2015 Cubs Offseason: Building a Winner Around David Ross

[SKO]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:

1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.

[Quality Start Machine]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:

1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.

To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.

That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.

[Oleg]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:

1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.

To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.

That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.

Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.

[SKO]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:

1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.

To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.

That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.

Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.

I mean I don't begrudge anyone who is a Cubs fan for having a sinking feeling of wondering how this all might go wrong, I get it. Just don't go making an actual argument on the internet that your bad feelings mean something compared to actual data.

[R-V]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

At least he added some downside at the end.

The thing that scares me the most is an Arrieta regression after pitching so many innings last year. Assuming they keep Baez and Soler (a big if), I think they've got enough depth to absorb injuries/poor performance at just about any position and still be good enough to make the playoffs, while maybe not living up to the 118 win projection I just made up in my head.

[Bort]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:

1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.

To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.

That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.

Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.

I mean I don't begrudge anyone who is a Cubs fan for having a sinking feeling of wondering how this all might go wrong, I get it. Just don't go making an actual argument on the internet that your bad feelings mean something compared to actual data.

And let's be honest: how much of the Cubs' failures over the past 50 years have been down to "bad luck" vs. "just not actually having teams built strong enough to have winning records over multiple years?"

[Saul Goodman]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

At least he added some downside at the end.

He wasn't really trying very hard. Like this:

Arrieta’s fantastic, but there were some yellow flags down the stretch, so he might not rebound well from the workload.

Nothing's a bigger warning flag than having the best second half by a pitcher of all time. (Maybe he means the playoffs? Or maybe he agrees with me that completing an unnecessary shutout against the Brewers in September having already thrown well over 100 pitches maybe wasn't the best use of resources?)

[Eli]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

At least he added some downside at the end.

He wasn't really trying very hard. Like this:

Arrieta's fantastic, but there were some yellow flags down the stretch, so he might not rebound well from the workload.

Nothing's a bigger warning flag than having the best second half by a pitcher of all time. (Maybe he means the playoffs? Or maybe he agrees with me that completing an unnecessary shutout against the Brewers in September having already thrown well over 100 pitches maybe wasn't the best use of resources?)

He means the playoffs. Fastball velocity was down in those last few starts, command was weird. I think he's reaching (he admitted as much), especially because I don't think anyone actually expects Arrieta to repeat last season.

[Bort]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

At least he added some downside at the end.

He wasn't really trying very hard. Like this:

Arrieta's fantastic, but there were some yellow flags down the stretch, so he might not rebound well from the workload.

Nothing's a bigger warning flag than having the best second half by a pitcher of all time. (Maybe he means the playoffs? Or maybe he agrees with me that completing an unnecessary shutout against the Brewers in September having already thrown well over 100 pitches maybe wasn't the best use of resources?)

He means the playoffs. Fastball velocity was down in those last few starts, command was weird. I think he's reaching (he admitted as much), especially because I don't think anyone actually expects Arrieta to repeat last season.

If Arrieta repeats last season, I will have to assume he is a literal angel, sent from heaven.

[Quality Start Machine]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

At least he added some downside at the end.

He wasn't really trying very hard. Like this:

Arrieta's fantastic, but there were some yellow flags down the stretch, so he might not rebound well from the workload.

Nothing's a bigger warning flag than having the best second half by a pitcher of all time. (Maybe he means the playoffs? Or maybe he agrees with me that completing an unnecessary shutout against the Brewers in September having already thrown well over 100 pitches maybe wasn't the best use of resources?)

Ditto the wild card game. Strop and Rondon could have nailed it shut. But even if Jake had been pulled in both those games and was his usual Hammer of God self in the NLCS, it would have meant the Mets win in 5 instead of 4.

[SKO]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

At least he added some downside at the end.

He wasn't really trying very hard. Like this:

Arrieta's fantastic, but there were some yellow flags down the stretch, so he might not rebound well from the workload.

Nothing's a bigger warning flag than having the best second half by a pitcher of all time. (Maybe he means the playoffs? Or maybe he agrees with me that completing an unnecessary shutout against the Brewers in September having already thrown well over 100 pitches maybe wasn't the best use of resources?)

Ditto the wild card game. Strop and Rondon could have nailed it shut. But even if Jake had been pulled in both those games and was his usual Hammer of God self in the NLCS, it would have meant the Mets win in 5 instead of 4.

I definitely think we'll see Jake leave some games after 6 or 7 tops that he probably would have gone 8 or 9 in last year. Think that's why the Cubs really boosted the middle relief/bullpen Hydra with Warren and brought back Cahill and Co. They're going to want to rest Jake when they can.

[Canadouche]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:

1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.

To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.

That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.

Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.

I mean I don't begrudge anyone who is a Cubs fan for having a sinking feeling of wondering how this all might go wrong, I get it. Just don't go making an actual argument on the internet that your bad feelings mean something compared to actual data.

And let's be honest: how much of the Cubs' failures over the past 50 years have been down to "bad luck" vs. "just not actually having teams built strong enough to have winning records over multiple years?"

I'd take it a step further and say that most of the problems that have befallen the Cubs have been bad management. They were cursed for the better part of half a century with a totally useless owner who crippled his team's chances on a regular basis by hiring the wrong guys to run it. Probably the best two moves the Cubs have ever made were in acquiring Dallas Green and Theo Epstein, and Green was sent packing - and saw dismantled by lesser men much of what he'd tried to build - right as the organization threatened to turn a corner. Up until Theo, the last real reliable hitters developed by the Cubs were guys who were drafted by Green (except for a few sporadic players like Geo Soto, who proved to be more flashes in the pan than anything else). That's a ridiculous stretch of time.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:

1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.

To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.

That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.

Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.

I mean I don't begrudge anyone who is a Cubs fan for having a sinking feeling of wondering how this all might go wrong, I get it. Just don't go making an actual argument on the internet that your bad feelings mean something compared to actual data.

And let's be honest: how much of the Cubs' failures over the past 50 years have been down to "bad luck" vs. "just not actually having teams built strong enough to have winning records over multiple years?"

I'd take it a step further and say that most of the problems that have befallen the Cubs have been bad management. They were cursed for the better part of half a century with a totally useless owner who crippled his team's chances on a regular basis by hiring the wrong guys to run it. Probably the best two moves the Cubs have ever made were in acquiring Dallas Green and Theo Epstein, and Green was sent packing - and saw dismantled by lesser men much of what he'd tried to build - right as the organization threatened to turn a corner. Up until Theo, the last real reliable hitters developed by the Cubs were guys who were drafted by Green (except for a few sporadic players like Geo Soto, who proved to be more flashes in the pan than anything else). That's a ridiculous stretch of time.

Whatever the reasons--and they're all traceable to evidence-based explanations-- it's been a historical anomaly, one which I expect to normalize by 5 straight CHAMMENSHIPS (only other team w/even 4 straight being the '36-'39 NYY and '49-'53 NYY).

[SKO]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:

1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.

To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.

That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.

Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.

I mean I don't begrudge anyone who is a Cubs fan for having a sinking feeling of wondering how this all might go wrong, I get it. Just don't go making an actual argument on the internet that your bad feelings mean something compared to actual data.

And let's be honest: how much of the Cubs' failures over the past 50 years have been down to "bad luck" vs. "just not actually having teams built strong enough to have winning records over multiple years?"

I'd take it a step further and say that most of the problems that have befallen the Cubs have been bad management. They were cursed for the better part of half a century with a totally useless owner who crippled his team's chances on a regular basis by hiring the wrong guys to run it. Probably the best two moves the Cubs have ever made were in acquiring Dallas Green and Theo Epstein, and Green was sent packing - and saw dismantled by lesser men much of what he'd tried to build - right as the organization threatened to turn a corner. Up until Theo, the last real reliable hitters developed by the Cubs were guys who were drafted by Green (except for a few sporadic players like Geo Soto, who proved to be more flashes in the pan than anything else). That's a ridiculous stretch of time.

Whatever the reasons--and they're all traceable to evidence-based explanations-- it's been a historical anomaly, one which I expect to normalize by 5 straight CHAMMENSHIPS (only other team w/even 4 straight being the '36-'39 NYY and '49-'53 NYY).

Basically the main reason to be excited is that Theo and Jed appear to have built a team that's deep as well as laden with top talent. Obviously major, season-ending injuries to multiple guys would kill the Cubs as much as anyone, but they've insured themselves pretty well. Given the versatility of guys like Baez and Zobrist and Bryant and Heyward they should be able to fill holes all over the field if one guy goes down for a couple of weeks. They've made sure they have at least 6-7 quality starting pitching options. The bullpen is deep. The farm system is still probably top ten and they can fill holes through promotion or have the ammo to make deadline deals if something comes up. They have the best manager in the game. They've tried to cut off every possible trouble spot before it happens. It's comforting.

[Quality Start Machine]

Yawn.

If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.

But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:

1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.

To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.

That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.

Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.

I mean I don't begrudge anyone who is a Cubs fan for having a sinking feeling of wondering how this all might go wrong, I get it. Just don't go making an actual argument on the internet that your bad feelings mean something compared to actual data.

And let's be honest: how much of the Cubs' failures over the past 50 years have been down to "bad luck" vs. "just not actually having teams built strong enough to have winning records over multiple years?"

I'd take it a step further and say that most of the problems that have befallen the Cubs have been bad management. They were cursed for the better part of half a century with a totally useless owner who crippled his team's chances on a regular basis by hiring the wrong guys to run it. Probably the best two moves the Cubs have ever made were in acquiring Dallas Green and Theo Epstein, and Green was sent packing - and saw dismantled by lesser men much of what he'd tried to build - right as the organization threatened to turn a corner. Up until Theo, the last real reliable hitters developed by the Cubs were guys who were drafted by Green (except for a few sporadic players like Geo Soto, who proved to be more flashes in the pan than anything else). That's a ridiculous stretch of time.

Whatever the reasons--and they're all traceable to evidence-based explanations-- it's been a historical anomaly, one which I expect to normalize by 5 straight CHAMMENSHIPS (only other team w/even 4 straight being the '36-'39 NYY and '49-'53 NYY).

Basically the main reason to be excited is that Theo and Jed appear to have built a team that's deep as well as laden with top talent. Obviously major, season-ending injuries to multiple guys would kill the Cubs as much as anyone, but they've insured themselves pretty well. Given the versatility of guys like Baez and Zobrist and Bryant and Heyward they should be able to fill holes all over the field if one guy goes down for a couple of weeks. They've made sure they have at least 6-7 quality starting pitching options. The bullpen is deep. The farm system is still probably top ten and they can fill holes through promotion or have the ammo to make deadline deals if something comes up. They have the best manager in the game. They've tried to cut off every possible trouble spot before it happens. It's comforting.

What's blown me away is that they improved upon a 97-win team without having to move a single prospect out of their farm system.