this is about the best way to sum it up.TimeForGuinness wrote:Baseball Smarts / No Money = Oakland A's
No Baseball Smarts / Money = NY Yankees
No Baseball Smarts / No Money = San Diego Padres
Baseball Smarts / Money = Epstein's Red Sox & Cubs
You bring up this stat like it means something, but what does it mean? The Cubs won 200 games over 2 seasons. Many teams have done that many different ways. Does it mean something that there are no other great teams right now?Transmogrified Tiger wrote:Marginally, but not 15 games better than the field over a 2 year span. The Cubs don't spend like the Dodgers and didn't 'tank' as hard as the Astros either.Popeye_Card wrote:What if you draft in the top 5 AND spend like the Dodgers AND tank like the Astros? Wouldn't you think that gives you a lot of advantage over teams that can only do one or two of the three?
This is true, of course. The Cardinals also haven't shown much ability to acquire talent from outside their organization. They're a risk-averse front office and they have a roster that reflects it.pioneer98 wrote:Part of the reason the Cardinals have not made trades like that is because they were contending every season. They could not afford to trade away their equivalent to Samardzija (like Lynn pre-injury maybe?) because they were trying to win. Those were good trades, though, not discounting that.
Scott Hatteberg and David Justicepioneer98 wrote:This is from the description of The Cubs Way on Amazon:
"Unknown, young players"? Yeah who had ever heard of Addison Russell, Kris Bryant, Javier Baez, or Kyle Schwarber? These guys were nobodies before 2016. Then Maddon and Theo molded them into superstars.How did a team composed of unknown, young players and supposedly washed-up veterans come together to break the Curse of the Billy Goat?
I assume Ross is one of the "supposedly washed-up veterans." I'm not sure who else they may be referring to there. Trevor Cahill maybe?
Yes, the point is not simply 'the Cubs are very good', it's 'the Cubs have been significantly better than even the 2nd best team in baseball over multiple seasons'. The magnitude of how much better they are matters when talking about how remarkable their accomplishments are.Popeye_Card wrote:You bring up this stat like it means something, but what does it mean? The Cubs won 200 games over 2 seasons. Many teams have done that many different ways. Does it mean something that there are no other great teams right now?Transmogrified Tiger wrote:Marginally, but not 15 games better than the field over a 2 year span. The Cubs don't spend like the Dodgers and didn't 'tank' as hard as the Astros either.Popeye_Card wrote:What if you draft in the top 5 AND spend like the Dodgers AND tank like the Astros? Wouldn't you think that gives you a lot of advantage over teams that can only do one or two of the three?
Things I will give the Cubs credit for:Transmogrified Tiger wrote:Yes, the point is not simply 'the Cubs are very good', it's 'the Cubs have been significantly better than even the 2nd best team in baseball over multiple seasons'. The magnitude of how much better they are matters when talking about how remarkable their accomplishments are.Popeye_Card wrote:You bring up this stat like it means something, but what does it mean? The Cubs won 200 games over 2 seasons. Many teams have done that many different ways. Does it mean something that there are no other great teams right now?Transmogrified Tiger wrote:Marginally, but not 15 games better than the field over a 2 year span. The Cubs don't spend like the Dodgers and didn't 'tank' as hard as the Astros either.Popeye_Card wrote:What if you draft in the top 5 AND spend like the Dodgers AND tank like the Astros? Wouldn't you think that gives you a lot of advantage over teams that can only do one or two of the three?
But really, this is the exact conversation I wanted to avoid. If you want to nitpick at exactly how impressive the accomplishment is, then go for it. I'm not trying to get submission to Cubs dominance out of anyone. As a fan of a team whose rival is incredibly successful, I know how this goes, so if you want to be unimpressed or find what the Cubs have done to be unsporting, I'll silently disagree.
I'm just generally an unimpressed person. "Act like you've been there" is a mantra I try to live by. That said, I still fail to see the dominance here. 97 and 103 win regular seasons. Very impressive. A NLCS berth and a WS Championship. Also impressive. They still have a roster set up to compete for the foreseeable future. Sounds very nice. I just don't think it is incredibly unique, even in recent baseball history. Though I'm sure as a Cub fan, it has to feel incredible. I know I'd be pretty giddy if the Blues had this kind of run.Transmogrified Tiger wrote:Yes, the point is not simply 'the Cubs are very good', it's 'the Cubs have been significantly better than even the 2nd best team in baseball over multiple seasons'. The magnitude of how much better they are matters when talking about how remarkable their accomplishments are.Popeye_Card wrote:You bring up this stat like it means something, but what does it mean? The Cubs won 200 games over 2 seasons. Many teams have done that many different ways. Does it mean something that there are no other great teams right now?Transmogrified Tiger wrote:Marginally, but not 15 games better than the field over a 2 year span. The Cubs don't spend like the Dodgers and didn't 'tank' as hard as the Astros either.Popeye_Card wrote:What if you draft in the top 5 AND spend like the Dodgers AND tank like the Astros? Wouldn't you think that gives you a lot of advantage over teams that can only do one or two of the three?
But really, this is the exact conversation I wanted to avoid. If you want to nitpick at exactly how impressive the accomplishment is, then go for it. I'm not trying to get submission to Cubs dominance out of anyone. As a fan of a team whose rival is incredibly successful, I know how this goes, so if you want to be unimpressed or find what the Cubs have done to be unsporting, I'll silently disagree.
