Cubs Notes: On Colvin, blockbuster deals, and rooting for the Cubs to lose?

Cubs Notes: On Colvin, blockbuster deals, and rooting for the Cubs to lose?
Are you rooting for the Cubs to win or lose?

Just a quick round up of some news and notes as we get ready for the Cubs to take on the Rockies,

  • I like Tyler Colvin and I'm glad he's making the most of his opportunity in Colorado.  He had some thoughts on why he's been more successful with the Rockies. “When I got here there was good communication from the beginning,” Colvin said. “In the past, the program changed for me. Here I am not being pulled back and forth. I’m sorry I did not get a chance to come back and prove myself here, but the Rockies have given me a chance, and I am back to being who I am."  I can't argue with that, that was frustrating last season.  But playing primarily against righties and half his games in friendly Coors Field certainly helps.  Away from Coors, Colvin is hitting .265 with a .294 OBP and his slugging is 160 points lower.  He's a good part-time player, but let's not go overboard.
  • The Red Sox are trying to undo their sins of the past and it appears the Dodgers are more than happy to absolve them.  A deal will get done that will likely involve the Red Sox shedding two $100M contracts in Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford, plus the second half of Josh Beckett's 4 yr./$68M deal, which isn't awful in terms of money, but diminished stuff, and a bad year make it poor value right now.  The only player the Red Sox really wanted to keep was Gonzalez, who is still just 30, productive, and compared to the Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder, his contract is still a bargain.  Yet despite the Red Sox eagerness to unload those contracts and get under the luxury cap, the Dodgers are said to be willing to pay 95% of the money and part with top pitching prospect Allen Webster and the hard-throwing Rubby De La Rosa, whom I still believe ends up in the bullpen.  The other parts of the deal OF Jerry Sands, IF Ivan DeJesus, and 1B James Loney, are basically just filler, but that the Red Sox could get that much in return and have the Dodgers foot the bill has to be considered a huge win for them.  For the Dodgers, it's all about winning the World Series in the next two years, anything else now would be a failure.
  • Of course, such a deal is bound to raise speculation as to whether the Cubs can deal Alfonso Soriano.  There are conflicting reports on whether the Giants are actually interested (we think the interest is minimal at best, here) and there seems to be little doubt that Soriano doesn't want to go there.  We've heard at various points, the other teams who have shown interest in the 36 year old OF/DH in the past have been the Rays and the A''s, but neither team would be able to foot the bill as the Dodgers did with their haul.
  • Some discussion on whether some fans are rooting against the Cubs in order to land a better draft pick.  We've seen the Cubs make late rallies in the past to ruin their draft status, though it didn't work out too badly the past two years with Javier Baez and Albert Almora as first round picks, arguably their two top prospects.  Still, the Cubs lost out two years when they dropped to the 9th spot in what was one of the strongest drafts in recent memory.  The Cubs had shown the most interest in Dylan Bundy and Bubba Starling at the time.  Still, I can't get myself to actively root against the Cubs while they're playing.  Afterward, I'm okay with a loss because of the bigger picture, and I do regret "losing" a game to the Rockies in the draft race after the victory yesterday -- but when they are actually playing, I can't help rooting for them to win, just because I enjoy watching them play well, particularly the young players such as Brett Jackson and Welington Castillo yesterday.  I also rationalize to myself that my rooting for them has no bearing on whether they actually win. This year there are 3 college pitchers at the top of the draft and we all know how much the Cubs could use pitching prospects with impact, front line potential.  What do you think?  I'll keep this a simple yes or no as an answer and you can explain your reasoning in the comments section.

(I apologize for the typo in the poll question, but to fix it would mean resetting the poll to zero. It should read, "Are you rooting for the Cubs to lose so that they can get a better draft pick?)

Filed under: News and Notes, polls


Leave a comment
  • I voted no. You know my stance, John.

  • I do. I also have my stance and I sort of explained it above. Part of the Cubs getting better is also young players developing and playing better baseball and occasionally that is going to result in a win, as it did yesterday. If Jackson finishes the year strong and starts to look like a viable starting CF, for example, then that could mean as much or more than the difference between the 2nd or 3rd pick.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I agree 100%. I just can't bring myself to root for them to lose.....

    Hey, don't look now; but "that Brett guy" just hit a HR to the opposite field.... So much for trying to pull everything. Maybe he's a keeper after all. Though I still think, he moves to LF when ScZur or Almora are ready.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    My bet is on Almora, he's so smooth out there They are all good CFs though, whoever winds up there, it'll be the best defensive CF the Cubs have had in a while.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Yeah, I'm a little giddy over the thought of our potential 2016 outfield of:

    LF = B-Jax
    CF = Almora
    RF = Soler

    Throw in Baez with Castro & Rizzo + whomever (Vitters/Amaya/Candelario, etc) with Beef in the 8-hole and thats a pretty scary line-up

  • Go Cubs.

  • I'm in the same boat as you, John. I can't honestly pull for them to lose in-game, but as a big picture, I want as terrible a record as possible. Higher draft pick, bigger international signing bonus pool, and all that. I'd love to see Vitters (who I've yet to give up on) and Jackson do well, and see guys like LaHair and Soriano build up trade value.

  • In reply to Jim Weihofen:

    Exactly. I'm trying to separate the two. In a way, it's like having a good time at the moment watching them win, but it's something of a hangover when I see they've lost ground on securing a top 2-3 pick.

  • fb_avatar

    I'd rather see a Cub win, but if they lose and play a good all around game, I'm OK with it. What really bothers me is a loss with poor game play.

  • In reply to Dave Boer:

    Agreed on all counts. Above all, I want to see them play well, especially the future pieces and once in awhile that's going to mean they win the game.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Dave Boer:

    I'm actually close to you. If they win because Rizzo-Jackson-Shark-Raley-Vitters-Castro-Castillo plays well, I'm disappointed in the win, but happy the future is going well -- and certainly was happy the last two games that Jackson is showing signs of putting it together. If they win because Soriano or Valbuena or Marmol or even DDJ (who I absolutely love) has a good game, then I'm disappointed, because we don't need them to develop, and it's a lost game in the standings.

  • I want the cubs to get a good draft pick, but I also don't want to see the kids take steps back in development. The quade seasons were different. there was no youth there, it was Pena trying to hit 30hrs and the kids on the bench or LaHair in the minors.

    Now that they're actually playing I can't find myself to root against them. Certainly there's the silver lining that we get a good pick, but I'm not rooting for BJax to K in every at-bat or for the young BP to blow leads.

  • In reply to Furiousjeff:

    Well said, it's really a weird position to be in. I can understand both sides -- I do understand wanting to lose, but when I'm watching the game, love to see what I just saw now, which was a walk by Castillo and then Jackson ripping a double into the RF corner.

  • fb_avatar

    I'm with you, John. Root for them in-game, but not entirely displeased when they do lose.

    On the subject of former Cubs prospects shed by new management this offseason, have you seen how Chris Carpenter is doing in his rehab stint? Totals over 19 appearances at multiple levels: 1.80 ERA, 20 IP, 10 H, 9 BB, 23 SO. And he's spent 14 of those appearances at AAA where he has a 0.64 ERA. I'll let bygones be bygones with Colvin, LeMahieu, etc. (as long as we receive an on-field investment/gamble in return), but I'll always find it aggravating that we had to give Carpenter up as compensation for an off-field acquisition.

  • In reply to Michael Jenkins:

    I agree, Carpenter and Kurcz too much to give up. I don't know if either will pan out since they both struggle with command, but both have swing and miss stuff, so they have a chance. It was more than other teams have gotten in the past, but given the Red Sox sense of entitlement, I'm not surprised and am in some ways relieved because it could have been worse than two RPs.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I forgot about Kurcz -- he's having a superb year as well (except for the slight control problems).

    You're much more positive (and perhaps rational) about the situation than I. We can be relieved that it was just two RPs, but I don't think we value a solid RP enough, especially in the upper levels. Look at the team bullpen statistics in the MLB: bad bullpen ERA, bad record; good bullpen ERA, good record. That analysis may be a tad simplistic and really not all that enlightening, but it might be that easy for success.

    Tampa Bay, Oakland, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore are each in the top six in bullpen ERA (3.07 or below; for comparison, Cubs have a 4.54 on the season). These teams are all small market, and we didn't really expect any of them to compete for a playoff spot this year (except for TB, maybe, but still, it's the AL East; and Pittsburgh, most experts seemed to think they wouldn't hit their stride till the young SP arrived). I'd argue that these teams are finding their success (incredibly for Oakland and Baltimore, considering their divisions) because they have the ability to lock down games. They each put a surprise season together, sooner than expected, through bullpen construction.

    My point here is that maybe we should start valuing RPs a little higher on the great "roster-construction scale." These guys can be so combustible (failed starters, control problems), so I know we shouldn't put too much stock in unproven guys like Carpenter in Kurtz. Still, the Cubs bullpen has been their greatest weakness all year, and its one we dismiss because its a "punt year." I find it a little concerning that Theo and Co. blew up what could have been a strength -- the entire ML team and upper system was depleted of RP arms. They went into the year with zero regard for bullpen construction -- and the 2012 Cubs never stood a chance. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy about the return on most of those trades, I just don't want to get into the habit of throwing away these arms just because they aren't SP.

    From now on, as they find arms on the waiver wire, I hope Theo and Co. are evaluating new ways to pick bullpen gold out of our system, other systems, and on the scrapheap. I'd like to see them be a little less eager to use upper level RP as compensation. A great bullpen can literally "save" a season for any team.

  • In reply to Michael Jenkins:

    Nice to get RPs cheap and cost-controlled too.

  • fb_avatar

    Brett jackson finally coming through I love it..

  • In reply to Colman Conneely:

    Great to see. I still have hope!

  • I will always wish for the better draft pick.

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    If your wish comes true, the Cubs can never win the World Series.

  • It's because you have top draft picks that you reach the WS

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    No member of the Cardinals team that was on the field at the end of Game 7 of the 2011 World Series was drafted in the first round of baseball's amateur draft. Also, since 1999, the Cardinals have always drafted 13th or worse in the first round. It's not where a team drafts in the first, or any, round that helps it eventually reach and win the World Series, it's how they develop the players they draft and how they assemble a team at the Major League level.

  • fb_avatar

    Well said.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    Thank you, Just Win. Great name!

  • fb_avatar

    Here's a counter: the Yankees were godawful in the late 80s and early 90s. A particularly awful 71 and 91 season in 1991 earned them the #6 pick in the 1992 draft. That pick was Derek Jeter. Do you think it's possible the Yankees wouldn't have been as good as they were this decade if they'd gotten to 80 wins in 1991?

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    That's true, though I can't say the Yanks have used the draft to build.

    Examples go both ways too. The Royals have not gotten better despite consistently high picks and universally praised prospects.

    At any rate, I do understand, given the way this CBA is set up, that there really is no easy way to acquire young talent without losing...a lot, I even wrote an article on it, but actively rooting against them is not something I'm able to do :) I'm trusting it will all work out as I don't think the Cubs are good enough to put together a serious winning streak anyway. I'll root for them and probably get the high pick at the same time.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    The other part of this, no question, is that you have to make good draft picks and develop those picks. For whatever reason -- and I'm not enough of a baseball guy to know -- the Royals have been consistently awful at that. Their best young player -- Escobar -- was developed by the Brewers, who are quite good at it.

    The Yankees are a really special case, and it would be beyond great for the Cubs to get here. The early Yankees dynasty teams were entirely built by drafts or smart trades: Jeter, Martinez, Pettite, O'Neil (trade with the Reds when both teams stunk), Williams (Bernie and Gerald), Rivera, and Posada were all developed internally. That group developed a really unique culture -- the "Yankee way" of doing things. They started adding pieces. And the thing is, they never overhauled things too much (and, in fact, key parts of the team -- Jeter, Cano, Rivera, Posada, until this year -- were internally developed). So, by adding one or two new super vets a year, those vets could be absorbed into the "Yankee way," and then help absorb new players the next year. It's an incredible self-perpetuating thing they have now.

    Having said that, I'd be very impressed if it survives Derek Jeter's imminent retirement.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Your first sentence is perfect.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    You can also argue that the Royals have indeed gotten better, compared to 3 to 6 years past. Starters and key guys are all young and under contract for a while. They have a strong nucleus of hitters and some Gold Glove candidates/winners in Hosmer, Escobar, and Gordon. Their pitching has been the stumbling block--partly from bad picks,partly from bad trades, partly from bad luck (4 top arms with TJS this year, for instance.)
    Incidentally, the Melky for Sanchez trade doesn't look like Brock/Broglio any more, does it......?

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    I have no argument with their process. They're doing it the right way, no question, and they've set themselves up with cost-controlled players. In the end, we want to see results, but you can't argue with how they went about it. I'd like to see them win.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I forgot to add that Lorenzo Cain and Salvy Perez were hurt for the first 2/3 of the season. Perez is a stud and has been called the "Latin Johnny Bench". If Dayton Moore spends David Glass's nickels and dimes ---that's what he gets--wisely for pitching and a little more depth, they can be for real for years. Lord knows they were a model franchise for two decades under Mr. Kauffman and John Schuerholtz.

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    Pitching is definitely the key for them, assuming their position players develop.

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    For example?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    Josh Hamilton
    Matt Cain
    Tim Lincecum
    Alex Rodriguez
    Chase Utley
    Brad Lidge
    Cole Hamels
    Derek Jeter

    All major contributors -- and first round draft picks -- on teams in the last 3 World Series. And even that is deceptive: a number of other players (Cano, Rivera, Beltre, and more) were international free agents who were competitive to sign. Your ability to sign them is now directly tied to how bad your record is.

  • The baseball draft is so much differ than other sports. Mike Trout went at the end of the first round. Pujols went round 3000 or something. more often than not first rounders never make it out of the minors. You just hope your team is great at scouting and lucky. No difference in my mind if they get the first or the 7th pick. Play to win the game!

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    I think it depends on the draft too. In 2011, would have been great to have a top 7 pick...but as you say, it's still unpredictable and you can't argue with Baez. It wouldn't be surprising to see him better than Starling, Rendon, and Lindor, the 3 position players taken ahead of him.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    On Baez: I love him. I think he's a truly special bat that is going to be a fine major leaguer. Do you think, if given then opportunity, Epstein would trade him straight up for Cole, Hultzen, or Bauer? (1, 2, 3 pick that year.) Because I absolutely do, and the Cubs rebuild would be substantially further along if they'd had one of those picks instead of 9.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Cubs were never one of the worst 3 teams, though, even when they were at their worst. Too many average veterans for them to play as poorly as the teams playing bad young players. Not crazy about Hultzen, though. Not sure he's not a back end starter when all said and done, maybe a #3.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    But I would probably trade Baez for the other two guys and then cross my fingers.

  • Fans should never root for their team to lose! High draft picks in baseball arent a guarantee to be stars. now if the cubs losing helps keep the cardinals out of the playoffs, then I'm all for losing in that situation!

  • In reply to Joshnk24:

    Ha! Cubs blew that chance last year.

  • fb_avatar

    There was some talk in a previous thread by several readers that the Cubs could/perhaps should go after Ellsbury.

    I would stay far, far away from him. Besides being injury prone, his power numbers went from 9/8/0(missed season)/32/1(missed season). His doubles went 22/27/46, not including the two basically missed seasons. A huge jump in power like that, 27 doubles to 46 doubles, and 8 hr to 32 hr, is a major, major red flag. The logical explanation for a power jump like that is also a likely cause for the physical problems he keeps having, which caused him to miss basically 2 of the last 3 seasons.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    Got to be concerned there and then you have to wonder about cost, both in terms of what it will take to retain him financially and what Boston would ask in terms of prospects.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    I'd sooner have Lester.

  • Cubs lost today....
    An American space hero died today....
    I didn't win the lottery....

    I picked the wrong week to stop drinking.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    They happen in 3s.

  • Any ballplayer or manager, who intentionally throws a game, for money, for a draft pick, whatever, should be banned from that sport.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:

    Agreed. Manager and players absolutely need to try and win every game they play.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I'm actually dead serious here: then what do you do about Jeff Luhnow. You can't convince me he isn't trying to lose.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Yeah, no question he's tanking it. Impossible to prove, though. FO is different, though, Cubs not upset about losing either, I'm sure. But manager and players are trying to win.

  • In reply to CubsTalk:


  • A few thoughts/comments/observations:
    1) I voted "no" above as my stance is essentially the same as yours, John. When I get the chance to watch the Cubs, I actively root for them to win , but if they lose I generally shrug my shoulders and think, "Well, at least that's a step closer to a top 3 pick." (Though sometimes the shrugging is after a good 15 minutes of swearing about their inability to hit).
    2) Move over Mendoza! Here comes Jackson! Just .004 from breaking the .200 line! Weeeeeee!!!
    3) Do you really think the Red Sox got a good haul John? I have to admit that I am not familiar with DeJesus and Sands (I am learning about other teams minor league systems through this wonderful blog... I'd never really followed them before), but it seems that people wildly underrate how good that 3-some could be if healthy (that is a big caveat, I'll admit). BUT, the Sox are giving up 3 perennial All-Stars including a pitcher who has been instrumental in 2 WS TITLES (Fla and RS), a slugging 1B in his prime, and an OF who has battled injuries for 2 years (yes) but is a force when healthy... and LA? They gave up a POTENTIAL #3 pitcher, another who you think is going to end up in the bullpen, a 1B who can't slug his weight, and 2 other prospects who may never make any impact in the majors (again, maybe Sands and DeJesus are better than I think).

    I understand that dumping some of that salary is part of the motivation, but in terms of pure baseball talent, I think the Sox are getting very little. But as I've said, I'm willing to concede I'm not too up on some of the talent...

    On this point... would you (or any other readers) be happy with trading Soriano, Garza, and Rizzo for the same package? (Not totally apples to apples, but you get my point I think...)

  • In reply to Pura Vida:

    I think they can be good. Not crazy about Sands and DeJesus is a utility guy. Key is Webster for me. I think De La Rosa is a reliever. Still, the only guy the Red Sox wanted to keep was Gonzalez, but I think it was worth it to get rid of the other contracts. That team as constructed probably wasn't going to win anyway.

    Now I wouldn't be surprised to see Boston make a play for someone like Upton with the saved money.

    I can't include Rizzo in that group because he's young, cost-controlled. Ask me if I would trade Soriano, Garza, and Marmol for that package, though, and I'd say yes in a heartbeat. Of course, that package isn't comparable either :)

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    True, I don't think they are wrong to blow it up... just thinking they could/should have gotten a little more. I would be asking for Lee... but you never know how these things will turn out.

    And I agree that Rizzo isn't in the same group because of his age and cost-controlled status... I guess I was more looking at position and impact on the team with that comparison.

    I still don't really want the Cubs to trade Garza unless they get blown away and that deal doesn't blow me away... even if we dump Marmol. Course, I may be overvaluing Garza and undervaluing the Dodgers prospects.

  • Soriano and Garza, yes. Rizzo, no. Rizzo might not have as long a career ahead of him as Gonzalez has had so far, but he's 7 years younger. Rizzo's a keeper.

  • I'm not really rooting for them to lose, but the draft position thing makes a nice silver lining to each loss. But at the same time, there's no real benefit to putting up a bunch of meaningless wins in September, so you just have to hope they get the youngsters some experience that they can build on in 2013.

    But if they're going to lose, I'd like to see the young guys have some success and then have Camp or Corpas blow it in the 7th or 8th...someone who isn't part of the team's future.

  • While I'm not rooting for the Cubs to lose and certainly not rooting against their players, I am rooting for the other teams in contention with them for the top draft selections to somehow find a way to win. So I was thrilled to see the Astros win last night, even though it will be nearly impossible for the Cubs to "overtake" them, and I'm also pleased when the Rockies, Twins and Indians manage to capture victories.

    I'm also rooting against whichever team is playing the Cardinals on a given day. I just hope that the Cubs won't ever need a St.Louis victory in order for them to make the playoffs. I could never actually watch such a game and "root" for the Cardinals.

  • In reply to WSorBust:

    If everyone wins we can all be winners! That would be ideal. That the Cubs play well behind their rookies and young players but not as well as the teams behind them or ahead of them!

  • I could never watch a Cubs game and root or hope for a loss. I want to see them do well and win, gain experience for the youngins, develop into better players. However, I'm aware of the state of the team, overall they stink and are building toward the future. So if they lose I take it in stride and understand that the losses piling up possibly earns them a better draft position and hopefully a brighter future. It would be kind of embarrassing if they lose 100+ games though.

  • In reply to C L Dubya:

    It would. It's tough to go through the losing. When the season is over or maybe even in the final week, maybe I'll focus more on the draft. Right now I'm mostly watching for the young players, particularly Jackson and Castillo, whom I think can be starters.

  • fb_avatar

    I think that vote (50-49 as I write this) tells exactly why Cubs boards have been so contentious the last couple months. The fan base really is split right down the middle. It's worth noting that the posters at Cubs Den -- to a one -- have made great posts defending their side. At the risk of obviously brownnosing -- John, Tom, and Felzz deserve a lot of credit for making intelligent, issues-oriented posts that elicit intelligent, issues-oriented responses.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Thanks Mike.

  • It's a simple matter of head and heart. Head says one thing (good that they lose and get a good draft), but heart can never want them to lose. Being a "fan" is never an intellectual thing. If it were, would there be any Cub fans?

  • In reply to JayPea:

    That's exactly what it is. That's why when the game is over, it's much easier for me to rationalize that its for the best that they lost -- much as I'm doing now :) During the game, I definitely become a fan -- and that's always more about passion/emotion than being rational.

  • fb_avatar

    I don't really want to see them lose, and I definitely want to see the youngsters making individual progress, but the opportunity to have the most choices available next June could be key.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Always better to have choices in the draft, but hoping they have a bad record and rooting for them as they're playing are separate for me.

  • I didn't see anyone talk about this, but the Red Sox released Mark Prior the other day........what ruined Prior career...Dusty Baker over using him too much or that collision he had at 2nd base?......

    Dodgers looking to win it all this year.......but will pay the price for these big salaries down the the Dodgers new ownership looking at a the Dodgers as a tax write off to their own business enterprises?.....

    If the Dodgers don't make the playoffs, G.M. Ned Colletti is gone!....maybe Ned can get his old Cubs job back by getting coffee for his new boss Theo, during Cubs games.

    If MLB Commish Bowie Kuhn was around, do you think he would had "veto" the Dodgers/Red Sox trade for the good of baseball?

    Another team that cannot afford to lose money or fans is the Miami Marlins.....they owe big time $$$$$ in balloon payments to Reyes and other free, they still need to sign their main star Giancano "Mike" Stanton to a long term contract before he flees for the Dodgers thru free agency.....and Josh Johnson.......

    Expect the Marlins owner to transfer his Marlins team to Brooklyn in a few years......

    Now both Beckett and Ramirez are on the Dodgers......they were traded for each other several years ago.

    Should be a interesting month in L.A.......

    Only major trade for the Cubs on the horizon would be Baez steps up and becomes the starting shortstop and Starlin Castro is used in a trade to get pitching.

    Dempster is 3-1 now for the Rangers.

  • fb_avatar

    John. If the Cubs have the 2nd pick in the draft, do they take a pitcher even if their is a more highly rated position player? Let's say Appel and Meadows are on the board for example, but Meadows is more highly touted. What should the Cubs do in that scenario?

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    Cubs should stay away from any Boras clients.

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    It's a close call but unless you've got Meadows up by a significant margin you go Appel. If it's close, Appel some of Meadows upside is balanced out by Appel and the very floor.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I would take Ryne Stanek over Appel.

  • I'm late to the party, and others have said it more eloquently than I, but there is no way that I am okay with losing. The draft is far too deep to worry about draft position. Scouting is much more important, in my opinion, as there are always going to be some hidden gems. And let's face it, you've got to have quality, consistent instruction at the minor league level to develop guys. How many "can't miss" prospects have the Cubs had turn into Corey Patterson or Felix Pie? The Cubs for DECADES have been behind teams like the Cardinals in terms of development. Fix your scouting and instruction before worrying about draft position. Theo and Jed have taken that approach, and I'm okay with it. Please be aware that I'm not just blindly following the new front office...this has been my opinion for quite some time. I liken the Epstein hiring to that of Dallas Green's, and I hope that people are more patient than they were with Green.

    One other reason I can't stand losing, even while re-building, is that the majority of fans has no concept of the draft, development, etc. How many idiots did we hear complaining about the trades made at the deadline that the return was for minor leaguers? Most people expected players that were going to jump in and take Dempster's or Maholm's spot in the rotation. The casual fan - and let's make no mistake, the majority of fans are casual fans - have no concept of what it truly takes to re-build a team. And even if we are convinced this is the right thing to do, those fans are going to be the ones who buy tickets and respond to the utter nonsense that is perpetuated by the Chicago sports media, particularly at the Tribune. Those might be the people that force Rickett's hand to act more quickly in regards to retaining our current FO if the Cubs have another poor season in the standings and with attendance.

    Scout wisely, teach the players properly, but keep the team competitive in the meantime with more guys like DeJesus, Maholm, etc. If you continually root for the team to be bad because of that draft position, your front office won't be in place long enough to reap any rewards, and players may not develop because the message and instruction will continue to change.

  • I voted "no" by the way.

Leave a comment