(10-03-2016 09:47 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 09:02 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 08:05 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 09:28 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 08:00 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  2 years in a row with the #2 pick. Hopefully at least one of them pans out.

I don't think it's guaranteed as the new agreement may change how the draft is held (e.g. an NBA style lottery for the top picks) although I'm not sure how likely that is. A crazy number of things had to happen though over the last few days for the Reds to snag #2. It was actually pretty exciting in an anti-playoffs kind of way. The Reds lost just enough to get that slot after tie-breakers while still managing a couple of late wins over the Cards to help dig their grave. Under the circumstances, you really couldn't ask for a better ending down the stretch.

Last year's #2 overall Senzel wasn't a clearcut pick, but he looked very good in the Reds' minors. Pretty early to say who the top guys will be next year though.

If they had won yesterday, would have been one game over .500 for the second half.

True, which would be nice I suppose. But I'm not really hung up on whether we're one over or one under or .500 on the nose over that time frame. Honestly, I don't even know how to quickly find second half standings.

The point that I take away is that they showed they can be competitive when at or even near full strength. And pending the new labor agreement, the advantages (e.g. pool money) of being second lowest are pretty big even compared to say sixth or seventh. Look at how the Cubs finally got good (e.g. Kris Bryant was #2 pick in 2013) after so much pure awfulness.

I mean Bryant is a great player, maybe the MVP but getting him #2 was not "how the Cubs finally got good". Cubs went out and got a great GM. They then committed to 2-4 years of lousiness as they unloaded bad contracts and went hard after assets. Those first few years were painful, but I was always happy with the direction they were going and how they were building. Theo inherited a mess, got rid of the mess put building blocks in place. He hit on some draft picks, made some really good additions via trade and when it was really time to compete he used the big market money to land free agents to put them over the top. As a lifelong Cubs fan it's been really amazing watching the results of that process the last two years.

I'm not sure if you are trying to debate something with me or not. My point in referencing them was their commitment to lousiness (as exemplified by having the #2 pick ala the Reds) was the key to their success under the current system - to which you seem to agree. Kris Bryant is just an example of what that gained them. Perhaps this will help enlighten you in your future endeavors:

Quote:The term e.g. is an abbreviation of the Latin expression exempli gratia, meaning “for the sake of example” or more colloquially, “for example.

Along those lines, Epstein has done a good job, but he's lucky to have Cubs' money and has shown he's also capable of glaring mistakes (e.g. Jason Heyward).

(10-03-2016 09:29 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The Cubs got good by signing Theo Epstein in 2011 to an initial 5 year deal to run the show. All of the other stuff, Joe Maddon, great draft picks, free agents spins off of that one move.

Sure the Cubs have made mostly better decisions in the last few years, but the key was that they committed to up to "4 years of lousiness" as mark says in another post. They are not alone in the "get bad to get good" philosophy of course, but they had two big advantages that most franchises don't:
1. a ton of money
2. a fanbase that was completely accepting of an extended period of losing (they've mostly sucked for a century, what's a few more years?).

(10-03-2016 02:53 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 09:29 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The Cubs got good by signing Theo Epstein in 2011 to an initial 5 year deal to run the show. All of the other stuff, Joe Maddon, great draft picks, free agents spins off of that one move.

Sure the Cubs have made mostly better decisions in the last few years, but the key was that they committed to up to "4 years of lousiness" as mark says in another post. They are not alone in the "get bad to get good" philosophy of course, but they had two big advantages that most franchises don't:
1. a ton of money
2. a fanbase that was completely accepting of an extended period of losing (they've mostly sucked for a century, what's a few more years?).

I think you are oversimplifying when you say the idea was "get bad to get good." Getting bad was a consequence of what they needed to do to be in position to win big long term, but the most important things they did were getting rid of bad contracts and acquiring assets, often young minor league guys but also targeting the right guys to help the team (Arrieta, Fowler, Wood, Zobrist, Montero Hammel, Rizzo). The Cubs problem was the money they had tied up in the wrong guys and a depleted farm system.

I agree that if Theo wasn't given the freedom to not worry about wins and losses for a few years he couldn't have done the rebuilt as effectively, but the Cubs aren't good because they got bad. They are good because they did a great job getting rid of bad contracts, identifying talent and bringing in assets.

(10-03-2016 03:11 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 02:53 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 09:29 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The Cubs got good by signing Theo Epstein in 2011 to an initial 5 year deal to run the show. All of the other stuff, Joe Maddon, great draft picks, free agents spins off of that one move.

Sure the Cubs have made mostly better decisions in the last few years, but the key was that they committed to up to "4 years of lousiness" as mark says in another post. They are not alone in the "get bad to get good" philosophy of course, but they had two big advantages that most franchises don't:
1. a ton of money
2. a fanbase that was completely accepting of an extended period of losing (they've mostly sucked for a century, what's a few more years?).

I think you are oversimplifying when you say the idea was "get bad to get good." Getting bad was a consequence of what they needed to do to be in position to win big long term, but the most important things they did were getting rid of bad contracts and acquiring assets, often young minor league guys but also targeting the right guys to help the team (Arrieta, Fowler, Wood, Zobrist, Montero Hammel, Rizzo). The Cubs problem was the money they had tied up in the wrong guys and a depleted farm system.

I agree that if Theo wasn't given the freedom to not worry about wins and losses for a few years he couldn't have done the rebuilt as effectively, but the Cubs aren't good because they got bad. They are good because they did a great job getting rid of bad contracts, identifying talent and bringing in assets.

I think you are just arguing semantics here. Call it whatever you want ("rebuild" seems to the term of choice among polite folk, although that does imply there was an original "build" preceding it which, frankly, may not be applicable with the Cubs), it's the same basic philosophy. They are far from alone in doing it (e.g. Houston) and it's typically done for the exact same reasons you cite regarding the Cubs (the money they had tied up in the wrong guys and a depleted farm system).

It's a smart way to go under the current rules - in fact, it's just about the only way to go every so often if you aren't a big market team (which is where the Cubs have a huge advantage as a big market team with a fanbase very comfortable with and accustomed to losing).

(09-30-2016 07:01 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  If a Joe Madden was hired we'd know they were committed to winning rather than whatever this is.

Price is just holding the spot for another year as a patsy while the Reds run their concessions business.

What does hiring one of the owners' kids to be GM signify then?

(10-03-2016 11:05 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I think you are just arguing semantics here. Call it whatever you want ("rebuild" seems to the term of choice among polite folk, although that does imply there was an original "build" preceding it which, frankly, may not be applicable with the Cubs), it's the same basic philosophy. They are far from alone in doing it (e.g. Houston) and it's typically done for the exact same reasons you cite regarding the Cubs (the money they had tied up in the wrong guys and a depleted farm system).

It's a smart way to go under the current rules - in fact, it's just about the only way to go every so often if you aren't a big market team (which is where the Cubs have a huge advantage as a big market team with a fanbase very comfortable with and accustomed to losing).

Nice taking little shots at the Cubs, but I'd call it a rebuild. Cubs won back to back division titles in 07 and 08, but really did it investing in some older guys and some bad contracts. The 2009 team was unlucky, ended up finishing second in the division but missing the playoffs. In 2009 you could see that the end could be coming. They lingered before committing to a full out rebuild with Theo. Cubs fans aren't comfortable with losing, but most bought in to what Theo was doing as the right way to build for the long term. It helped that Theo had earned trust from his previous job.

So what are we looking at in terms of next year? Pretty much have to deal Cozart in the offseason.

C-Barnhart
1B- Votto
2B- Phillips
3B- Suarez
SS- Peraza
LF- Duvall
CF- Hamilton
RF- Schebler

Bench- Mesoraco (?), Senzel (?), Holt, Winker, Herrera. Maybe a below average veteran outfielder that they love signing.

SP- Bailey, Disclafani, Straily, Finnegan, Stephenson

Bullpen- Lorenzen, Iglesias, Lamb, Cingrani, some new signings.

Seems like a 70-75 win team.

Not really about the Reds but I figured this was a better fit than the WS thread. If you can only do one or the other, watch the video at the link. But the article is a nice read too:

The story behind Fox's viral video of Pete Rose teaching hitting on set

Liz Engel
‏@_LizEngel
Shout out to the random Reds fan repping at Wrigley #WorldSeries

Kinda looks like crazy Jeff Ruby