DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Archives
*****************************************************
#Post#: 441641--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '22
DIR By: CUBluejays
Date: November 3, 2021, 9:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The front office fell behind in the changes in pitching, failure
to draft outside of the first round, IFA failures outside of
Torres/Jimene, hitters not adjusting to the new pitching
dynamic. Owners pulling the money. A failure at every level.
#Post#: 441669--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '22
DIR By: Reb
Date: November 3, 2021, 4:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: CUBluejays link ---
>
> The front office fell behind in the changes in pitching,
failure to draft outside of the first round, IFA failures
outside of Torres/Jimene, hitters not adjusting to the new
pitching dynamic. Owners pulling the money. A failure at every
level.
>
--- End Quote ---
That’s a part of it, but mostly typical baseball regression and
the like.
Biggest factors of 2016 club were great starting pitching and
astonishing defensive efficiency.
Thereafter, Lester, Arrieta, Lackey had normal regressions and,
for whatever reason, team defense went from astounding to good.
On top of that, Zobrist and Fowler were non-factors
thereafter——huge parts of the position player production.
And, Schwarber and Addison Russell did not develop as expected
or regressed. Even Bryant never duplicated his MVP season, which
isn’t a shocker if look back at much of baseball history.
These kind of things happen in baseball—-key guys leave,
regress, don’t develop as hoped, and the like.
Meanwhile, it’s true, farm system did not replenish major league
club. But, it would have been very unusual in baseball to have
two consecutive waves of player development. That is very rare
in MLB, especially now that most every other front office is
relatively smart too.
Further, in order to maintain a winning club, Quintana trade
cost Cubs two big pieces going forward——a trade that was mostly
supported on this board, if I recall correctly. Unfortunately Q
was a big disappointment. Trade made sense at the time. Not
first time in baseball history that a trade doesn’t work as
planned.
By the time the owners “pulled the money” at Covid-time, things
were on already trending the wrong way. Owners went big on
Wrigley off-field development in search of bigger bucks and that
has hurt the on-field product. No doubt about that. But, Covid
ran into Wrigley debt and hard to anticipate that kind of thing.
A confluence of many factors, only some of which were strategic
failures, in my opinion.
#Post#: 441686--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '22
DIR By: ben
Date: November 3, 2021, 9:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Reb, that's an excellent recap! I'd certainly pile on your
assessment about our 2016 pitching and defense - truly
outstanding and the kind of season-long pitching run that a
club's collective starters almost never repeat in subsequent
seasons!
#Post#: 441696--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '22
DIR By: Dave23
Date: November 4, 2021, 8:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't remember the Quintana trade as being "mostly supported"
on this board...though I could be wrong.
I certainly was not a fan.
#Post#: 441697--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '22
DIR By: JR
Date: November 4, 2021, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Dave23 link ---
>
> I don't remember the Quintana trade as being "mostly
supported" on this board...though I could be wrong.
>
> I certainly was not a fan.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yeah I thought that was a highly questionable trade the moment
it happened, although it probably did run about 60-40 or
slightly higher in favor here IIRC.
Honestly I think a lot of people supportive of it too were more
in the "Trust Theo" mode than really happy about the trade on
its merits.
#Post#: 441699--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '22
DIR By: Deeg
Date: November 4, 2021, 9:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hated that trade at the time and never stopped hating it for a
moment since.
Also worth noting we could have had Verlander (who was actively
trying to engineer a deal to the Cubs) at a much lower prospect
cost and balked at the salary.
#Post#: 441700--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '22
DIR By: Dave23
Date: November 4, 2021, 9:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just looked in the Archives...while a couple of people liked the
deal, and some may not have liked it, but understood it...the
person who loved the trade the most was...method.
Understandably so...
#Post#: 441707--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '22
DIR By: CUBluejays
Date: November 4, 2021, 10:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I liked it at the time. Eloy was blocked in the outfield and
Cease was a wildman. Quintana had been a 5-6 WAR pitcher on a
cheap deal. The cost was high for sure. Verlander would have
been the better pick up, but that would have likely lead to
Darvish ending up somewhere else.
#Post#: 441708--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '22
DIR By: JeffH
Date: November 4, 2021, 10:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Even taking into account how things wound up, the most
regrettable trade for me was Soler-for-Davis.
#Post#: 441713--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '22
DIR By: Reb
Date: November 4, 2021, 12:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: CUBluejays link ---
>
> I liked it at the time. Eloy was blocked in the outfield and
Cease was a wildman. Quintana had been a 5-6 WAR pitcher on a
cheap deal. The cost was high for sure. Verlander would have
been the better pick up, but that would have likely lead to
Darvish ending up somewhere else.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yeah, Quintana trade/contract directly leads to Darvish signing.
Part of the trade strategy was Q’s low contract leaving money
open for another significant acquisition later. Darvish signing
was 7 months after Q trade.
So, in a way, Cassie/Preciado, etc. are part of the Q return!
Okay, not exactly but there is a big picture here.
Q was a Nowacrat move, of course, and Theo saw a window of
opportunity in 2017 for a few seasons more and was well aware
that core of club would be hitting free agency at about same
time and some kind of rebuild would be on the agenda later. So,
win now.
As Q was kind of blah still with Sox early 2017, wonder if there
was a scouting failure then and there. Obviously, Cubs were
looking mostly at his track record, not just 2017—but 2017
continued for him kind of like with Sox 2017 Q version. Recall
later in Cubs career he had a terrific run for 8-10 starts but
didn’t last.
Guessing that Cubs fully expected Eloy to be the Eloy we see now
but thought Cease was kind of a crapshoot: high ceiling/low
floor. So, willing to include Cease. Probably Sox not interested
in deal if lesser guy than Cease.
*****************************************************
Page 20 of 228
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page