Where do the Cubs go from here?

[CubinNY]

The Cubs are banking on what they've been banking on since 2003. A heathy rotation and luck. It hasn't gotten them too far and I'll wager won't get them very far this year.

 

It is time for a change.

[JWCUB]

The Cubs are banking on what they've been banking on since 2003. A heathy rotation and luck. It hasn't gotten them too far and I'll wager won't get them very far this year.

 

It is time for a change.

 

What kind of change do you have in mind?

[CubinNY]

The Cubs are banking on what they've been banking on since 2003. A heathy rotation and luck. It hasn't gotten them too far and I'll wager won't get them very far this year.

 

It is time for a change.

 

What kind of change do you have in mind?

 

Well, firing Hendry and Baker would be a good start. Trading Neifi and Jones at the trade deadline would have to be near the top. Finding out which minor leagures can pitch and play a position is up there too. Not letting a starting pitcher with a bad shoulder pitch relief in meaningless games is certianly a change I'd like to see. Getting some control of the clubhouse would be good. So would learning to take a pitch or two to see if the pitcher can work himself into a jam, it seesms to work for other teams. I would like to see the Cubs bring in more foreign prospects. I would like to see a switch from "tools" analysis to "production" analysis.

 

Those are a few.

[gflore34]

The past two seasons the key to the Cardinals' success has not been career years from the baseball flotsam and jetsam that is Womack, Nunez, etc. It’s been a healthy starting staff and a great bullpen, there's no reason why such a formula won't work for the Cubs. A healthy Prior, Wood and Zambrano is the equal or better of any 1,2 and 3 in the NL Central, couple that with what on paper appears to be a very good bullpen and these Cubs are capable of winning 90+ games. Of course, some element of luck is involved and these are the Cubs so, there's probably a greater chance one of us will prove the trisection of arbitrary angles with a straight edge and compass than there is of Prior, Wood and Zambrano remaining healthy and the bullpen not imploding.

[CubinNY]

The past two seasons the key to the Cardinals' success has not been career years from the baseball flotsam and jetsam that is Womack, Nunez, etc. It’s been a healthy starting staff and a great bullpen, there's no reason why such a formula won't work for the Cubs. A healthy Prior, Wood and Zambrano is the equal or better of any 1,2 and 3 in the NL Central, couple that with what on paper appears to be a very good bullpen and these Cubs are capable of winning 90+ games. Of course, some element of luck is involved and these are the Cubs so, there's probably a greater chance one of us will prove the trisection of arbitrary angles with a straight edge and compass than there is of Prior, Wood and Zambrano remaining healthy and the bullpen not imploding.

 

Are you forgetting Pujols, Rolen, and Maybeline? You have to parden me if I don't buy what you are selling.

 

The Cubs don't have the run producing capeablilities of St. Louis and don't have the overall pitching of Houston. The real dark horse is Millwaukee. They have good starting pitching, Kolb has to show 2004 wasn't a fluke and the youngsters have to hit around Lee and the Cubs will be sucking their exhaust too.

[Soul]

I, too, am holding out some hope that this team will perform above expectations and at least compete for a playoff spot.

 

However, my intellect (or what's left of it) tells me:

 

1) On paper there are 3 better teams in the division

2) Career years from a few of our guys will make up much of that ground, but career years can't be counted on.

3) It is likely, given our history, that significant injuries will take place----and only one serious injury to our starting rotation will likely be unrecoverable.

4) Our outfield is still one of the worst in baseball. I'm sure some teams go to the playoffs with a substandard OF, but ours seems really bad to me.

 

Maybe these things can be overcome. I don't know. There's always hope I suppose.

[wastra]

The past two seasons the key to the Cardinals' success has not been career years from the baseball flotsam and jetsam that is Womack, Nunez, etc. It’s been a healthy starting staff and a great bullpen, there's no reason why such a formula won't work for the Cubs. A healthy Prior, Wood and Zambrano is the equal or better of any 1,2 and 3 in the NL Central, couple that with what on paper appears to be a very good bullpen and these Cubs are capable of winning 90+ games. Of course, some element of luck is involved and these are the Cubs so, there's probably a greater chance one of us will prove the trisection of arbitrary angles with a straight edge and compass than there is of Prior, Wood and Zambrano remaining healthy and the bullpen not imploding.

 

 

Actually, I think we're an 85 win team, tops. 90 would surprise the * out of me.

 

We have a POTENTIALLY great top 3, a weak 4 and 5, and a solid bullpen. But our lineup and bench will be below average. I just don't think 3 starters and a pen is enough to win 90 games.

 

 

actually, given last year (including career years as well as injuries and poor performers) and looking at us on paper, I'd say that the chances are jsut as good that we'll finish under .500 as win 90.

[cubfan1955]

Where do the Cubs go from here?

 

To the bank...laughing all the way.

 

This team will most likely be a lot closer to 90 losses than 90 wins.

 

A lot of you are going to be upset when Hendry and Baker are extended this spring.

 

The Cubs will make a bazillion dollar profit. You didn't see Exxon firing top management after a record setting year of profits and you won't see the Tribune doing it to the Cubs management either.

 

Just an opinion though.

[gflore34]

The past two seasons the key to the Cardinals' success has not been career years from the baseball flotsam and jetsam that is Womack, Nunez, etc. It’s been a healthy starting staff and a great bullpen, there's no reason why such a formula won't work for the Cubs. A healthy Prior, Wood and Zambrano is the equal or better of any 1,2 and 3 in the NL Central, couple that with what on paper appears to be a very good bullpen and these Cubs are capable of winning 90+ games. Of course, some element of luck is involved and these are the Cubs so, there's probably a greater chance one of us will prove the trisection of arbitrary angles with a straight edge and compass than there is of Prior, Wood and Zambrano remaining healthy and the bullpen not imploding.

 

Are you forgetting Pujols, Rolen, and Maybeline? You have to parden me if I don't buy what you are selling.

 

The Cubs don't have the run producing capeablilities of St. Louis and don't have the overall pitching of Houston. The real dark horse is Millwaukee. They have good starting pitching, Kolb has to show 2004 wasn't a fluke and the youngsters have to hit around Lee and the Cubs will be sucking their exhaust too.

 

The Cubs scored 10 more runs than the Astros, had a higher OPB, SLP and BA than the Astros and White Sox (scored 38 less runs). I don't believe the run producing capabilities of a St. Louis are necessary, pitching is the key. After Oswalt, Pettitte and Clemens who did the Astros have? Aren't a healthy (and younger) Wood, Prior and Zambrano at least the equal of Oswalt, Pettitte and Clemens?

[goonys evil twin]

This team will most likely be a lot closer to 90 losses than 90 wins.

 

I think they'll most likely be over .500, or closer to 90 wins than 90 losses.

 

A lot of you are going to be upset when Hendry and Baker are extended this spring.

 

The Cubs will make a bazillion dollar profit. You didn't see Exxon firing top management after a record setting year of profits and you won't see the Tribune doing it to the Cubs management either.

 

Just an opinion though.

 

I'll be upset if they are extended, especially Dusty. I don't like Hendry's work, but I still think there's hope for him.

 

But I'm not sure the Trib won't fire them. If they are basing it purely on economics, they might be upset with decreased ticket demand this February, and the possibility for both lower ratings and attendence figures, which is what usually happens the year following a losing campaign. They might view it as if they were paying top dollar for a manager, and near top dollar for payroll, and not maximizing revenue through what a 95-100 win team would bring in compared to a 82-85 win team.

 

I think we're in real danger of the Trib eventually cutting back on payroll if the same old uninspired results keep repeating. I believe Andy's job is safe (he's the guy in charge of making sure the business stays profitable), while the wasteful and inefficient middle manager types could still be at risk of job loss. Though I do think Andy will have Jim's back a lot more than he'll have Dusty's back.

Edited January 9, 2006 by goony's evil twin

[Tim]

Out of curiosity, why are people saying that Houston is a better team than the Cubs?

 

Is it their rotation (minus Clemens)?

 

Is it their lineup that still includes a lesser Pierre-clone, an anemic SS, aging players at 1B and 2B and one of the biggest offensive black holes in MLB (Ausmus)?

 

Matching up the best of their lineup against ours, I'd call Lee & Berkman a tossup as Berkman is more consistent, but has never been as good as Lee in 2005; Ensberg & Ramirez is an edge to Aramis if he's healthy; after that the lineups get equally bad pretty quickly. Meanwhile, I'll call Z and Oswalt a tossup, Prior over Pettitte, Backe doesn't impress me any more than Maddux and I'm not even sure how the heck they're going to fill out the rest of their rotation. Lidge is great, but their other relievers don't really impress the heck out of me. The staffs are around even without Wood, but if Kerry comes back strong the Cubs could have a huge edge there.

 

I am scared of Milwaukee in 2007, but I think they are still a year away from doing real damage.

 

Pitt & Cincy look to be dreadful again.

 

Right now, I'd project the Cubs as the 2nd best team in the division without Wood. A healthy Wood and the Cubs should compete reasonably well with St. Louis but will probably still come up a bit short.

[goonys evil twin]

The Cubs scored 10 more runs than the Astros, had a higher OPB, SLP and BA than the Astros and White Sox (scored 38 less runs). I don't believe the run producing capabilities of a St. Louis are necessary, pitching is the key. After Oswalt, Pettitte and Clemens who did the Astros have? Aren't a healthy (and younger) Wood, Prior and Zambrano at least the equal of Oswalt, Pettitte and Clemens?

 

The attitude that Houston and the White Sox did it so the Cubs should be able to as well is quite misguided I believe. Those were fluke seasons. Houston had unprecedented greatness from their top 3 pitchers, as well as a better bullpen than the Cubs have. Lidge is much better than any Chicago reliever. No Cubs pitcher is going to get as good as Clemens was last year, and I doubt they'll have a chance of being nearly as good as those three were last year, given the assumption that Wood will not be ready to start the season.

 

They need hitting. It's far more likely that a team with great pitching and good hitting will make it all the way than a team with great pitching and mediocre or poor hitting. Last year was a strange year in that two non-scoring teams went deep, but it's not the norm.

[TheDude]

The Cubs don't have the run producing capeablilities of St. Louis and don't have the overall pitching of Houston. The real dark horse is Millwaukee. They have good starting pitching, Kolb has to show 2004 wasn't a fluke and the youngsters have to hit around Lee and the Cubs will be sucking their exhaust too.

 

The Cubs do have a lineup to rival St. Louis. Ramirez and Lee is every bit as good as Rolen and Pujols. Give the slight edge to St. Louis for Edmonds, but the rest of the lineups besides the all-stars stack up evenly.

 

The Cubs also have a better pitching staff than Houston (minus Clemens), because they are deeper with the 4th and 5th starters, and they have a more reliable bullpen (assuming we don't have Alf/Hawkins redux).

 

I believe what Hoops stated earlier is correct. The Central isn't as scary as everyone makes it out to be. The current Cubs make-up can compete, and if Murton or Cedeno isn't cutting it at the deadline, acquire an impact 2B or LF for the stretch run.

[goonys evil twin]

Out of curiosity, why are people saying that Houston is a better team than the Cubs?

 

I don't think Houston is better than the Cubs, but I think they are currently just as good, but they have also shown a much better ability to improve as the year goes on, so, starting the year even is as good as starting behind. I think MIL is right there with HOU and CHC, and STL is still the class of the division, even with an less than inspired offseason. In fact, the only real hope for Cubs success this year is the poor offseasons of the competition, just like the only chance for success in 2003 was the utter failures of the competition. Succeeding because your opponent fails is hardly something for management to hang their hat on. And as a fan, I'm not comfortable assuming the worst out of the rivals who have routinely outperformed the Cubs.

[goonys evil twin]

The Cubs do have a lineup to rival St. Louis. Ramirez and Lee is every bit as good as Rolen and Pujols. Give the slight edge to St. Louis for Edmonds, but the rest of the lineups besides the all-stars stack up evenly.

 

But the fact is they don't have a lineup to compare. You speak in generalities, like Lee and Ramirez stack up against Rolen and Pujols. Simply "stacking up" doesn't mean much. Comparing teams and lineups this way doesn't take you far. STL's lineup routinely outproduces the Cubs lineup, and their lineup is no worse than it was, while the Cubs is not significantly better, if it's better at all.

[Tim]

Out of curiosity, why are people saying that Houston is a better team than the Cubs?

 

I don't think Houston is better than the Cubs, but I think they are currently just as good, but they have also shown a much better ability to improve as the year goes on, so, starting the year even is as good as starting behind. I think MIL is right there with HOU and CHC, and STL is still the class of the division, even with an less than inspired offseason. In fact, the only real hope for Cubs success this year is the poor offseasons of the competition, just like the only chance for success in 2003 was the utter failures of the competition. Succeeding because your opponent fails is hardly something for management to hang their hat on. And as a fan, I'm not comfortable assuming the worst out of the rivals who have routinely outperformed the Cubs.

The Cubs offseason has seen them improve the team slightly in the pen and OF.

 

Houston has taken a huge hit to their team by losing Clemens.

 

Houston finished well ahead of the Cubs in 2005, but I think they played above their heads last year and the Cubs played under their talent level. Play the year again and I think they'd be much closer, on average, than what we actually saw. Given my impressions of the offseason, I think the talent level on the Cubs is better than that of Houston. I'm not a big fan of Baker, but I don't believe so little of him that I think he'll be such a drag on results to offset that gap.

[goonys evil twin]

Out of curiosity, why are people saying that Houston is a better team than the Cubs?

 

I don't think Houston is better than the Cubs, but I think they are currently just as good, but they have also shown a much better ability to improve as the year goes on, so, starting the year even is as good as starting behind. I think MIL is right there with HOU and CHC, and STL is still the class of the division, even with an less than inspired offseason. In fact, the only real hope for Cubs success this year is the poor offseasons of the competition, just like the only chance for success in 2003 was the utter failures of the competition. Succeeding because your opponent fails is hardly something for management to hang their hat on. And as a fan, I'm not comfortable assuming the worst out of the rivals who have routinely outperformed the Cubs.

The Cubs offseason has seen them improve the team slightly in the pen and OF.

 

Houston has taken a huge hit to their team by losing Clemens.

 

Houston finished well ahead of the Cubs in 2005, but I think they played above their heads last year and the Cubs played under their talent level. Play the year again and I think they'd be much closer, on average, than what we actually saw. Given my impressions of the offseason, I think the talent level on the Cubs is better than that of Houston. I'm not a big fan of Baker, but I don't believe so little of him that I think he'll be such a drag on results to offset that gap.

 

But I would have more confidence in Houston making improvements down the line than the Cubs making improvements. So, while the current Cubs roster might beat the current Astros roster, I still think when all is said and done next season Houston will have the better team. I think Houston has also done a better job utilizing their farm system so I can see them improving internally a lot easier than the Cubs will.

[TheDude]

The Cubs do have a lineup to rival St. Louis. Ramirez and Lee is every bit as good as Rolen and Pujols. Give the slight edge to St. Louis for Edmonds, but the rest of the lineups besides the all-stars stack up evenly.

 

But the fact is they don't have a lineup to compare. You speak in generalities, like Lee and Ramirez stack up against Rolen and Pujols. Simply "stacking up" doesn't mean much. Comparing teams and lineups this way doesn't take you far. STL's lineup routinely outproduces the Cubs lineup, and their lineup is no worse than it was, while the Cubs is not significantly better, if it's better at all.

 

But you are also speaking in generalities. St. Louis's lineup in recent has outperformed Chicago's, but not at the core of the team (3-4). It's the unexpected overproduction out of roleplayers in St. Louis, and the unexpected lack of production out of key or role players in Chicago.

 

With the core of each team stacking up comparatively, all it takes is for the breaks to fall to the other side: Pierre ignites the Cubs in the same way Eckstein did for the Cardinals, Grudz returns to old Grudz, the OF fillers for St. Louis don't have a career years, and Murton finds his sride as an everyday player.

 

I have no issue looking at both teams lineups on paper right now and saying they are close. I do give St. Louis an edge, but not a drastic one.

[gflore34]

The Cubs do have a lineup to rival St. Louis. Ramirez and Lee is every bit as good as Rolen and Pujols. Give the slight edge to St. Louis for Edmonds, but the rest of the lineups besides the all-stars stack up evenly.

 

But the fact is they don't have a lineup to compare. You speak in generalities, like Lee and Ramirez stack up against Rolen and Pujols. Simply "stacking up" doesn't mean much. Comparing teams and lineups this way doesn't take you far. STL's lineup routinely outproduces the Cubs lineup, and their lineup is no worse than it was, while the Cubs is not significantly better, if it's better at all.

 

 

I believe the Cubs 2006 lineup is better, as much as we disliked the cost of aquiring Pierre, there's no way his addition doesn't represent a huge improvement over what the Cubs used in the 1 spot last season. Jones will produce at least what Burnitz did in 2005, if not, slightly more. And given an opprotunity, I believe there's a real chance Cedeno and Murton will out produce what the Cubs got of SS and LF last season.

[cubfan1955]

But I'm not sure the Trib won't fire them. If they are basing it purely on economics, they might be upset with decreased ticket demand this February, and the possibility for both lower ratings and attendence figures, which is what usually happens the year following a losing campaign. They might view it as if they were paying top dollar for a manager, and near top dollar for payroll, and not maximizing revenue through what a 95-100 win team would bring in compared to a 82-85 win team.

 

I'll be very surprised to see decreased ticket demand this February, lower ratings or decreased attendance. Yes, that is usually the norm following a losing campaign for a normal team but this isn't the "normal" fan base. The Cubs have proven they don't have to win to have their fans flock to Wrigley and throw money at them. All they have to do is to be close.

 

Is anyone here not going to games or not watching this year because of the way they performed last year?

[goonys evil twin]

The Cubs do have a lineup to rival St. Louis. Ramirez and Lee is every bit as good as Rolen and Pujols. Give the slight edge to St. Louis for Edmonds, but the rest of the lineups besides the all-stars stack up evenly.

 

But the fact is they don't have a lineup to compare. You speak in generalities, like Lee and Ramirez stack up against Rolen and Pujols. Simply "stacking up" doesn't mean much. Comparing teams and lineups this way doesn't take you far. STL's lineup routinely outproduces the Cubs lineup, and their lineup is no worse than it was, while the Cubs is not significantly better, if it's better at all.

 

But you are also speaking in generalities. St. Louis's lineup in recent has outperformed Chicago's, but not at the core of the team (3-4). It's the unexpected overproduction out of roleplayers in St. Louis, and the unexpected lack of production out of key or role players in Chicago.

 

With the core of each team stacking up comparatively, all it takes is for the breaks to fall to the other side: Pierre ignites the Cubs in the same way Eckstein did for the Cardinals, Grudz returns to old Grudz, the OF fillers for St. Louis don't have a career years, and Murton finds his sride as an everyday player.

 

I have no issue looking at both teams lineups on paper right now and saying they are close. I do give St. Louis an edge, but not a drastic one.

 

I'm not speaking in generalities, I'm speaking toward specific trends. Saying that certain parts of the lineup "matchup" is meaningless. Those parts have "matched up" before and still led to consistently better offense from STL. The fact is Pujols is likely to outproduce Lee, and Rolen could easily outproduce Ramirez if he plays just as long. Last year Ramirez outperformed because he had more games, and Lee slightly outperformed because he had a career year, and the teams were still not close in the rankings. The Cubs don't have anybody who comes close to Edmonds. STL is significantly better offensively than the Cubs. They've been significantly better for quite a while, and they will be, more likely than not, significantly better in 2006.

[goonys evil twin]

But I'm not sure the Trib won't fire them. If they are basing it purely on economics, they might be upset with decreased ticket demand this February, and the possibility for both lower ratings and attendence figures, which is what usually happens the year following a losing campaign. They might view it as if they were paying top dollar for a manager, and near top dollar for payroll, and not maximizing revenue through what a 95-100 win team would bring in compared to a 82-85 win team.

 

I'll be very surprised to see decreased ticket demand this February, lower ratings or decreased attendance. Yes, that is usually the norm following a losing campaign for a normal team but this isn't the "normal" fan base. The Cubs have proven they don't have to win to have their fans flock to Wrigley and throw money at them. All they have to do is to be close.

 

Is anyone here not going to games or not watching this year because of the way they performed last year?

 

Fans on this board are the exception, not the rule. We constitute the core, die hard base. The fans that make the difference between a ho-hum season and record attendance/ratings are the bandwagon types.

 

I'm not talking about normal teams. I'm talking about the Cubs. There has been a consistent pattern of attendance increasing the year following a successful season, and attendance decreasing a year following a bad season. 2004 saw greater attendance than 2003. Despite the lack of playoffs in 2004, people still saw a 1 win improvement in the record, and had great hope for continued success, plus they were still riding the euphoria of the biggest playoff buzz from the year before. This is why 2005 still saw high attendance. But the disaster that was last season, and the unimpressive offseason is going to cause a decline this season. Not to mention those bandwagon fans that will flock to the southside more often this year. I'm not saying the Cubs will go from 3 million to 2 million, and the CWS will go from 2 million to 3 million. The Cubs will still get close to capacity, and still be the team in Chicago, but the spread will narrow.

[gflore34]

The Cubs do have a lineup to rival St. Louis. Ramirez and Lee is every bit as good as Rolen and Pujols. Give the slight edge to St. Louis for Edmonds, but the rest of the lineups besides the all-stars stack up evenly.

 

But the fact is they don't have a lineup to compare. You speak in generalities, like Lee and Ramirez stack up against Rolen and Pujols. Simply "stacking up" doesn't mean much. Comparing teams and lineups this way doesn't take you far. STL's lineup routinely outproduces the Cubs lineup, and their lineup is no worse than it was, while the Cubs is not significantly better, if it's better at all.

 

But you are also speaking in generalities. St. Louis's lineup in recent has outperformed Chicago's, but not at the core of the team (3-4). It's the unexpected overproduction out of roleplayers in St. Louis, and the unexpected lack of production out of key or role players in Chicago.

 

With the core of each team stacking up comparatively, all it takes is for the breaks to fall to the other side: Pierre ignites the Cubs in the same way Eckstein did for the Cardinals, Grudz returns to old Grudz, the OF fillers for St. Louis don't have a career years, and Murton finds his sride as an everyday player.

 

I have no issue looking at both teams lineups on paper right now and saying they are close. I do give St. Louis an edge, but not a drastic one.

 

I'm not speaking in generalities, I'm speaking toward specific trends. Saying that certain parts of the lineup "matchup" is meaningless. Those parts have "matched up" before and still led to consistently better offense from STL. The fact is Pujols is likely to outproduce Lee, and Rolen could easily outproduce Ramirez if he plays just as long. Last year Ramirez outperformed because he had more games, and Lee slightly outperformed because he had a career year, and the teams were still not close in the rankings. The Cubs don't have anybody who comes close to Edmonds. STL is significantly better offensively than the Cubs. They've been significantly better for quite a while, and they will be, more likely than not, significantly better in 2006.

 

Pujols outproducing Lee is a given however, Rolen easily outproducing Ramirez is not a given, chances are it'll be the other way around. It's been argued Jones being 30 is more likely to decline in production, well, Rolen is the wrong side of 30. Why wouldn't the decline in production argument apply to him as well? Whereas Ramirez has shown marked improvement the last three seasons and is still on the right side of 30, there's a very good chance Ramirez will equal if not better Rolen' production in 2006.

[Tim]

Out of curiosity, why are people saying that Houston is a better team than the Cubs?

 

I don't think Houston is better than the Cubs, but I think they are currently just as good, but they have also shown a much better ability to improve as the year goes on, so, starting the year even is as good as starting behind. I think MIL is right there with HOU and CHC, and STL is still the class of the division, even with an less than inspired offseason. In fact, the only real hope for Cubs success this year is the poor offseasons of the competition, just like the only chance for success in 2003 was the utter failures of the competition. Succeeding because your opponent fails is hardly something for management to hang their hat on. And as a fan, I'm not comfortable assuming the worst out of the rivals who have routinely outperformed the Cubs.

The Cubs offseason has seen them improve the team slightly in the pen and OF.

 

Houston has taken a huge hit to their team by losing Clemens.

 

Houston finished well ahead of the Cubs in 2005, but I think they played above their heads last year and the Cubs played under their talent level. Play the year again and I think they'd be much closer, on average, than what we actually saw. Given my impressions of the offseason, I think the talent level on the Cubs is better than that of Houston. I'm not a big fan of Baker, but I don't believe so little of him that I think he'll be such a drag on results to offset that gap.

 

But I would have more confidence in Houston making improvements down the line than the Cubs making improvements. So, while the current Cubs roster might beat the current Astros roster, I still think when all is said and done next season Houston will have the better team. I think Houston has also done a better job utilizing their farm system so I can see them improving internally a lot easier than the Cubs will.

In 2004, Houston made a huge addition during the season with Beltran. Pray tell what they did in 2005 other than get Berkman back from knee surgery?

 

The Cubs under Hendry have consistently been one of the teams that has added the most firepower during the season.

[goonys evil twin]

The Cubs under Hendry have consistently been one of the teams that has added the most firepower during the season.

 

Hendry adds names, but he doesn't make the team better.

 

Houston has the luxury of money being available this year, money that still might go to Roger after May.