Login

savant · 01-06-2009, 09:58 PM

DeRosa, Dempster, Soto and Theriot are the only people on the team that I would say had career years last year. DeRosa is gone Dempster is not going to forget how to pitch, Soto can still get better, and Theriot is what he is. Harden in a contract year, and Milton Bradley with something to prove for an entire season have the ability to be true difference makers. One of these years Ramirez is finally going to have his career year. Fukudome is not as good as he was in the first two months, but he really is not as bad as he was in the second half either. Edmonds excellent offensive production came at the price of terrible defense in centerfield. I really like the potential of everyone the Cubs have mentioned as possible candidates to be the fifth starter. On paper this is the most talented Cubs team I have ever seen as it is currently constructed.

***Butcher*** · 01-06-2009, 10:05 PM

QUOTE (Brock @ Jan 6 2009, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 6 2009, 07:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Jan 6 2009, 07:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 6 2009, 07:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CFOrfan @ Jan 6 2009, 06:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think were worse because of the moves we made. I also think we are worse because some guys had terrific years and probably won't repeat. I think we are worse by a good margin. Maybe a whole 10 games.
10 games? Even if you've hated this offseason and expect everyone to regress next year, that seems pretty extreme.
</div>

When you consider that pretty much everything went right for this team and it won 97 games last season I don't think it's too far-fetched.
</div>
Everything went right for the team? I'm not sure I'd go that far.

- Alf missed over 50 games.
- Fukudome fell off a cliff and was a complete non-factor after the ASB.
- Zambrano pitched the fewest innings of his career post-2003 and was a roller-coaster ride.
- Rich Hill. Need I say more?
- Our number 3 hitter turned into a groundball/double-play machine.

Lots of good things happened too, of course.

- Dempster had an All-Star year.
- Soto's rise to stardom.
- Unexpected production from CF (Johnson/Edmonds).

I don't think we had some sort of lucky/charmed season by any means.
</div>

Ok, how about "Significantly more things went right than went wrong?"

For me, some of those things that went wrong were not probably all that hard to predict (Alf getting hurt, Z struggling/getting hurt, DLee declining).

I guess maybe I'm just getting a bad feeling about this team next season. I think last year was a pretty charmed season (regular season that is) and there is plenty to be worried about for next year.
</div>
Shit is going to go wrong -- there's no doubt about that. And I wouldn't be surprised if we win fewer than 97 games. All I'm saying is that (unless we get a ridiculous rash of injuries) a 10 game swing is pretty extreme. We would have to suffer a TON of injuries.

***rok*** · 01-06-2009, 10:18 PM

I think we'll win the division, but it won't be a cakewalk by any means. Dempster and Lilly need to not regress much, and whoever is our #5 starter needs to at least not suck more than Marquis. I doubt our offense will remain as consistent as it was throughout 2008, but it's more than good enough to win 90+ games. My biggest concern is the pen. Out of all these new faces like Stevens, Vizcaino, etc there isn't a single one that I put much faith in. Will Gaudin be the same guy that he was pre-injury? Will Cotts still pitch like an ass? Did Gregg have a career year last season? And most importantly, is Marmol ready to be the closer? I have no idea. I'm trying to be optimistic, but a lot of things can go wrong.

Coldneck · 01-06-2009, 10:24 PM

I think we are all little overconfident. Everyone also thought the Tigers would walk away with the AL central. Bonderman got hurt, Verlander sucked, and their relief pitchers completely fell apart. The ended up being the most disappointing team in the league. I'm not saying this will happen, but being the best team on paper means jackshit.

Brock · 01-06-2009, 10:28 PM

QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 6 2009, 08:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Jan 6 2009, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 6 2009, 07:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Jan 6 2009, 07:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 6 2009, 07:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CFOrfan @ Jan 6 2009, 06:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think were worse because of the moves we made. I also think we are worse because some guys had terrific years and probably won't repeat. I think we are worse by a good margin. Maybe a whole 10 games.
10 games? Even if you've hated this offseason and expect everyone to regress next year, that seems pretty extreme.
</div>

When you consider that pretty much everything went right for this team and it won 97 games last season I don't think it's too far-fetched.
</div>
Everything went right for the team? I'm not sure I'd go that far.

- Alf missed over 50 games.
- Fukudome fell off a cliff and was a complete non-factor after the ASB.
- Zambrano pitched the fewest innings of his career post-2003 and was a roller-coaster ride.
- Rich Hill. Need I say more?
- Our number 3 hitter turned into a groundball/double-play machine.

Lots of good things happened too, of course.

- Dempster had an All-Star year.
- Soto's rise to stardom.
- Unexpected production from CF (Johnson/Edmonds).

I don't think we had some sort of lucky/charmed season by any means.
</div>

Ok, how about "Significantly more things went right than went wrong?"

For me, some of those things that went wrong were not probably all that hard to predict (Alf getting hurt, Z struggling/getting hurt, DLee declining).

I guess maybe I'm just getting a bad feeling about this team next season. I think last year was a pretty charmed season (regular season that is) and there is plenty to be worried about for next year.
</div>
Shit is going to go wrong -- there's no doubt about that. And I wouldn't be surprised if we win fewer than 97 games. All I'm saying is that (unless we get a ridiculous rash of injuries) a 10 game swing is pretty extreme. We would have to suffer a TON of injuries.
</div>

And unfortunately we've got a couple too many guys that seem to be injuries waiting to happen.

Other than injuries my biggest concerns:

1. Ryan Dempster remembering that he is Ryan Dempster.
2. 2B - Fontenot realizing that a guy that could pass for a Hobbit probably shouldn't put up a .909 OPS in the Major Leagues, and Miles just being Miles.
3. As Rok just said... the bullpen. I don't have much faith at all in Gregg. If Marshall ends up starting is Cotts our only lefty in the pen? Scary thought.
4. The Reed/Fuk/Pie (?) CF situation - could be a pretty ugly season offensively here and will likely be a huge dropoff from what we got last year from this spot.

Clapp · 01-06-2009, 11:53 PM

I don't think Marshall will be our 5th starter, and I don't think the 5th starter is currently on the team. Listening to Hendry today talk about Marquis' ability to eat innings leads me to believe we're getting another pitcher. Payton told me he talked to Miles today too, and that Miles also thinks we're getting a starter.

If you guys are concerned about our bullpen, imagine when Harden pitches twice a month(and 5 innings when he does), and Marshall can only go 5 each start. We'd be using the pen a shitload, and then they're going to be worn down when October comes along. It's a really big deal, and getting another starter is definitely my #1 concern. Preferably it's Peavy, but just any competent pitcher than can go 180 innings. We already have 4 terrific starters which is all you need in the playoffs. This is why I hate trading Marquis.

Clapp · 01-07-2009, 03:03 AM

As I was saying:
QUOTE With Jason Marquis officially traded, the Cubs' new fifth starter will be … Candidate X.

Even with four or five young players who might step into that role, general manager Jim Hendry said Tuesday "hopefully, we'll add another pitcher before Opening Day."

That certainly will not help quell any Jake Peavy rumors that are likely to pop up again, especially now that the Cubs have more young depth in position players and potential starting pitchers.

If the newcomer isn't Peavy, it could be a veteran free agent such as Derek Lowe or Andy Pettitte because the Cubs seem to be in a go-for-it-all mode after two early playoff eliminations. They also need some insurance for Rich Harden's on-and-off right arm.

"We're going to continue to look for pitching before we get to camp," Hendry said.

That means left-hander Sean Marshall likely will stay in his swing role, which is where manager Lou Piniella prefers him. Also, the Cubs doubt Angel Guzman, Kevin Hart or Jeff Samardzija are ready to step into such an important role for a contender.

Hendry even mentioned reliever Chad Gaudin, who was 11-13 when he started 34 games for Oakland in 2007.

While Marquis was a favorite of Wrigley Field boo-birds, his numbers will be hard to replace except with a veteran. In two seasons with the Cubs, Marquis had a 23-18 record and 4.57 ERA in 61 starts.

Link(Tribune)

Lowe though wants 15 million or so per, and Pettite rejected the Yanks' 1 year, 10 million offer. That's probably just Van Dyck speculating, because I can't see how we'd fit it on our payroll now. Maybe the ownership situation is settled soon and we learn we can expand the payroll a little bit. Hendry of course likes to backload deals, but he likely can't fit more than single-digits into the payroll if we have to stay in the mid 140's. Anyway, if Hendry says he wants to add pitching, I fully believe he's going to. Rock on bitches.

***rok*** · 01-07-2009, 03:42 AM

Makes me even more pissed at Hill for being such a pussy douche.

kbwsb · 01-07-2009, 04:09 AM

I don't think we're gonna win 97 games again, just because that's a high number, and historically, the Cubs have always dropped off significantly after a banner year.

Still, I think this is a solid team, on paper. I don't think we've regressed all that much. Both the DeRo and the Woody moves are beyond puzzling, but it <i>is </i>true that we have guys who can somewhat pick up the slack.

Adding Bradley, and giving up nothing to get him...how can that not be a positive? <i>He led the American league in OPS+ last year.</i> First place. Second place was A-Rod. He's freaking good.

I like our pitching staff. Demp will likely regress some, Z could possibly give us a better season, Lilly is steady. We'll have Harden a whole season, and keep in mind that when he's healthy, he's a #1 starter-type guy. Marshall is perfectly fine for a #5, and if he falters, Jim is good at working the trade wire.

It's not the exact way I would have constructed the team, but I think we'll be pretty good. And the other teams in the division are quite mediocre.
I look forward to the next 162.

Giff · 01-07-2009, 05:12 AM

QUOTE (Coldneck @ Jan 6 2009, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think we are all little overconfident. Everyone also thought the Tigers would walk away with the AL central. Bonderman got hurt, Verlander sucked, and their relief pitchers completely fell apart. The ended up being the most disappointing team in the league. I'm not saying this will happen, but being the best team on paper means jackshit.
A fair point, but the Indians, White Sox, and even the Twins were WAY more talented than anyone this year in the NL Central.

Giff · 01-07-2009, 05:15 AM

Also, I think a lot of Cubs fans don't realize it because of the luck we've had with him, but Soriano had never once been to the DL in his career before he came to the Cubs. I don't think he's "an injury waiting to happen" by any means.

Clapp · 01-07-2009, 05:15 AM

Wittenmyer:
QUOTE And those close to Hendry expect him to restart the Peavy talks with the San Diego Padres that broke down a month ago at the winter meetings.

QUOTE Once Bradley passes his physical and becomes a Cub this week, Peavy might be Hendry's next focus.

The Cubs came close to making a deal for the 2007 National League Cy Young Award winner in December, but the landscape has changed dramatically since then -- in some ways favorable toward a deal, but in other ways suggesting a tougher road.

The biggest payroll obstacle in taking on the $63 million Peavy is guaranteed for the life of his contract remains the Cubs' 2010 projections. None of the payroll-clearing deals of the last week did anything for 2010, and that means the flexibility to add Peavy probably doesn't exist without a nod from the team's new ownership group.

Selection of a winning bid for the club is said to be close -- perhaps by the end of next week -- and that might be just in time for the Cubs' front office to make a deal before spring training.

Also, the Cubs acquired three well-regarded pitching prospects from the Cleveland Indians in the Mark DeRosa trade last week, giving them deeper reserves of young talent to help pull off a trade.

But the biggest impediment to a deal might be the Padres' willingness to trade their ace, considering their own potential sale to Jeff Moorad's group of investors. Under financial pressures related to a divorce, the Padres' owners had ordered payroll cuts that led to aggressive shopping of Peavy. Some have speculated Moorad won't want to trade one of the team's most valuable commodities.

If Hendry can't land Peavy, plenty of free-agent pitchers remain on the market, although Derek Lowe is pricing himself beyond reason. Productive innings-eaters such as Braden Looper and Tim Redding more likely would fit the Cubs' needs.

Link(Sun-Times)

Clapp · 01-07-2009, 05:18 AM

QUOTE (Giff @ Jan 7 2009, 04:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Jan 6 2009, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think we are all little overconfident. Everyone also thought the Tigers would walk away with the AL central. Bonderman got hurt, Verlander sucked, and their relief pitchers completely fell apart. The ended up being the most disappointing team in the league. I'm not saying this will happen, but being the best team on paper means jackshit.
A fair point, but the Indians, White Sox, and even the Twins were WAY more talented than anyone this year in the NL Central.
</div>
Yeah... and I picked the Indians to win that division actually.

Coldneck · 01-07-2009, 09:33 AM

Does anyone have any interest in Oliver Perez? His ERA+ the last 2 seasons were 120 and 100. He pitched 194 innings last year and is only 27 years old. I haven't heard anyone talking about him other than the Mets as a fall back option. He'd be an excellent 5th starter and has a great arm. I'm unsure what he'd cost. I'd guess 3 years at 24 million.

***Butcher*** · 01-07-2009, 09:59 AM

QUOTE (Coldneck @ Jan 7 2009, 07:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Does anyone have any interest in Oliver Perez? His ERA+ the last 2 seasons were 120 and 100. He pitched 194 innings last year and is only 27 years old. I haven't heard anyone talking about him other than the Mets as a fall back option. He'd be an excellent 5th starter and has a great arm. I'm unsure what he'd cost. I'd guess 3 years at 24 million.
Lou would hate Perez. Too many walks.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me