01-22-2010, 10:47 AM
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Would I prove my point by showing you 15 teams from last year who had rookies at 3 positions and sucked ass?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know, is your point that suck ass teams start rookies at 3 positions? Because my point this whole time is that successful teams rely on unproven players. It's not my fault that you're twisting my words.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->My guess is that I could find far more examples that prove my point than you can to prove yours.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What exactly is your point? I thought it was that it's ludicrous for the Cubs to rely on three unproven players.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Of course starting 3 rookies COULD work. Those 3 guys COULD all compete for rookie of the year. But they probably won't.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the thing, they don't even have to do that well. They just have to do well enough to be an average bench player and two bullpen arms that you go to as a last resort. Those spots on an MLB franchise aren't exactly filled with superstars.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->As far as your examples go, they make a better argument for MY point than yours.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You'll have to explain this one to me, because your following comments don't really seem to support this.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Yankees and Red Sox went into those years with rookies because they knew they could trade/buy replacements if those guys sucked<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That may be, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that they decided to go with younger cheaper options to try to maintain some type of payroll flexibility in the future. They still took that chance and you knew they took that chance with the idea of being competitive in the respective years I referrenced. Also keep in mind, if those guys do flop, it's not as if the Cubs are just going to twiddle their thumbs and wait for 2011. I'm not saying they'll take on a huge contract, but there's ways of acquiring talent mid-season without inflating your payroll.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The 2007 Rockies only went to Spilborghs AFTER Willy Taveras sucked monkey ass.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tavares put up a .367 OPS with 33 stolen bases that year for the Rockies. I have a feeling they didn't replace him with Spilborghs.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Rays had no choice due to budget constraints.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know what? I might make the same argument for the Cubs. Because of the amount of money we have tied up and the fact that we're going to have to possibly look for a high priced 1B and/or starting pitcher in the next two years, I think they need to make budget cuts where they can. A bench spot and two bullpen spots is a good place to do that IMO.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->One of the Dodgers you mention was a in his 4th year (Kuo), and another had started the year before.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, he had a whopping 90 innings under his belt with a 5.40 ERA at that point. Unproven. Wade... never pitched an inning of ball at the MLB level before 2008. Not sure what you're talking about there.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->In short, these teams either fell back on these rookies because they had to, or knew they had a solid backup plan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For one thing, that is complete conjecture on your part. For another thing... that still has NOTHING to do with my point that successful teams can rely on unproven players.
Think about it BT. There are probably 25 players that start off every season on every single club. Do you really think that every team that plans on competing has a proven player in every single roster spot? How about 24/25? 23/25? The fact of the matter is, teams are supposed to bring in their unproven players and give them a chance to become... proven! That's how it works. The way the Cubs have operated the last 5-7 years is not the norm. Yes, they have added a few guys over time like Theriot and Marmol, but those guys were replacing payed players like Izturis and Eyre.
I don't know, is your point that suck ass teams start rookies at 3 positions? Because my point this whole time is that successful teams rely on unproven players. It's not my fault that you're twisting my words.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->My guess is that I could find far more examples that prove my point than you can to prove yours.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What exactly is your point? I thought it was that it's ludicrous for the Cubs to rely on three unproven players.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Of course starting 3 rookies COULD work. Those 3 guys COULD all compete for rookie of the year. But they probably won't.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the thing, they don't even have to do that well. They just have to do well enough to be an average bench player and two bullpen arms that you go to as a last resort. Those spots on an MLB franchise aren't exactly filled with superstars.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->As far as your examples go, they make a better argument for MY point than yours.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You'll have to explain this one to me, because your following comments don't really seem to support this.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Yankees and Red Sox went into those years with rookies because they knew they could trade/buy replacements if those guys sucked<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That may be, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that they decided to go with younger cheaper options to try to maintain some type of payroll flexibility in the future. They still took that chance and you knew they took that chance with the idea of being competitive in the respective years I referrenced. Also keep in mind, if those guys do flop, it's not as if the Cubs are just going to twiddle their thumbs and wait for 2011. I'm not saying they'll take on a huge contract, but there's ways of acquiring talent mid-season without inflating your payroll.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The 2007 Rockies only went to Spilborghs AFTER Willy Taveras sucked monkey ass.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tavares put up a .367 OPS with 33 stolen bases that year for the Rockies. I have a feeling they didn't replace him with Spilborghs.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Rays had no choice due to budget constraints.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know what? I might make the same argument for the Cubs. Because of the amount of money we have tied up and the fact that we're going to have to possibly look for a high priced 1B and/or starting pitcher in the next two years, I think they need to make budget cuts where they can. A bench spot and two bullpen spots is a good place to do that IMO.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->One of the Dodgers you mention was a in his 4th year (Kuo), and another had started the year before.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, he had a whopping 90 innings under his belt with a 5.40 ERA at that point. Unproven. Wade... never pitched an inning of ball at the MLB level before 2008. Not sure what you're talking about there.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->In short, these teams either fell back on these rookies because they had to, or knew they had a solid backup plan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For one thing, that is complete conjecture on your part. For another thing... that still has NOTHING to do with my point that successful teams can rely on unproven players.
Think about it BT. There are probably 25 players that start off every season on every single club. Do you really think that every team that plans on competing has a proven player in every single roster spot? How about 24/25? 23/25? The fact of the matter is, teams are supposed to bring in their unproven players and give them a chance to become... proven! That's how it works. The way the Cubs have operated the last 5-7 years is not the norm. Yes, they have added a few guys over time like Theriot and Marmol, but those guys were replacing payed players like Izturis and Eyre.