cbssportsline w/ some kind words about the cubs' offseason

[snoodmonger]

Haha, this guy writes for Maxim? Credibility, goodbye.

 

No, he writes for Maxim online. Even lamer.

 

Our offseason did suck, though.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The only person from Maxim that I would lend much credence to is the guy who takes the pictures.

[Jehrico]

Haha, this guy writes for Maxim? Credibility, goodbye.

 

No, he writes for Maxim online. Even lamer.

 

Our offseason did suck, though.

 

I'm not as down on our offseason as most people. We did improve the bullpen, no doubt about it. If Baker is smart enough (big if, I know, I know...) to not start Neifi and he gives RonnyC his atbats, the IF will be improved, and (sadly enough), the OF will be better too (only because it was sooo bad to begin with). Defense all around should be improved. I like the flier on Wade Miller. He's like a second Kerry Wood. If we can have either one healthy at any given time (other than maybe the first month), we're in good shape with the rotation. The bench is the only area where I don't think we improved.

 

However, I don't give Hendry high marks, even though we improved in most areas. He had sooo many pieces fall into place at the right time to have a really big offseason as far as resources and the roster goes, there's no excuse for failing to bring in at least one major impact player that would have upgraded the offense. He squandered his big opportunity to have the killer offseason that he could have had.

 

Improved in most areas, but failed to live up to potential. I personally give him a C or a C+ for the offseason.

[CubfaninCA]

The "writer" says the Cubs did nothing to improve the offence. Pierre's quite an upgrade over Patterson, but this is the same guy who thinks comparing the Cubs to the D Rays is fresh. :roll:

 

Well, nothing major was really done..

 

Say what you want about where the guy writes for, but the real reason people are hurt by it is because its true.

 

A lineup of Pierre, Walker, Lee, ARam, Jones, Murton, Barrett and Perez/Cedeno exactly wasn't what I had in mind when the offseason began.

 

That is the lineup of a 4th place team, not a contender. Who's going to hit for Jones against lefties? Why did we end up with Jones in the first place? Whos going to be there in case Murton isn't a MLB calibur starter? Even if Ronnie beats out Perez, is that even really an upgrade? And if Walker gets traded or injured, then are they just left with a Perez, Cedeno combo?

 

The pitching staff really isn't that much better. There's Zambrano, Prior and...well, not much else worth mentioning at this point, at least, not as a positive point. Wood is obviously someone I am not counting on. Maddux, though I love the guy, is on his last legs, Williams is hardly going to scare anyone. The pen has Dempster as our closer..it will be interesting to see if he can duplicate his success. Then we have Howry and Eyre, who could be great, or could be busts. The rest are pretty much the same ragtag group from last tear.

 

Was the DRay comment harsh? Yea, it was. But it's just not as far off as people here are taking it.

 

Big difference between nothing & major. The lineup is nothing special, but the Cubs have the pitching to win a world series. Like any other team besides the Yankees & Cardinals, the Cubs have to rely on good health & some lucky bounces. The Yankees can buy both. The Cards are the team of choice amongst the baseball gods.

[UMFan83]

I wouldn't be suprised if the Cubs lost 90 games this year, but I don't really expect it to happen. I expect somewhere between 76-86 wins. I know thats a huge range, but honestly this year could be played out 1000 different ways with the team that they have

[Elrhino]

Even the guy who writes for Maxim knows how bad Neifi and Jacques are, yet its lost on Dusty and Hendry.

[snoodmonger]

Haha, this guy writes for Maxim? Credibility, goodbye.

 

No, he writes for Maxim online. Even lamer.

 

Our offseason did suck, though.

 

I'm not as down on our offseason as most people. We did improve the bullpen, no doubt about it. If Baker is smart enough (big if, I know, I know...) to not start Neifi and he gives RonnyC his atbats, the IF will be improved, and (sadly enough), the OF will be better too (only because it was sooo bad to begin with). Defense all around should be improved. I like the flier on Wade Miller. He's like a second Kerry Wood. If we can have either one healthy at any given time (other than maybe the first month), we're in good shape with the rotation. The bench is the only area where I don't think we improved.

 

However, I don't give Hendry high marks, even though we improved in most areas. He had sooo many pieces fall into place at the right time to have a really big offseason as far as resources and the roster goes, there's no excuse for failing to bring in at least one major impact player that would have upgraded the offense. He squandered his big opportunity to have the killer offseason that he could have had.

 

Improved in most areas, but failed to live up to potential. I personally give him a C or a C+ for the offseason.

 

I generally agree. the thing is, to be a real contender (not the kind that needs to catch all the breaks), we needed a B+ offseason, and that was eminently doable. But to me, the worst part of the offseason wasn't the guys we signed. It was the amounts/lengths of contracts we doled out. In particular, Rusch and Jones stand out w/ regards to absurd contract length. I can't remember the details of Neifi's contract other than it being offensive on a financial, emotional, and spiritual level.

 

Finally, I think we overpaid in prspects for JPierre, especially considering the other, cheaper potential alternatives we could have gone after. So while we did improve some aspects of the team, we didn't do it in a particularly shrewd way, and we've signed on to some contracts that could prove to be burdensome in the future. Fortunately, our pitching and the regression of the Stros and Cards make this division winnable. Of course, I could just as easily see us slide down to 4th or 5th in the Central.

[neely crenshaw]

contrary to popular opinion the cubs DO NOT have the pitching to win the world series.

the have 1 given(z) and maddux. maddux will be maddux around .500 and win 15ish.

#1 wood.....huge question

#2 miller...huge question

#3 prior question mark...he had over a .5oo era after july 1

#4 williams/rusch mediocre with potential and mediocre

#5 dempster...i like him, i have high hopes, he is not a sure thing yet.

#6 bullpen...we upgraded. but set up men are up and down. they come out of no where to be good and fade just as quickly. the moves look good on paper but with set up men you never know

 

if every question mark works out we have a chance. that is a huge "if"

[Tim]

contrary to popular opinion the cubs DO NOT have the pitching to win the world series.

the have 1 given(z) and maddux. maddux will be maddux around .500 and win 15ish.

#1 wood.....huge question

#2 miller...huge question

#3 prior question mark...he had over a .5oo era after july 1

#4 williams/rusch mediocre with potential and mediocre

#5 dempster...i like him, i have high hopes, he is not a sure thing yet.

#6 bullpen...we upgraded. but set up men are up and down. they come out of no where to be good and fade just as quickly. the moves look good on paper but with set up men you never know

 

if every question mark works out we have a chance. that is a huge "if"

Post all star break, Prior had a 3.88 ERA, so you can stop claiming it was over 5.00 for the second half.

 

Crimeny. The guy has a 3.24 career ERA, which would be one of the lowest career ERA's in post-1920's baseball. The one and only question mark to debate with Prior is health.

[Fred Hornkohl]

contrary to popular opinion the cubs DO NOT have the pitching to win the world series.

the have 1 given(z) and maddux. maddux will be maddux around .500 and win 15ish.

#1 wood.....huge question

#2 miller...huge question

#3 prior question mark...he had over a .5oo era after july 1

#4 williams/rusch mediocre with potential and mediocre

#5 dempster...i like him, i have high hopes, he is not a sure thing yet.

#6 bullpen...we upgraded. but set up men are up and down. they come out of no where to be good and fade just as quickly. the moves look good on paper but with set up men you never know

 

if every question mark works out we have a chance. that is a huge "if"

Post all star break, Prior had a 3.88 ERA, so you can stop claiming it was over 5.00 for the second half.

 

Crimeny. The guy has a 3.24 career ERA, which would be one of the lowest career ERA's in post-1920's baseball. The one and only question mark to debate with Prior is health.

 

Good catch, Tim. Prior had 12 quality starts out of 15 tries after the all-star break, compiling a 6-4 record, while the team was 8-7 in those 15 games. Except for his high walk rate, his line looks pretty good.

 

Prior                IP    H    R   ER   BB    K   HR    PC  BB/9   K/9  HR/9  WHIP   ERA
07/14 - 10/02      92.7   87   43   40   37  111   14  1670  3.59 10.78  1.36  1.34  3.88

 

Prior averaged 6.18 innings and 111 pitchs per start. The one thing that jumped out at me..... of the 43 runs given up by Prior after the all star break, 14 of them were in the first inning.

Edited January 27, 2006 by Fred Hornkohl

[wade]

Maybe I'm gullible, but I expect Mark Prior to have a crazy good year.

 

The starting pitching does have a lot of question marks, but it also has lots of pitchers to choose from. Like others, I believe if the Cubs keep J. Williams instead of dealing him, they will have a legitimate number 3 starter.

 

Z, Prior, Williams, Maddux, and surely to goodness one of the other 4 or 5 will be healthy/ effective.

 

The talent pool is certainly not shallow.

[waffle]

before the year starts I am pretty sure that every team's staff has question marks. Health, physical and mental included.

 

As they say, that's the reason they play the games, to see how things turn out.

 

The Cubbies starting pool of starting talent is POTENTIALLY very good, and has enough depth to address injuries and inconsistency.

 

In order to be one of the elite teams at the end of the season things have to break right for you, that's just the way it is. If things break right (or even just not break badly) for the cubbies I fully expect their starting staff to be one of the best in the NL.

 

But then again.... what if....

 

* Z gets murdered after acting as a guest referee in a mexican pro league football game

 

* Prior is struck by a low flying condor while vacationing in SD. Not only is his arm hurt but he ends up going to jail as they are endangered

 

* Woody starts out the year ON FIRE. During a game against the astros where it looks like he might exceed his 20 strike out game a load popping sound is heard and his throwing arm disengages mid pitch, landing in the lap of Bill Murray, who, demonstrating his usual humor, makes light of the situation, "come on everybody, let's give Woody a hand.....". Everybody gets a laugh out of it..

 

*Maddux decides to retire mid-season and follow his true love, country western singing.

 

Cuz you just never know....

[CubinNY]

before the year starts I am pretty sure that every team's staff has question marks. Health, physical and mental included.

 

As they say, that's the reason they play the games, to see how things turn out.

 

The Cubbies starting pool of starting talent is POTENTIALLY very good, and has enough depth to address injuries and inconsistency.

 

In order to be one of the elite teams at the end of the season things have to break right for you, that's just the way it is. If things break right (or even just not break badly) for the cubbies I fully expect their starting staff to be one of the best in the NL.

 

But then again.... what if....

 

* Z gets murdered after acting as a guest referee in a mexican pro league football game

 

* Prior is struck by a low flying condor while vacationing in SD. Not only is his arm hurt but he ends up going to jail as they are endangered

 

* Woody starts out the year ON FIRE. During a game against the astros where it looks like he might exceed his 20 strike out game a load popping sound is heard and his throwing arm disengages mid pitch, landing in the lap of Bill Murray, who, demonstrating his usual humor, makes light of the situation, "come on everybody, let's give Woody a hand.....". Everybody gets a laugh out of it..

 

*Maddux decides to retire mid-season and follow his true love, country western singing.

 

Cuz you just never know....

 

Breaks, luck, chance, whatever one wants to call it usuallly evens out in a 162 game season.

 

It is not the lucky teams that end up in the playoffs every year, it is the best teams.

 

The Cubs have been using the same formula more or less for three years now. This has to be the year for them to make some noise or the chemists who made the formula have to be changed.

[noisesquared]

contrary to popular opinion the cubs DO NOT have the pitching to win the world series.

the have 1 given(z) and maddux. maddux will be maddux around .500 and win 15ish.

#1 wood.....huge question

#2 miller...huge question

#3 prior question mark...he had over a .5oo era after july 1

#4 williams/rusch mediocre with potential and mediocre

#5 dempster...i like him, i have high hopes, he is not a sure thing yet.

#6 bullpen...we upgraded. but set up men are up and down. they come out of no where to be good and fade just as quickly. the moves look good on paper but with set up men you never know

 

if every question mark works out we have a chance. that is a huge "if"

 

I think the Cubs DO have the pitching to win the WS - they have no more question marks than any body else in the division pitching-wise. If Prior can keep line drives off his elbow and avoid collisions on the base paths, I think he's in for a monster year. I think Miller and Wood will combine to provide about 45 starts, and I believe they will provide career norm performance in those starts. That'll leave about 20 starts to be divvied up between Rusch/Williams/Hill, which should be fine. And the bullpen is solid and deep at worst.

 

The Cards had Carpenter and Suppan both pitching with ERA's a full run under career norms. Same in Houston with Clemens and Pettite. As good as all of those pitchers have been through their careers, nobody could've seen that type of performance coming. If the Cubs have 2 starters make 30+ starts each pitching a run under their career average, the Cubs will be a playoff team.

[waffle]

exactly.

 

If you want guarantees, don't follow sports.

 

I also believe that this staff has the potential to carry this team. I don't fault Hendry for the staff he has put together.

 

Now, positions players, that's a bit different.... :roll:

[goonys evil twin]

I also believe that this staff has the potential to carry this team. I don't fault Hendry for the staff he has put together.

 

Now, positions players, that's a bit different.... :roll:

 

The staff has to carry the team, because the lineup is practically a guarantee for subpar performance. I don't really have a problem with the pitching staff, it certainly has the ability to dominate. The likelihood of reaching that ability is the problem. And, while I don't blame Hendry for the staff, I do blame Hendry for his overall approach to the roster. If he was going with the "pitching wins" philosophy, he should have gotten more stable arms. If he was going with a more balanced approach, he should have gotten much better position players. As things stand, this team's hopes rely on recently injured players being completely healthy and very productive, as opposed to a team that can withstand some setbacks, injury or otherwise.

[TheDude]

contrary to popular opinion the cubs DO NOT have the pitching to win the world series.

the have 1 given(z) and maddux. maddux will be maddux around .500 and win 15ish.

#1 wood.....huge question

#2 miller...huge question

#3 prior question mark...he had over a .5oo era after july 1

#4 williams/rusch mediocre with potential and mediocre

#5 dempster...i like him, i have high hopes, he is not a sure thing yet.

#6 bullpen...we upgraded. but set up men are up and down. they come out of no where to be good and fade just as quickly. the moves look good on paper but with set up men you never know

 

if every question mark works out we have a chance. that is a huge "if"

 

I think the Cubs DO have the pitching to win the WS - they have no more question marks than any body else in the division pitching-wise.

 

I'd feel confident taking it a step further than just the division. I've studied the projected SP rotation for all NL teams headed into ST and every single one of them has at least 2 question marks. In fact, the argument should really be just limited to any three known quantities on each staff...because for most teams ST will be the barometer for establishing the complete rotation.

 

That said, I'd throw the Cubs 3 known SP quantities (Zambrano, Prior, Maddux) against any other NL 1-3 and take even or better odds every time. St. Louis and Houston are the only two I'd take even odds on.

 

This Cubs team is built for better success in the post-season than the regular and will live and die in the regular season based upon whoever emerges as the healthy and dependable 4th and 5th starters.

 

We're in for a whole lot of 4-3 (win or lose) high stress games this year.

[goonys evil twin]

We're in for a whole lot of 4-3 (win or lose) high stress games this year.

 

Except for most of the Rusch starts, and whenever Maddux has his 10 or more blowup games.

[SouthSideRyan]

If Maddux was as horrible in his "blow up" games as is often insinuated around here, he'd have 20 wins every season from the rest of his games. You'd think he was a below average pitcher or something.

[TheDude]

We're in for a whole lot of 4-3 (win or lose) high stress games this year.

 

Except for most of the Rusch starts, and whenever Maddux has his 10 or more blowup games.

 

Little factoid: Both Maddux and Zambrano each had the same number of starts (4) where 6+ runs was given up in 2005. That's a bit of selective memory regarding Maddux and blowup games.

 

The difference is Zambrano had a lot more 0 and 1 run games than Maddux to bring that ERA down.

[goonys evil twin]

We're in for a whole lot of 4-3 (win or lose) high stress games this year.

 

Except for most of the Rusch starts, and whenever Maddux has his 10 or more blowup games.

 

Little factoid: Both Maddux and Zambrano each had the same number of starts (4) where 6+ runs was given up in 2005. That's a bit of selective memory regarding Maddux and blowup games.

 

The difference is Zambrano had a lot more 0 and 1 run games than Maddux to bring that ERA down.

 

That's not selective memory. I didn't just arbitrarily assign 6 runs to a blowup. First, you said a lot of 4-3 games. Maddux had 9 games last year where he allowed more than 4, Zambrano had 6 (Rusch had 5 in a lot fewer starts). In 2004 Maddux had 9 and Zambrano had 5. Another thing to look at for blowup games are games when you give up as many runs as innings pitched, what Tim labeled as disaster starts a few years back. Because there is a big difference between giving up 4 in 4 innings and 5 in 9 innings. In 2004 Maddux had 7, Zambrano had 2, in 2005 Maddux had 5 Zambrano had 3. Rusch had 5 and 4.

[TheDude]

We're in for a whole lot of 4-3 (win or lose) high stress games this year.

 

Except for most of the Rusch starts, and whenever Maddux has his 10 or more blowup games.

 

Little factoid: Both Maddux and Zambrano each had the same number of starts (4) where 6+ runs was given up in 2005. That's a bit of selective memory regarding Maddux and blowup games.

 

The difference is Zambrano had a lot more 0 and 1 run games than Maddux to bring that ERA down.

 

That's not selective memory. I didn't just arbitrarily assign 6 runs to a blowup. First, you said a lot of 4-3 games. Maddux had 9 games last year where he allowed more than 4, Zambrano had 6 (Rusch had 5 in a lot fewer starts). In 2004 Maddux had 9 and Zambrano had 5. Another thing to look at for blowup games are games when you give up as many runs as innings pitched, what Tim labeled as disaster starts a few years back. Because there is a big difference between giving up 4 in 4 innings and 5 in 9 innings. In 2004 Maddux had 7, Zambrano had 2, in 2005 Maddux had 5 Zambrano had 3. Rusch had 5 and 4.

 

Ok, so if I use your definition of blowup game, since it was your term introduced n the conversation, where are the 10 Maddux blowups in the past? Where is the trend that sets 10 as the 2006 predictor? 10 was your stated number.

 

All I'm asking is that you recognize it was an exaggerated comment that isn't nearly as bad as made out to be. If Maddux clocks in at 5 "disaster games" in 2006 (the same as 2005), it'll be just a few more than the aces, and probably league average.

[goonys evil twin]

We're in for a whole lot of 4-3 (win or lose) high stress games this year.

 

Except for most of the Rusch starts, and whenever Maddux has his 10 or more blowup games.

 

Little factoid: Both Maddux and Zambrano each had the same number of starts (4) where 6+ runs was given up in 2005. That's a bit of selective memory regarding Maddux and blowup games.

 

The difference is Zambrano had a lot more 0 and 1 run games than Maddux to bring that ERA down.

 

That's not selective memory. I didn't just arbitrarily assign 6 runs to a blowup. First, you said a lot of 4-3 games. Maddux had 9 games last year where he allowed more than 4, Zambrano had 6 (Rusch had 5 in a lot fewer starts). In 2004 Maddux had 9 and Zambrano had 5. Another thing to look at for blowup games are games when you give up as many runs as innings pitched, what Tim labeled as disaster starts a few years back. Because there is a big difference between giving up 4 in 4 innings and 5 in 9 innings. In 2004 Maddux had 7, Zambrano had 2, in 2005 Maddux had 5 Zambrano had 3. Rusch had 5 and 4.

 

Ok, so if I use your definition of blowup game, since it was your term introduced n the conversation, where are the 10 Maddux blowups in the past? Where is the trend that sets 10 as the 2006 predictor? 10 was your stated number.

 

All I'm asking is that you recognize it was an exaggerated comment that isn't nearly as bad as made out to be. If Maddux clocks in at 5 "disaster games" in 2006 (the same as 2005), it'll be just a few more than the aces, and probably league average.

 

Why do I have to recognize it as exaggeration? You brought up 4-3 games. Maddux has had 9 games in each of the past 2 years in which he's given up more than 4. I don't think it's a stretch to think he's capable of flirting with 10 this year, given his continued decline. As for the disaster starts, it's a safe bet he'll lead the team, again. I would be surprised if he had less than 5, and not shocked if he had more than the 7 he had in 2004. One thing is almost certain, he'll have more than Zambrano. On a team with such a weak lineup as the Cubs, so heavily dependent on pitching, it's a shame that so much of the workload is going to have to be put on guys like Maddux and Rusch, who just aren't that good.

[neely crenshaw]

the problem with comparing our staff with the rest of our division is that we have built a team that is so entirely dependent on our pitching. not too mention we have 20 games to pick up on the cards.

also we do not have 3 aces anymore. we have z. maddux is and will be maddux. if we had a better o, he might win 20 but he'll throw his games

wood is wood.

prior may not be an injury risk however, you can not be confident that he will ever be the prior of old. in his 17 starts from july 1st on, he was 6-6 with a 4.88 era. not exactly cy young material. perhaps that wasn't the real prior but that is a pretty large sample size. it's not like he threw bad for 5 just games. maddux durng that same time had an era of 4.

we have or should have real questions about whether we have the staff to carry this offense.

or we can hope that pierre and jones return to form

and that cedeno is everything we hoped and he is ready right now!

we also have to hope that murton will be what we hope

and that dlee,aramis and barrett all have the same type of year they had last year and do not get hurt.

i do hope all those things but i also know that it is certainly not a sure thing! and for 100 mil we shouldn't have this many questions

[Sarcastic]

prior may not be an injury risk however, you can not be confident that he will ever be the prior of old. in his 17 starts from july 1st on, he was 6-6 with a 4.88 era. not exactly cy young material. perhaps that wasn't the real prior but that is a pretty large sample size. it's not like he threw bad for 5 just games.

 

First you say his ERA was over 5.00, then two people point out that it was 3.88, and you follow up by raising it to 4.88. Maybe you just misread, but you couldn't have been paying very close attention if you missed it twice.

 

I think it is reasonable to assume tht if Prior avoids injury this year, he will return to his pre- injury form. He was doing very well up until the line drive to his elbow, and you can't expect someone to be at 100% right after an injury like that.