GatewayRedbirds.com

Theo is really [expletive] good. Why is anyone even arguing this other than socnorb?

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:Theo is really [expletive] good. Why is anyone even arguing this other than socnorb?

I don't think anyone is saying that he's not good. The point that Pioneer was making is that it's easier to be good when you've got more resources than most of your competition.

Socnorb11 wrote:

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:Theo is really [expletive] good. Why is anyone even arguing this other than socnorb?

I don't think anyone is saying that he's not good. The point that Pioneer was making is that it's easier to be good when you've got more resources than most of your competition.

No, I think his point is that it's easier to look good and have your mistakes be less noticed when you've got more resources than most of your competition.

However, Theo hasn't made too many mistakes overall while in Chicago (or when he was in Boston).

Swirls wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:Theo is really [expletive] good. Why is anyone even arguing this other than socnorb?

I don't think anyone is saying that he's not good. The point that Pioneer was making is that it's easier to be good when you've got more resources than most of your competition.

No, I think his point is that it's easier to look good and have your mistakes be less noticed when you've got more resources than most of your competition.

"Be" good vs. "Look" good?

Semantics to me, but OK.


I think it should go without saying that you "should" be more successful if you have more resources. Theo's been fortunate to have those resources both in Boston and in Chicago.

For example, if the Cubs were working with the same resources that the Royals had in 2016, Theo isn't able to sign Lester OR Lackey OR Zobrist, much less all 3 of them. Maybe the Cubs don't make the playoffs. They CERTAINLY don't win the WS.

Wait, so free agents ARE important now?

Congratulations to MrCrowesGarden for winning the cap

Socnorb11 wrote:
I think it should go without saying that you "should" be more successful if you have more resources. Theo's been fortunate to have those resources both in Boston and in Chicago.

For example, if the Cubs were working with the same resources that the Royals had in 2016, Theo isn't able to sign Lester OR Lackey OR Zobrist, much less all 3 of them. Maybe the Cubs don't make the playoffs. They CERTAINLY don't win the WS.

So why didn't any Cubs GM since 1908 use those resources to win a WS? Or any Red Sox GM for their 86 dry years?

I just don't understand why you're so crazily insistent on downplaying Theo's achievements. Him being really good at his job doesn't change anything about my Cardinals fandom, or anyone else's.

Famous Mortimer wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:
I think it should go without saying that you "should" be more successful if you have more resources. Theo's been fortunate to have those resources both in Boston and in Chicago.

For example, if the Cubs were working with the same resources that the Royals had in 2016, Theo isn't able to sign Lester OR Lackey OR Zobrist, much less all 3 of them. Maybe the Cubs don't make the playoffs. They CERTAINLY don't win the WS.

So why didn't any Cubs GM since 1908 use those resources to win a WS? Or any Red Sox GM for their 86 dry years?

Because they were incompetent. I thought we had already made that clear.

As Pioneer pointed out earlier, Theo is good, but there are almost certainly other GM's who could have done what he's done with the resources that he has.

Probably not

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Probably not

There are a few GM's who have already done what he's done, with fewer resources........... so "probably not" is not the correct answer.