Take your Pick

by sandbergformanager on Sep 22, 2006 11:35 AM CDT

Which would you rather have the Cubs build,

Would you rather see the Cubs try to build a team that will contend for the next decade but however will not win a world series, I know the Braves did win one. Or would you just like to see the Cubs be like the Marlins and play for one season and win the world series. So really what's more important a world series or a competitive team?

Poll

Take you pick?

Contenders every year, no ring

15 votes

Only want the ring

19 votes

34 votes | Poll has closed

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

C. Be like the Angels or Red Sox

Compete every year and win a title from time to time.

Trying to emulate the Marlins isn't wise considering the Cubs play in a much bigger market. Need to shoot higher...

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Durham, Wood, Lofton, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 22, 2006 11:36 AM CDT reply actions

Further,,,,,

if the Angels add a big bat in the offseason, they'll be really good for a long time.. They have some really good young players and have bought several players to put around them. Even though Colon may never be good again, they still could have an awesome rotation of Weaver, Escobar, Lackey, Santana and Saunders.

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Durham, Wood, Lofton, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 22, 2006 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions

Definitly compete every year

I want to be a happy fan for more than one year. Cheering for a losing team for the next 15 years if they win a series isnt exactly fun, but contending each and every year regardless of how you finish has its rewards.

by luv4cubs2 on Sep 22, 2006 11:57 AM CDT reply actions

Only point to playing the game

The only reason you compete every season is to win the World Series. That's it. If you build a team that is capable of winning the Series, you will have a competitive team.

by DeKalb Cub fan on Sep 22, 2006 1:24 PM CDT reply actions

While that is every team's goal...

... you cannot build a team that way, because the way the playoffs are set up, once you get there, it's a crapshoot.

In the eleven seasons since the wild-card format has been in use (1995-2005), how many times has the team with the best record in the regular season won the World Series? Twice -- last year's White Sox, and the 1998 Yankees. In the four times the Yankees won between 1996 and 2000, they had the best record ONCE.

Once, it was won by the team with the NINTH-best record in baseball -- the 2000 Yankees. The 2001 champions, the Diamondbacks, won TWENTY-FOUR fewer games than the Mariners, who had the best record but were eliminated in the first round.

Build a team that consistently gets to the postseason -- absolutely. But you cannot say "build a team that wins the World Series every year", because that simply cannot be done under the current system.

by Al Yellon on Sep 22, 2006 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Bravo

n/t

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Sep 22, 2006 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions

Perhaps better question is

what organization should the Cubs model.

First you have to eliminate the Yankees cause the Cubs can't produce revenue like them. It seems many of the payroll hawks prefer Minnesota or Oakland. They do spend their money quite effectively. Of course, neither has won a title since the days of McGwire, Canseco, Stewart, Puckett & Viola.

I have to rule out the Cardinals cause a team can't count on luck so much. I mean, Cris Carpenter? wtf!

So is it Houston? The Mets? Angels? LA? Boston? San Fran? Detroit? Atlanta? Florida? Tampa Bay?? They be so good in a few years! ;)

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Durham, Wood, Lofton, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 22, 2006 2:13 PM CDT reply actions

The answer to your question

is Boston

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 22, 2006 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions

So get rid of all the good pitching?? ;)

I'm playin..

Yeah, either them or Anaheim. Both have had a good mix of big signings, and good youngsters.

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Durham, Wood, Lofton, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 22, 2006 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions

I'll second Anaheim

The Cubs are a big enough market to get a few big free agents, but aren't the Yankees, and can't exist only on free agents.

Of course, having a K-Rod in the bullpen would help.

"When things are at their blackest, I say to myself, 'Cheer up, things could be worse.' And sure enough, they get worse." - Robert Asprin

by Jesse Guam on Sep 22, 2006 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions

The Cubs have tried to live off of

great trades, an occasional good youngster, lighting-n-a-bottle, and mid-tier signings.

A bad, bad recipe. Great trades dry up pretty quick when teams wise up to a GM's savviness.

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Durham, Wood, Lofton, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 22, 2006 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions

If by great trades

You mean ones that are unfair to one side, then I agree. I think trades that work out for both sides (for example the Thome-Rowand trade) would encourage other GMs to continue dealing.

"When things are at their blackest, I say to myself, 'Cheer up, things could be worse.' And sure enough, they get worse." - Robert Asprin

by Jesse Guam on Sep 22, 2006 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions

i mean

the lee & ramirez trades.

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Durham, Wood, Lofton, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 22, 2006 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions

Just a thought

Frankly, I could care less if I were GM and got over on another in a trade. In fact, I'd feel pretty damn good about myself.

As for encouraging GMs to continue trading with me, well, Los Vegas doesn't have any problems with returning visitors.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Sep 22, 2006 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions

hendry can't offer

what vegas does. ;)

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Durham, Wood, Lofton, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 22, 2006 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions

That's mere speculation.

And unless you have videos I expect an apology.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Sep 22, 2006 5:32 PM CDT up reply actions

Sorry no videos or

math models.

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Durham, Wood, Lofton, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 23, 2006 12:14 AM CDT up reply actions

You are right

he has the tits, but not the ass. :(

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 22, 2006 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions

LOL

Post of the season!

"I respect the mind's power over the body, it's why I do what I do" - Dr. Jonathan Crane

by Faith plus 1 on Sep 23, 2006 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions

Tip your waitress, I'll be here all week.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 23, 2006 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions

If you have to rule out the Yankees

for revenue, you have to rule out Boston, too. They may not be the Yanks, but they're light years ahead of everyone else.

I'd like to see the Cubs be like what the Angels are now: able to fill needs through free agency, occassionally make a big splash, but have plenty of talent come up through the farm.

And as far as fleecing others through trades, the Derrek Lee trade doesn't really count into a good trade/bad trade scenario. That was merely a salary dump by the Marlins---their main goal was to get rid of Lee's contract. The Pierre trade might be a better example. The Fish got two promising pitchers, along with Mitre, and the Cubs may very well end up with a one-year rental.

So much for the law of averages.

by JDay on Sep 22, 2006 8:41 PM CDT up reply actions

What revenue table are you going off of?

I have seen the dramatic distinction between the Yankees and the field. I haven't seen anything that showed the Red Sox grossing significantly more than the Mets/Cubs/Dodgers. Please link.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 22, 2006 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Boston has to be the model

the cubs basically have the same market/revenue as they do and there is no excuse not to be competitive on a regular basis on the north side of Chicago. It begins with an ownership who has the DESIRE to win and to discard the religious worship of stolen bases, sac bunts, and marketing star players at the expense of the kids on the farm. By the way, just because boy wonder Theo failed this year and last doesn't change things. He messed up. Perhaps if Luccino would have won that power struggle they would be playing in october this year.

by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Sep 22, 2006 10:03 PM CDT reply actions

My mistake

I was thinking payrolls and not revenue. And in that case, "light years" may be an exaggerations, but they're still considerably ahead of the rest of the pack.

All that said, I still think the Angels are a more reasonable model.

So much for the law of averages.

by JDay on Sep 23, 2006 12:27 AM CDT reply actions