GatewayRedbirds.com

Popeye_Card wrote:

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Cardinals fans really do fetishize winning in a particular way.

it's really weird

Don't fans of virtually all sports teams do this? No matter what other teams do, it sucks compared to *my* team. You'll even find Browns fans who would rather keep losing while trotting random crappy quarterbacks out there than to win Super Bowls with a rapist QB like the Steelers. Say what you will about the Johnny Football era, at least he didn't rape anyone (that we know of).

I do think character is a different beast. I wouldn't be happy if the Cardinals signed Chapman and we were 8-1 now. Mine was more in reference to spending. I can't fault the Yankees during their dynasty for spending oodles on players because that was the best resource they had for bringing in talent.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Cardinals fans really do fetishize winning in a particular way.

it's really weird

Don't fans of virtually all sports teams do this? No matter what other teams do, it sucks compared to *my* team. You'll even find Browns fans who would rather keep losing while trotting random crappy quarterbacks out there than to win Super Bowls with a rapist QB like the Steelers. Say what you will about the Johnny Football era, at least he didn't rape anyone (that we know of).

I do think character is a different beast. I wouldn't be happy if the Cardinals signed Chapman and we were 8-1 now. Mine was more in reference to spending. I can't fault the Yankees during their dynasty for spending oodles on players because that was the best resource they had for bringing in talent.

I don't blame the Yankees either. They were just playing by the rules.

That said, Theo's ability to draft and trade was more impressive than anything the Yankees did.

dmarx114 wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Cardinals fans really do fetishize winning in a particular way.

it's really weird

Don't fans of virtually all sports teams do this? No matter what other teams do, it sucks compared to *my* team. You'll even find Browns fans who would rather keep losing while trotting random crappy quarterbacks out there than to win Super Bowls with a rapist QB like the Steelers. Say what you will about the Johnny Football era, at least he didn't rape anyone (that we know of).

I do think character is a different beast. I wouldn't be happy if the Cardinals signed Chapman and we were 8-1 now. Mine was more in reference to spending. I can't fault the Yankees during their dynasty for spending oodles on players because that was the best resource they had for bringing in talent.

I don't blame the Yankees either. They were just playing by the rules.

That said, Theo's ability to draft and trade was more impressive than anything the Yankees did.

I agree.

dmarx114 wrote:

That said, Theo's ability to draft and trade was more impressive than anything the Yankees did.

Trade? Yeah, he's done really well.

Draft? Not a ton of evidence there.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Cardinals fans really do fetishize winning in a particular way.

I don't really care if a team wins by spending a ton, trading, whatever. The thing kind of being debated here is whether Theo deserves to be viewed as a god among men or not, as he is often portrayed in books like these, and elsewhere.

Winning with the Red Sox or Cubs (or Giants or Cardinals for that matter) is a lot less difficult than winning with, say, the Royals. Those former teams already have a big built-in advantage over most of MLB due to payroll muscle. A lousy GM does not win no matter where they go. Clearly, Theo is good. I just think there are other guys out there that are as good but have a ton less hype around them, and a ton less resources around them to work with. And he was president of the Cubs and not GM, if that matters at all.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

dmarx114 wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Cardinals fans really do fetishize winning in a particular way.

it's really weird

Don't fans of virtually all sports teams do this? No matter what other teams do, it sucks compared to *my* team. You'll even find Browns fans who would rather keep losing while trotting random crappy quarterbacks out there than to win Super Bowls with a rapist QB like the Steelers. Say what you will about the Johnny Football era, at least he didn't rape anyone (that we know of).

I do think character is a different beast. I wouldn't be happy if the Cardinals signed Chapman and we were 8-1 now. Mine was more in reference to spending. I can't fault the Yankees during their dynasty for spending oodles on players because that was the best resource they had for bringing in talent.

I don't blame the Yankees either. They were just playing by the rules.

That said, Theo's ability to draft and trade was more impressive than anything the Yankees did.

I agree.

Character wasn't my point. Browns fans have virtually nothing to hold up on their own end, but even they whine about how their rivals win.

Anyway, regarding the Yankees, which Yankees are we talking about? The 1998 Yankees were built around Jeter (drafted), Bernie Williams (amateur free agent), Posada (drafted), Paul O'Neill (nice trade), Petitte (drafted), Rivera (amateur free agent), Wells (free agent), Cone (free agent), Tino (decent trade). Sure, they had some high priced free agent adds too (Knoblauch, Irabu, El Duque). But I think that's fairly equal to what the Cubs have built. Given, those drafts and signings were over a longer period leading up to 1998 than what the Cubs have built in recent years.

The 2000's era Yankees I will grant you--mostly built around high dollar free agents and trades (A-Rod), along with being able to keep their drafted core with big contracts (Jeter, Mo, Posada).

Socnorb11 wrote:Honestly, the 2016 Cubs aren't as "home grown" as people probably think.

Theo didn't draft Rizzo, Zobrist, Addison Russell, Baez, Soler, Fowler, Heyward, Montero............. or any member of the starting rotation.

He gets credit for drafting Bryant and Contreras, and he gets credit for making some really good trades, but it's not necessarily a "home grown" team, top to bottom, by any stretch.

Rizzo was drafted by Theo. Theo just happened to be in Boston when he drafted him. Soler was an IFA signed by Theo.

This year's Red Sox team is stacked with players drafted under Theo. 5 in their starting lineup, not counting Hanley Ramirez, by a rough count. The Cubs have 4 players in the mix drafted by Theo, not counting Lester: Rizzo, Schwarber, Bryant and Almora. Also keep in mind that he's only done 4 drafts with the Cubs. More MLB quality talent is likely to emerge that just hasn't had time to crack the majors yet.

pioneer98 wrote: Winning with the Red Sox or Cubs (or Giants or Cardinals for that matter) is a lot less difficult than winning with, say, the Royals.

Which is why both the Red Sox and the Cubs won so many World Series before Theo took over.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Cardinals fans really do fetishize winning in a particular way.

The Cubs scrappiness factor wasn't high enough.

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:

Swirls wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:Honestly, the 2016 Cubs aren't as "home grown" as people probably think.

Theo didn't draft Rizzo, Zobrist, Addison Russell, Baez, Soler, Fowler, Heyward, Montero............. or any member of the starting rotation.

He gets credit for drafting Bryant and Contreras, and he gets credit for making some really good trades, but it's not necessarily a "home grown" team, top to bottom, by any stretch.

Baez was the Cubs 1st rounder in 2011.

Theo was hired after the 2011 season. He also didn't draft Contreras, who was an IFA signing back in 2009 (!), although his conversion to catcher happened under Theo.

Soler wasn't drafted only because he wasn't in the draft pool. He was an amateur IFA signing as well.