GatewayRedbirds.com

go birds wrote:

I've acknowledged that Theo is a good GM--that's really all youre gonna get out of me. I think he has an eye for talent, but his hall of fame run has been with two franchises that had established fanbases and big bank accounts. He's not the greatest gm of all time--sorry.

What do you think he did that was different to every other GM the Cubs and Red Sox had while they failed to win a WS for a combined two centuries?

Famous Mortimer wrote:

go birds wrote:

I've acknowledged that Theo is a good GM--that's really all youre gonna get out of me. I think he has an eye for talent, but his hall of fame run has been with two franchises that had established fanbases and big bank accounts. He's not the greatest gm of all time--sorry.

What do you think he did that was different to every other GM the Cubs and Red Sox had while they failed to win a WS for a combined two centuries?

Put a really good team on the field that was lucky enough to overcome an 0-3 series hole to the Yankees, and two different 1-3 series holes to an equally unlucky franchise (the Indians).

Famous Mortimer wrote:

go birds wrote:

I've acknowledged that Theo is a good GM--that's really all youre gonna get out of me. I think he has an eye for talent, but his hall of fame run has been with two franchises that had established fanbases and big bank accounts. He's not the greatest gm of all time--sorry.

What do you think he did that was different to every other GM the Cubs and Red Sox had while they failed to win a WS for a combined two centuries?

I think he was the first Red Sox GM to put two steroid monsters in the middle of his line up. He was the first Cubs GM to convince ownership to lose on purpose for 4-5 years.

zac wrote:

Nobody is saying money doesn't help, especially now when every team has an analytics department and the scouting advantages once utilized by the A's and Twins are harder and harder to come by. But you come across as bitter and ignorant by trivializing Theo's success to money when 80% of the turnaround had NOTHING TO DO WITH RESOURCES.

Going forward the Cubs will most definitely have an advantage in being able to sign FAs and retain their own players. That's a given. But that advantage wasn't leveraged in the rebuilding process. That's what makes these assertions so ludicrous.

If Theo was GM of the Royals, he wouldn't have been able to sign Lester, or Lackey, or Zobrist, or Fowler. If that doesn't happen, do you think anyone is even talking about the Cubs right now? The resources that the Cubs have made all the difference in the world.

pioneer98 wrote:Dayton Moore comes to mind.

Dayton Moore had been ridiculed for the past decade as one of the worst GMs in baseball.

Swirls wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:Dayton Moore comes to mind.

Dayton Moore had been ridiculed for the past decade as one of the worst GMs in baseball.

Perception is more important than results. One could argue that what Moore was able to do in KC, with the constraints they have, is more impressive than what Theo has done in Chicago.

I mean, you wouldn't win that argument with most fans though. Because Theo is Theo, and Moore made that Wil Myers trade.

Socnorb11 wrote:

zac wrote:

Nobody is saying money doesn't help, especially now when every team has an analytics department and the scouting advantages once utilized by the A's and Twins are harder and harder to come by. But you come across as bitter and ignorant by trivializing Theo's success to money when 80% of the turnaround had NOTHING TO DO WITH RESOURCES.

Going forward the Cubs will most definitely have an advantage in being able to sign FAs and retain their own players. That's a given. But that advantage wasn't leveraged in the rebuilding process. That's what makes these assertions so ludicrous.

If Theo was GM of the Royals, he wouldn't have been able to sign Lester, or Lackey, or Zobrist, or Fowler. If that doesn't happen, do you think anyone is even talking about the Cubs right now? The resources that the Cubs have made all the difference in the world.

The Royals have a 130+ million dollar payroll, and by AAV are paying external acquisitions Kennedy, Vargas, Soria, and Hammel 38 million per year. That's how much Lackey+Zobrist+Fowler was by AAV last year. They also decided to pay Alex Gordon 18 million per the same offseason that Heyward got 23M. So yes, the Cubs have a financial advantage that allows them to have an extra player or maybe an upgraded FA here or there, but while there are some teams the Cubs(themselves 8th in payroll this year) will lap in spending, there aren't many.

EDIT: The Royals are an extra good example because they had Top 10 picks from 2010 to 2013, and instead of giving them another wave of talent to supplement Hosmer/Moustakas/Cain, they've gone 0 fer on getting a productive major leaguer out of them.

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

zac wrote:

Nobody is saying money doesn't help, especially now when every team has an analytics department and the scouting advantages once utilized by the A's and Twins are harder and harder to come by. But you come across as bitter and ignorant by trivializing Theo's success to money when 80% of the turnaround had NOTHING TO DO WITH RESOURCES.

Going forward the Cubs will most definitely have an advantage in being able to sign FAs and retain their own players. That's a given. But that advantage wasn't leveraged in the rebuilding process. That's what makes these assertions so ludicrous.

If Theo was GM of the Royals, he wouldn't have been able to sign Lester, or Lackey, or Zobrist, or Fowler. If that doesn't happen, do you think anyone is even talking about the Cubs right now? The resources that the Cubs have made all the difference in the world.

The Royals have a 130+ million dollar payroll, and by AAV are paying external acquisitions Kennedy, Vargas, Soria, and Hammel 38 million per year. That's how much Lackey+Zobrist+Fowler was by AAV last year. They also decided to pay Alex Gordon 18 million per the same offseason that Heyward got 23M. So yes, the Cubs have a financial advantage that allows them to have an extra player or maybe an upgraded FA here or there, but while there are some teams the Cubs(themselves 8th in payroll this year) will lap in spending, there aren't many.

EDIT: The Royals are an extra good example because they had Top 10 picks from 2010 to 2013, and instead of giving them another wave of talent to supplement Hosmer/Moustakas/Cain, they've gone 0 fer on getting a productive major leaguer out of them.

Revenue alone doesn't make the difference (the Cubs have proven that), but you'll never convince me that Theo's job isn't easier than Dayton Moore's. What if Dayton Moore was able to do what he did (add Kennedy, Vargas, Soria and Hammel) and still have money left over to add Lester, Lackey, Zobrist and Fowler? He'd probably look like a much smarter GM right now than he does, simply because his team would likely be a perennial playoff contender.

Socnorb11 wrote:What if Dayton Moore was able to do what he did (add Kennedy, Vargas, Soria and Hammel) and still have money left over to add Lester, Lackey, Zobrist and Fowler? He'd probably look like a much smarter GM right now than he does, simply because his team would likely be a perennial playoff contender.

He would also have the highest payroll in baseball by about 10 million dollars. Also if ZiPS is to be believed, they'd project slightly worse than this year's Cardinals.

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:What if Dayton Moore was able to do what he did (add Kennedy, Vargas, Soria and Hammel) and still have money left over to add Lester, Lackey, Zobrist and Fowler? He'd probably look like a much smarter GM right now than he does, simply because his team would likely be a perennial playoff contender.

He would also have the highest payroll in baseball by about 10 million dollars.

I"m not sure how accurate it is, but this website says that the Dodgers spent $134 mil more than the Royals last year. I don't think that Lester, Lackey, Zobrist and Fowler made $144 million last year, did they?

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2016/


I'm not sure how you come up with that projection, either. The Royals won 81 games WITHOUT those 4 players that I mentioned.