Fox Sports grades Cub off-season a D / SI gives them B

[The Voice of Reason]

Pretty fair analysis

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5198854

 

Chicago Cubs

 

Needs: Outfielders, shortstop.

 

Off-season grade so far: D. Pierre is roundly overrated, and the Jones signing smacks of a "well, we've got to do something" manner of non-move. The Cubs have done little to improve. If they really intend to make Neifi Perez their starting second baseman, well, they'll make things much easier on the Cardinals.

 

The lowdown: The Boston Globe reports that if the Cubs had dealt Mark Prior to the Orioles in exchange for Miguel Tejada, then the White Sox may have tried to pry Prior away from Baltimore … The St. Petersburg Times reports that the Cubs are among the teams interested in trading for D-Rays SS Julio Lugo … The Daily Southtown reports that 2B Todd Walker is rumored to be on the trading block.

Edited January 19, 2006 by The Voice of Reason

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The Daily Southtown reports that 2B Todd Walker is rumored to be on the trading block.

 

WHAT???

[USSoccer]

That "D" is about right, although to be fair they did gloss over the bullpen improvements, costly as they were.

[MikeG]

I don't think that's a fair analysis. They didn't even mention anything about a need in the bullpen or the Howry and Eyre signings.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't think that's a fair analysis. They didn't even mention anything about a need in the bullpen or the Howry and Eyre signings.

 

I think it's spot on and completely accurate. With some very glaring needs and a ton of cash to spend, the Cubs did squat. Bullpen improvements don't come close to the importance of everyday positions, which the Cubs completely botched, but they are what makes it a D instead of an F.

[USSoccer]

I don't think that's a fair analysis. They didn't even mention anything about a need in the bullpen or the Howry and Eyre signings.

 

I think it's spot on and completely accurate. With some very glaring needs and a ton of cash to spend, the Cubs did squat. Bullpen improvements don't come close to the importance of everyday positions, which the Cubs completely botched, but they are what makes it a D instead of an F.

 

You're correct IMO that the pen is the only reason this offseason didn't get an "F". Below average is exactly where it should grade out, and for a top 5 payroll to address none of it's offensive deficencies is embarrasing.

[Burtonbell]

No insight, I agree with this.

[RockTheIvy]

Dayn Perry tends to be a bit harsh. I think the majority of clubs got Cs or worse on those ratings, which doesn't really make sense.

[DougDascenzo]

if hes grading on a curve then it does make sense for about 2/3 of teams to get C's. C is average

[Blueheart05]

Dayn Perry tends to be a bit harsh. I think the majority of clubs got Cs or worse on those ratings, which doesn't really make sense.

 

I see no reason for the Dodgers "B" grade (or the Padres for that matter). Perry's grading seems inconsistent.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Dayn Perry tends to be a bit harsh. I think the majority of clubs got Cs or worse on those ratings, which doesn't really make sense.

 

I see no reason for the Dodgers "B" grade (or the Padres for that matter). Perry's analysis seems inconsistent.

 

That's my assessment as well. While I have no issue with the harsh grade on the Cubs, has the Astros offseason been any better? He gives them a higher grade and they've lost Clemens and added Preston Wilson. The Cubs lost no one of significance and added Pierre. I'd think the additon of Pierre would outweigh the loss of Clemens and the addition of Preston Wilson.

 

That's one particular inconsistency, but there were others as well.

[The Voice of Reason]

Dayn Perry tends to be a bit harsh. I think the majority of clubs got Cs or worse on those ratings, which doesn't really make sense.

 

I see no reason for the Dodgers "B" grade (or the Padres for that matter). Perry's analysis seems inconsistent.

 

If the Cubs had signed Furcal (Dodgers) or Giles (Padres) they probably would have received a grade of B as well. If they had signed both, they would have joined the White Sox with a grade of A.

[RockTheIvy]

if hes grading on a curve then it does make sense for about 2/3 of teams to get C's. C is average

 

I always considered Cs to be below average, but I guess it's in the middle. My point is that he gave the Blue Jays a C. The Blue Jays signed the best FA closer and starter, traded for a big bat at 3B and another solid hitter at 1B. That's average? Seems like a pretty solid Offsesason to me. The Yankees, on the other hand, sign Damon to a Bernie Williams-esque contract, and then sign Farns and one armed Octavio and they get a B+.

[Backtobanks]

I think they did better than a "D". They needed a leadoff man and 2 veterans in the bullpen and filled those 3 roles. They needed to improve speed and defense and they did. I wish they would have done better in RF, but a lot of what the Cubs have needed in the last few years is health. With another deal or two and health, the Cubs will be very competitive in 2006.

[RockTheIvy]

I think they did better than a "D". They needed a leadoff man and 2 veterans in the bullpen and filled those 3 roles. They needed to improve speed and defense and they did. I wish they would have done better in RF, but a lot of what the Cubs have needed in the last few years is health. With another deal or two and health, the Cubs will be very competitive in 2006.

 

I agree. The team did not get any worse, IMO from last year. I suppose if a team marginally that improves slightly deserves a D then I guess we do. But he sure doesn't use that grading system throughout.

[Magnetic Curses]

I think they did better than a "D". They needed a leadoff man and 2 veterans in the bullpen and filled those 3 roles. They needed to improve speed and defense and they did. I wish they would have done better in RF, but a lot of what the Cubs have needed in the last few years is health. With another deal or two and health, the Cubs will be very competitive in 2006.

 

they didn't significantly upgrade team plate discipline, though, which was our biggest need. this team did not lose because it couldn't play defense, nor did it lose due to a lack of team speed, nor did it lose because it didn't field a slap-hitting, no-arm CFer that doesn't run the bases particularly well.

 

this team lost because it was DEAD last in the league in walks, period.

[goonys evil twin]

I think they did better than a "D". They needed a leadoff man and 2 veterans in the bullpen and filled those 3 roles. They needed to improve speed and defense and they did. I wish they would have done better in RF, but a lot of what the Cubs have needed in the last few years is health. With another deal or two and health, the Cubs will be very competitive in 2006.

 

They didn't need 2 veteran relievers. And they didn't need a leadoff hitter. They needed multiple bats and starting rotation help. Leadoff hitter was just the Cubs limiting their options arbitrarily. They desperately needed RF help, and got none. They needed overall OF improvements, and got very little, if any. The starting rotation is still shaky. The lineup is still crap. They didn't need speed and defense, they just focused on that because they bought the BS that the White Sox won with speed and defense (when in fact they won with great pitching and homeruns).

 

The Cubs had a chance to create a team that could dominate, and they failed miserably.

[Blueheart05]

Dayn Perry tends to be a bit harsh. I think the majority of clubs got Cs or worse on those ratings, which doesn't really make sense.

 

I see no reason for the Dodgers "B" grade (or the Padres for that matter). Perry's analysis seems inconsistent.

 

If the Cubs had signed Furcal (Dodgers) or Giles (Padres) they probably would have received a grade of B as well. If they had signed both, they would have joined the White Sox with a grade of A.

 

I disagree that Furcal is that much (grade B) of a difference maker (and I advocated the signing at the time). IMO, Furcal is as overrated at leadoff (especially at 13M) as Juan Pierre. I think the grade is more reflective of Perry's bias toward big name signings.

[Blueheart05]

Dayn Perry tends to be a bit harsh. I think the majority of clubs got Cs or worse on those ratings, which doesn't really make sense.

 

I see no reason for the Dodgers "B" grade (or the Padres for that matter). Perry's analysis seems inconsistent.

 

That's my assessment as well. While I have no issue with the harsh grade on the Cubs, has the Astros offseason been any better? He gives them a higher grade and they've lost Clemens and added Preston Wilson. The Cubs lost no one of significance and added Pierre. I'd think the additon of Pierre would outweigh the loss of Clemens and the addition of Preston Wilson.

 

That's one particular inconsistency, but there were others as well.

 

I agree completely.

[frostwyrm]

People keep pointing at the bullpen as a plus for Hendry, but Eyre and Howry are several years into their 30's and coming off career years after otherwise mediocre careers, so it's debatable whether the bullpen has been improved significantly.

[The Voice of Reason]

Dayn Perry tends to be a bit harsh. I think the majority of clubs got Cs or worse on those ratings, which doesn't really make sense.

 

I see no reason for the Dodgers "B" grade (or the Padres for that matter). Perry's analysis seems inconsistent.

 

If the Cubs had signed Furcal (Dodgers) or Giles (Padres) they probably would have received a grade of B as well. If they had signed both, they would have joined the White Sox with a grade of A.

 

I disagree that Furcal is that much (grade B) of a difference maker (and I advocated the signing at the time). IMO, Furcal is as overrated at leadoff (especially at 13M) as Juan Pierre. I think the grade is more reflective of Perry's bias toward big name signings.

 

 

Furcal (SS) and Cedeno (2B) > Cedeno (SS) and Neifi (2B). Despite recent hyperbole to the contrary, I think it's only a matter of time (unfortuneately) until Walker is gone.

[nick23]

While I disagree with some of the moves Hendry made this offseason, I do think the team is improved. The bulpen was a weakness last year and now it's a strength. Say what you want about Pierre but he's still a huge upgrade in center. We should get better production out of the corner outfield spots and shortstop as well this year. If Wood and Prior can stay healthy all year there's no reason we shouldn't be in the playoffs come October.

[Blueheart05]

Dayn Perry tends to be a bit harsh. I think the majority of clubs got Cs or worse on those ratings, which doesn't really make sense.

 

I see no reason for the Dodgers "B" grade (or the Padres for that matter). Perry's analysis seems inconsistent.

 

If the Cubs had signed Furcal (Dodgers) or Giles (Padres) they probably would have received a grade of B as well. If they had signed both, they would have joined the White Sox with a grade of A.

 

I disagree that Furcal is that much (grade B) of a difference maker (and I advocated the signing at the time). IMO, Furcal is as overrated at leadoff (especially at 13M) as Juan Pierre. I think the grade is more reflective of Perry's bias toward big name signings.

 

 

Furcal (SS) and Cedeno (2B) > Cedeno (SS) and Neifi (2B). Despite recent hyperbole to the contrary, I think it only a matter of time (unfortuneately) until Walker is gone.

 

I think Hendry realizes that Neifi is not an everyday player; he was signed as insurance for both infield spots. However, when (if) Walker is traded I think a deal for another starting MI will follow. The Cubs seem comfortable starting Cedeno at either SS or 2B but I don't see the same level of comfort with Perez. If the Cubs were truly happy/content with the idea of Neifi starting there wouldn't be rumors of a Lugo trade. Absent of a trade, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hairston start at 2B and hit second (he seems to be lobbying for the spot).

 

 

"I'm excited not only for myself but for the team we have," he said. "We have a leadoff hitter in Juan Pierre. My best year, I was batting second [behind Brian Roberts and ahead of Miguel Tejada]. I've always been comfortable hitting second."

 

link

 

 

I just don't see Perez starting. To his credit, Hendry didn't sign Perez last year as a starter. Injuries caused Neifi to become over exposed. Of course, one could argue that he's an expensive bench player but again, I think the Cubs were taking into account his versatility. In a perfect world, Hendry would have Furcal at SS and Cedeno at 2B. I have a feeling that the Cubs are working hard to acquire anther MI.

Edited January 17, 2006 by Blueheart05

[JeffH]

this team lost because it was DEAD last in the league in walks, period.

 

Actually, this team lost primarily because it pitched poorly, but its deficiency in getting on base was a huge problem.

[katway]

I think it's clear that Hendry has made inquiries and pursued free agents/trades to improve this team. The Cubs have a demand/supply problem. What they need simply isn't available for nothing in return.

 

With respect to some of the focus on defense, the numbers support the fact that the Cubs did have problems on defense last year. For instance, Prior (whoe I think we can agree is above average) gives up more ground ball hits than most pitchers (a below average performance) (see http://www.baseballgraphs.com/main/index.php/site/article/mark_priors_batted_ball_data/)... it may have something to do with our pourous defense up the middle from last year. Thus, I think it would be wise to improve team defense.

 

Where the Cubs may have faltered is failing to bring Nomar back at a discount. Nomar/Cedeno/Walker > Cedeno/Walker/Perez. With the available budget, they could have taken the risk on Nomar.