Jump to content

2018 Cubs catch-all thread


southsider2k5
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LittleHurt05 said:

Making 3 straight LCS trips and winning one World Series is close to a juggernaut to me.  Do you know how hard that is in baseball?  Winning in the playoffs requires just as much luck as skill.  While they don't look great now, they are still on a pace to win 91 games and on paper are more talented than the two teams ahead of them.  They have still have time left in this group.  

They've had a great run, no doubt.  But my question is really more about what the Cubs are now and going forward, not an assessment of the last three years.  Are they in the middle of their run, or on the downslope?  (I assume "time left in this group" means you think the former).  The next few seasons are what will determine whether they're remembered as a good team with a good run, or a dynasty.

And by the way, as good as their run has been, I think that if the Cubs were to go out in the first round this year, and never win another title, I don't think most would consider the Cubs to have delivered on the full promise of the much hyped Theo renaissance.  They've put together a run that's on par with say the Royals of this decade, or the Phillies of last.  Really good teams.  But one banner is not exactly the stuff of legend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

They've had a great run, no doubt.  But my question is really more about what the Cubs are now and going forward, not an assessment of the last three years.  Are they in the middle of their run, or on the downslope?  (I assume "time left in this group" means you think the former).  The next few seasons are what will determine whether they're remembered as a good team with a good run, or a dynasty.

And by the way, as good as their run has been, I think that if the Cubs were to go out in the first round this year, and never win another title, I don't think most would consider the Cubs to have delivered on the full promise of the much hyped Theo renaissance.  They've put together a run that's on par with say the Royals of this decade, or the Phillies of last.  Really good teams.  But one banner is not exactly the stuff of legend.

I see your point and the next few years will show us if they get on the level of the Bumgarner Giants or just another one time WS winner.  It really depends on how their pitching holds up. If Lester and Darvish can keep it going, and if Q can go back to his South Side form. But winning the one WS with the Cubs is enough for Theos legacy there, just given the history.

The other thing is we hype up these franchises and rebuilds and prospects so much now, most of them have to fail.on some level. Between the Astros, Cubs, Braves, Yankees, and White Sox, 10 of the next 6 World Series are already spoken for. And that doesn't count the high payroll Red Sox, Nationals, Dodgers, etc, nor other fluky teams that get hot in the postseason and play spoiler.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theo's legacy in Boston was those two World Series titles (and putting a large number of players in place for the 3rd)...but also a TON of bad/expensive moves in Free Agency.

They were able to sign the exact right mix of 4-5 veterans on favorable contracts for their 3rd title, but they had some really bad seasons mixed in there, overall.

The same thing's playing out in Chicago.   Heyward and Darvish.   We'll just have to wait and see what happens if they go "all in" with Machado or Harper.

 

Let's revisit all of his big mistakes in BOSTON:

Signing Julio Lugo (character issues, too), letting Damon go to the Yankees, Edgar Renteria, JD Drew, Carl Crawford, extending Josh Beckett (leading to the chicken and beer clubhouse fiasco that cost them a great manager in Francona), Dice-K and John Lackey were all terrible moves.

He hasn't made THAT many mistakes in Chicago, YET.  The ones that stand out the most so far are Edwin Jackson (even that wasn't a huge contract, $52 million), Miguel Montero, Heyward and now (possibly) Darvish.

Of course, you also have the Quintana trade, Jeimer Candelario/Wilson and Avila, letting Christian Villanueva go and the increasingly controversial Torres/Chapman move.

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, LittleHurt05 said:

I see your point and the next few years will show us if they get on the level of the Bumgarner Giants or just another one time WS winner.  It really depends on how their pitching holds up. If Lester and Darvish can keep it going, and if Q can go back to his South Side form. But winning the one WS with the Cubs is enough for Theos legacy there, just given the history.

The other thing is we hype up these franchises and rebuilds and prospects so much now, most of them have to fail.on some level. Between the Astros, Cubs, Braves, Yankees, and White Sox, 10 of the next 6 World Series are already spoken for. And that doesn't count the high payroll Red Sox, Nationals, Dodgers, etc, nor other fluky teams that get hot in the postseason and play spoiler.

I agree that it will come down to the pitching.  I don't think the Cubs are shaping into quite the offensive powerhouse some predicted, and hot starting pitching was more of a key to their past success than many casual fans/media types think.  And if you throw the Phillies and Padres in the mix, it might even be that 12 of the next 6 WS are spoken for :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems dumb when Bryant is your best player, whose best position happens to be 3B, Machado’s best position.

Sure, they can push out or trade Addison Russell, sell low on him and replace him with a much worse defender...and then turn around and buy high on Machado when he seemed disinterested at best last year on the offensive front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Seems dumb when Bryant is your best player, whose best position happens to be 3B, Machado’s best position.

Sure, they can push out or trade Addison Russell, sell low on him and replace him with a much worse defender...and then turn around and buy high on Machado when he seemed disinterested at best last year on the offensive front.

Machado's been playing short. Getting Machado would be a huge upgrade for them. And if they wasted the resources to get him (if they were to trade Russell and then have no SS going into the off-season), I assume they would be more in on re-signing Machado than signing Harper.

Edited by soxfan2014
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, soxfan2014 said:

Machado's been playing short. Getting Machado would be a huge upgrade for them. And if they wasted the resources to get him (if they were to trade Russell and then have no SS going into the off-season), I assume they would be more in on re-signing Machado than signing Harper.

With the way Machado is playing, I wonder if the Cubs would have the bullets to trade for him even if it's a half season rental. Maybe something like Russell and Happ would do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Seems dumb when Bryant is your best player, whose best position happens to be 3B, Machado’s best position.

Sure, they can push out or trade Addison Russell, sell low on him and replace him with a much worse defender...and then turn around and buy high on Machado when he seemed disinterested at best last year on the offensive front.

I would LOVE to see them trade Russell for a rental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know the Orioles front office is a joke so it could happen, but trading for Russell would make zero sense for them.  The cupboard is Baltimore  is empty, by the time they compete again Russell would be hitting free agency.  They need more controllable talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I would LOVE to see them trade Russell for a rental.

My god - if they traded Russell for a rental, flamed out in the playoffs, and then Machado went elsewhere....leaving them with no SS while Torres tears it up with the Yankees....

Probably too much to ask, I suppose.  I have to think they only go that route if they have pretty good assurances they keep Machado after '18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

We all know the Orioles front office is a joke so it could happen, but trading for Russell would make zero sense for them.  The cupboard is Baltimore  is empty, by the time they compete again Russell would be hitting free agency.  They need more controllable talent.

In terms of what they could receive from the Cubs, I'm not sure that they have "more controllable" talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

My god - if they traded Russell for a rental, flamed out in the playoffs, and then Machado went elsewhere....leaving them with no SS while Torres tears it up with the Yankees....

Probably too much to ask, I suppose.  I have to think they only go that route if they have pretty good assurances they keep Machado after '18.

I don't think they would want to keep him. They would move Baez to SS, Happ to 2b and then try to get Bryce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...