the road. It's easy to say, "They should have gotten more," but there's no way for us to know whether anyone was offering more than what we got. If we had held on to Zambrano and Marshall, what difference would it have made in this year's team? Would it be safe to say that we' have won five more games that we lost this year? That would put us at 20-25, which still stinks.

    What some folks would call whitewashing, I'd call giving the benefit of the doubt, and all new FOs deserve it, for a period. Zambrano had to go because he was volatile presence in a clubhouse that needed culture change, badly. Marshall had to go because our need for prospects greatly outweighed our need for a good bullpen in 2012. Time will tell if it was wise to bring in Volstad, Wood, Torreyes and Sappelt, but there's really no disputing the logic of those moves.

  • Paulie, as usual is spot on. Concede he is alot closer to the action than we are. Fans can and should simply exercise their right to keep their money in their pockets until a better product and return on investment is exhibited on the field.

  • The fact is the Cubs are 15-32. The time-bomb is clicking.

Leave a comment