2013 Epstink's Chicago Cubstinks

[Quality Start Machine]

I know it doesn't matter at all but the Cubs are only one game behind Milwaukee and the White Sox record-wise. If they were to finish ahead of either I'd laugh.

Since the Cubs are going to suck anyway, I'd rather they suck spectacularly and get better draft picks for next season. We'll have plenty of time for guffaws in a couple years.

[Internet Apex]

I know it doesn't matter at all but the Cubs are only one game behind Milwaukee and the White Sox record-wise. If they were to finish ahead of either I'd laugh.

Since the Cubs are going to suck anyway, I'd rather they suck spectacularly and get better draft picks for next season. We'll have plenty of time for guffaws in a couple years.

Fine with me. But I won't not laugh if the above happens. 

[morpheus]

I know it doesn't matter at all but the Cubs are only one game behind Milwaukee and the White Sox record-wise. If they were to finish ahead of either I'd laugh.

Since the Cubs are going to suck anyway, I'd rather they suck spectacularly and get better draft picks for next season. We'll have plenty of time for guffaws in a couple years.

Fine with me. But I won't not laugh if the above happens. 

I must say that I don't disagree with what Apex doesn't not say here.

[Bort]

I know it doesn't matter at all but the Cubs are only one game behind Milwaukee and the White Sox record-wise. If they were to finish ahead of either I'd laugh.

Since the Cubs are going to suck anyway, I'd rather they suck spectacularly and get better draft picks for next season. We'll have plenty of time for guffaws in a couple years.

Fine with me. But I won't not laugh if the above happens. 

I must say that I don't disagree with what Apex doesn't not say here.

Let's see how this plays out.

[Quality Start Machine]

I know it doesn't matter at all but the Cubs are only one game behind Milwaukee and the White Sox record-wise. If they were to finish ahead of either I'd laugh.

Since the Cubs are going to suck anyway, I'd rather they suck spectacularly and get better draft picks for next season. We'll have plenty of time for guffaws in a couple years.

Fine with me. But I won't not laugh if the above happens. 

I must say that I don't disagree with what Apex doesn't not say here.

Let's see how this plays out.

McStiff eats ass.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

I know it doesn't matter at all but the Cubs are only one game behind Milwaukee and the White Sox record-wise. If they were to finish ahead of either I'd laugh.

Since the Cubs are going to suck anyway, I'd rather they suck spectacularly and get better draft picks for next season. We'll have plenty of time for guffaws in a couple years.

No way.  That's what last year was about.  While I've not harbored any hope of them actually competing this year, I really don't care to see a repeat of the '12 shitshow.  I'd like to see some sort of incremental progress. 

[Quality Start Machine]

I know it doesn't matter at all but the Cubs are only one game behind Milwaukee and the White Sox record-wise. If they were to finish ahead of either I'd laugh.

Since the Cubs are going to suck anyway, I'd rather they suck spectacularly and get better draft picks for next season. We'll have plenty of time for guffaws in a couple years.

No way.  That's what last year was about.  While I've not harbored any hope of them actually competing this year, I really don't care to see a repeat of the '12 shitshow.  I'd like to see some sort of incremental progress. 

For what? When the Cubs become good, there are two position players and a pitcher or two who will be a part of it. This is a long-term project, and it's still in the talent acquisition and development stage. I'd rather they nab another top 10 stud next year than some second-tier guy, since the stated goal is sustained success.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

I know it doesn't matter at all but the Cubs are only one game behind Milwaukee and the White Sox record-wise. If they were to finish ahead of either I'd laugh.

Since the Cubs are going to suck anyway, I'd rather they suck spectacularly and get better draft picks for next season. We'll have plenty of time for guffaws in a couple years.

No way.  That's what last year was about.  While I've not harbored any hope of them actually competing this year, I really don't care to see a repeat of the '12 shitshow.  I'd like to see some sort of incremental progress. 

For what? When the Cubs become good, there are two position players and a pitcher or two who will be a part of it. This is a long-term project, and it's still in the talent acquisition and development stage. I'd rather they nab another top 10 stud next year than some second-tier guy, since the stated goal is sustained success.

I don't think the difference between a Top 10 pick and, say, a #15 pick is going to make a difference; at least it shouldn't. If it does, then I'm concerned about the  Epstink regime (odds are, they'll still get a Top 10 pick this year even if they play as suckily as you hope).  Off the top of my head,  Patterson, Montanez and Harvey (L-R), were all Top 10 picks during the MacPhail era, if not Top 5.  They hired the current regime so they wouldn't have to rely on their suckiness backing lucking them into competitiveness.  They're already going to benefit this year; I don't think the absence of a Top 6 pick for next year is going to break this franchise.  They ought to be fine picking 10th or whatever.

[Eli]

I don't think the difference between a Top 10 pick and, say, a #15 pick is going to make a difference; at least it shouldn't. If it does, then I'm concerned about the  Epstink regime (odds are, they'll still get a Top 10 pick this year even if they play as suckily as you hope).  Off the top of my head,  Patterson, Montanez and Harvey (L-R), were all Top 10 picks during the MacPhail era, if not Top 5.  They hired the current regime so they wouldn't have to rely on their suckiness backing lucking them into competitiveness.  They're already going to benefit this year; I don't think the absence of a Top 6 pick for next year is going to break this franchise.  They ought to be fine picking 10th or whatever.

From a historical standpoint, you're sort of right. And Fork is also sort of right. Top-3 picks are far and away the most likely players to succeed and after that it gets a bit muddled. Like you said, I'd trust the front office to get a good player at No. 10 about as much as I'd trust them to get one at No. 6. But the talent level of the top 2-3 picks generally tends to be really high and scouting is getting more refined since the days of Patterson, Montanez, etc. So teams aren't missing quite as often as they did before. Of course, since baseball is so hard to scout, there will always be high-profile misses.

Whether that's all worth enduring another 100-loss season, I don't know. The number of losses doesn't bother me on its own, but another horrible season would probably mean the younger guys aren't developing like we hope and that would be more concerning.

[Quality Start Machine]

I don't think the difference between a Top 10 pick and, say, a #15 pick is going to make a difference; at least it shouldn't. If it does, then I'm concerned about the  Epstink regime (odds are, they'll still get a Top 10 pick this year even if they play as suckily as you hope).  Off the top of my head,  Patterson, Montanez and Harvey (L-R), were all Top 10 picks during the MacPhail era, if not Top 5.  They hired the current regime so they wouldn't have to rely on their suckiness backing lucking them into competitiveness.  They're already going to benefit this year; I don't think the absence of a Top 6 pick for next year is going to break this franchise.  They ought to be fine picking 10th or whatever.

From a historical standpoint, you're sort of right. And Fork is also sort of right. Top-3 picks are far and away the most likely players to succeed and after that it gets a bit muddled. Like you said, I'd trust the front office to get a good player at No. 10 about as much as I'd trust them to get one at No. 6. But the talent level of the top 2-3 picks generally tends to be really high and scouting is getting more refined since the days of Patterson, Montanez, etc. So teams aren't missing quite as often as they did before. Of course, since baseball is so hard to scout, there will always be high-profile misses.

Whether that's all worth enduring another 100-loss season, I don't know. The number of losses doesn't bother me on its own, but another horrible season would probably mean the younger guys aren't developing like we hope and that would be more concerning.

I'd agree if there were more of the future core in Chicago. If Castro & Rizzo didn't buy into the EpHoyStink long-term vision, they wouldn't have sacrificed years of free agency.

[Internet Apex]

Can we start turning this thread into a keeper thread? Like what of Travis Wood, the inspiration of the original "EPSTINK" missive? He's a part of the new tradition right? Or is he trade fodder? Yes AND yes?

[Chuck to Chuck]

I don't think the difference between a Top 10 pick and, say, a #15 pick is going to make a difference;

But there is a huge difference between the #1 to #9 picks vs. #10 and after.  If you have a top 9 pick, your pick is protected from being lost via a free agent signing.  If a team were to sign a top free agent, I believe defined as "Class A", and they have draft pick #10 or later, they lose the pick.  Not so if you are in the top 9.

What you want is what Theo said before the season started:

"What I want to avoid is the middle ground. It'd be nice to make the playoffs or get a protected draft pick (awarded the bottom nine teams). We're not hiding that. There's no glory in 78 wins instead of 73. Who cares?"

[PenFoe]

Can we start turning this thread into a keeper thread? Like what of Travis Wood, the inspiration of the original "EPSTINK" missive? He's a part of the new tradition right? Or is he trade fodder? Yes AND yes?

26 years old, making just over $500K this year.
Under team control (arbitration eligible) through the 2016 season. 

I'd say it's okay to go buy a Wood shirsey.

Or just turn your old 34 into a 30. 

[Slaky]

Can we start turning this thread into a keeper thread? Like what of Travis Wood, the inspiration of the original "EPSTINK" missive? He's a part of the new tradition right? Or is he trade fodder? Yes AND yes?

26 years old, making just over $500K this year.
Under team control (arbitration eligible) through the 2016 season. 

I'd say it's okay to go buy a Wood shirsey.

Or just turn your old 34 into a 30. 

The feelings this team gives me are weird. They're 16-22 and on pace to be very bad, record wise, which is all that matters. Still, they're only five runs from having an even run differential. What the hell? They lead the NL in extra base hits. What the hell? Their starting pitching, again, has been actually above average. What the hell?

I mean honestly if people can't see that this team when augmented over the course of another season and a half is going to be not only good but sustainably good then they're just trying to be dipshits.

That's all there is to it. This is a very bad team that I don't think has gotten their asses handed to them on a baseball field more than one or two times this season.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Can we start turning this thread into a keeper thread?

OK.  Fill in the Roster:

SP Jeff Samardzija
SP
SP
SP
SP
SU
CL
RP
RP
RP
RP

1B Anthony Rizzo
2B
SS Starlin Castro (increasingly likely)
3B Javier Baez (or SS?)
RF Jorge Soler
CF
LF Albert Almora
C

C Wellington Castillo
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT