2007...

[goonys evil twin]

You can fix it in 1 year with a 95M payroll.

 

I don't think so. not unless they find a way to dump a lot of bad contracts, sign all the top free agents, and go young everywhere else. do you see that happening? I think they can get back above .500 but they won't be any closer to winning the world series.

 

I don't have much confidence in Hendry to identify and plug the right holes, but it could be fixed in one offseason with a top 5-7 payroll.

 

We've had money for decades. Hasn't made a difference yet. Why would it start now?

 

There is a difference between saying it can be done, and saying it can be done by Hendry. A good GM could absolutely get the job done in one offseason with this team. Hendry could not.

[RynoRules]

Andruw Jones in CF, please.

[waffle]

That really isn't alot of potential movement. I look at that team and I don't vomit, I see that it has potential.

 

 

There's plenty of room for moves. A creative GM with an ounce of foresight would be able to make great strides this offseason. The current roster is completely unacceptable and only has potential for mediocrity. If your goal is to try and get back to .500, then maybe you can still relatively still. But that's a loser's goal and for this team to be a winner they need massive change.

 

See, don't know. If you compare player for player our team with any of the other teams actually competing this year I think you have to say we have the potential with THIS team to be competitive, but the injuries, the attitude and the coaching and AWEFUL player decisions have made us a fiasco.

 

You have to look at it in the POTENTIAL perspective, as any team that wins it all has a GOOD year in terms of potential, ie, more guys meeting or exceeding their expectations. So let's look at our lineup that way, against other competitive teams

 

Potential production for 2007

1b - above average potential

2b - below average (for now)

ss - average potential/high variability

3b - above average potential

C - above average potential

lf - average/high variablility

CF - average to above average potential (Pierre). This guy was this straw that stirred the drink on some very competitive Fla teams

RF - um, well. YUCK

 

We just are not that aweful in my opinion. A good manager I think could help these guys play with some fire and some pride and some accountability. Dusty just gives them too many excuses, refuses to hold them responsible for what is an AWEFUL performance.

[goonys evil twin]

You have to look at it in the POTENTIAL perspective, as any team that wins it all has a GOOD year in terms of potential, ie, more guys meeting or exceeding their expectations.

 

We just are not that aweful in my opinion.

 

We are that awful. Your plan is to hope for the best. That's a bad way to build a team. You have to build a team by factoring in setbacks. You cannot build a team that will succeed only if people meet and exceed expectations.

[bobbyd20]

If I were Jim Hendry, the first thing I would do is fire myself.

 

That would be a good start.

[Sammy Sofa]

Andruw Jones in CF, please.

 

I like it.

 

Can you imagine all of the "Aramis doesn't hustle" crowd dealing with Andruw? Talk about exploding heads...

[waffle]

You have to look at it in the POTENTIAL perspective, as any team that wins it all has a GOOD year in terms of potential, ie, more guys meeting or exceeding their expectations.

 

We just are not that aweful in my opinion.

 

We are that awful. Your plan is to hope for the best. That's a bad way to build a team. You have to build a team by factoring in setbacks. You cannot build a team that will succeed only if people meet and exceed expectations.

 

But that is what happens every year. THere are teams that look loaded and BOMB and teams that look average but exceed expectations. Not every team can be the yankees and spend 2x to almost guarantee a level of competitiveness....

 

Note, that I did not put down what their ceiling is, but their potential per their position against the mean in the the NL (I don't know the AL well enough). Per position by potential production, we are at least competitive at almost every position.

 

Sorry, but this is the way you need to look at this, you cannot discount the variability of performance.

[waffle]

now note that I will not discount that there is the possibility that this is a crew of mis-matched parts. That the sum is LESS than the parts. That it isn't a well balanced team. Is possible.

 

There have been lots of cubs teams of recent that you looked at the lineup and could state that there was NO WAY, even if they met or exceeded their potential production, that they had a shot at anything. I do not think that is the case with this lineup.

 

I do think that the intangibles are what screwed up this team.

 

- bad balance of players

- poor lockeroom/on field leadership

- Bad managing/Aweful lineup decisions

- Injuries

- Guys who are unable to, or are allowed to play as if winning was a product of their potential/not their actual production.

 

If the above intangibles swung to the Cubbies FAVOR as opposed to the current situation, I think this team could have at least competed for the WC and likely the division (our division STINKS).

 

I mean, LOOK AT THE REDS, are the REALLY that much better than us????? And I am not saying we are good, but the reds are AWEFULLY mediocre....

[goonys evil twin]

I do think that the intangibles are what screwed up this team.

 

 

Believe that all you want, but it was the tangibles that sunk this ship. Too many overly aggressive hitters. Too many guys who value putting the ball in play over getting on base. Too few baserunners, not enough power. And the pitching staff that has allowed so many baserunners in recent years simply imploded with the burden of constantly working under pressure. They don't have the benefit of an offense that will bail them out, and they always work with men on base because they walk so many.

 

 

The Cubs problems center on the walk, they have for years. They don't take enough and they surrender enough. It's a very tangible problem that was never addressed because management doesn't see it as a problem.

 

It's not intangibles that hurt, it's very real, measure commodities.

[Banedon]

I do think that the intangibles are what screwed up this team.

 

 

Believe that all you want, but it was the tangibles that sunk this ship. Too many overly aggressive hitters. Too many guys who value putting the ball in play over getting on base. Too few baserunners, not enough power. And the pitching staff that has allowed so many baserunners in recent years simply imploded with the burden of constantly working under pressure. They don't have the benefit of an offense that will bail them out, and they always work with men on base because they walk so many.

 

 

The Cubs problems center on the walk, they have for years. They don't take enough and they surrender enough. It's a very tangible problem that was never addressed because management doesn't see it as a problem.

 

It's not intangibles that hurt, it's very real, measure commodities.

 

All that is ignoring bad on field management as well.

[goonys evil twin]

But that is what happens every year. THere are teams that look loaded and BOMB and teams that look average but exceed expectations.

 

Not really. That's the perception that people have after it happens. But there isn't a team in baseball that looked loaded in the preseason and has since bombed. Of course teams under and outperform expectations. But the point is you don't build your team so that it's only chance to win is if it outperforms. That's stupid. You build a team that is capable of winning 90+ games with little to no outperformance, and that can at least tread water if everything goes in the crapper. You maximize your chances. The Cubs have not maximized their chances. They are among the highest payrolls in baseball and came into the season with no better than an average chance of contending. That is unacceptable. At least it should be unacceptable.

 

The Cubs didn't lose because of chance and underperformance. They've actually had several players who have met or exceeded performance levels, and very few who underperformed. They just aren't good because they were poorly built, not because luck.

[RynoRules]

Andruw Jones in CF, please.

 

I like it.

 

Can you imagine all of the "Aramis doesn't hustle" crowd dealing with Andruw? Talk about exploding heads...

 

I know. The thing is that Jones is so fluid that it looks like he isn't hustling when he is, IMO. Did you see his catch last night?

[Sammy Sofa]

Andruw Jones in CF, please.

 

I like it.

 

Can you imagine all of the "Aramis doesn't hustle" crowd dealing with Andruw? Talk about exploding heads...

 

I know. The thing is that Jones is so fluid that it looks like he isn't hustling when he is, IMO. Did you see his catch last night?

 

I did indeed. I would be incredibly happy with Jones in CF at Wrigley.

 

It was an idea that I brought up a month or so ago with my dad and he flipped. His first argument was, exactly, "that guy has no hustle at all! He doesn't even try unless he hits one of the park!" Some people...

[C.C.]

The Cubs were built on having a healthy Wood and Prior...Even though they haven't been healthy going on 2-3 years, once again he rolled the dice and lost. His only backup plan was Wade Miller. Hendry intentions of building a team on pitching is a solid way to build a team, unfortunately he has the wrong pitchers to do this with...He builds for the moment and has no clear vision nor plan.

[goonys evil twin]

Hendry intentions of building a team on pitching is a solid way to build a team, unfortunately he has the wrong pitchers to do this with...He builds for the moment and has no clear vision nor plan.

 

I actually have my doubts about how smart that is. Andy and Jim have planned all along to build around pitching, and then to add offense when needed. The problem is they haven't really added offense. They've added individual hitters, but the lineup just keeps getting worse and worse as a whole. That's not good. It's tough on a pitching staff to win with no offensive support. Possible yes, but very tough. Practically every inning is a high stress inning. And aside from building around banged up pitchers, he's built around pitchers who surrender a ton of walks. I think the whole strategy has to be adjusted. They should not build on pitching. They should build on pitchng and hitting. They should have a top 5 hitting and top 5 pitching staff every year. Pitching is just far to inconsistent. The Braves did it, but it was a mistake to try and emulate what was likely a once in a generation type of staff. The Yankees, throughout all their success, have had only one stable pitcher, Rivera. The rest of the staff turns over every other year or so. The White Sox were built on pitching, but they were built on quantity of good pitching, not particularly great pitching, and they still scored a ton of runs via their powerful offense, which they also improved this offseason. The Mets are doing great because of their offense (and pitching). LA is doing well because of offense (and pitching).

 

It's very difficult to win with just good pitching. I don't know why Hendry insists on trying to do it that way. You shouldn't limit yourself by saying you are going to focus only on pitching. The Cubs must address the offense.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

This is what I would do, not what I think will be done. I'm also assuming that most players under contract will be here.

 

I'd make a trade with the Braves for Giles. All indications are that he will be moved.

 

I'd shift Jones to CF.

 

I'd sign Sheffield to a one year contract.

 

I'd sign Jason Schmidt for the rotation.

 

My line-up:

 

2b Giles

LF Murton

1b Lee

3b Ramirez

RF Sheffield

C Barrett

CF Jones

SS Izturis

 

SP Zambrano

SP Schmidt

SP Prior

SP Marshall/Hill/Guzman/Mateo/Ryu/Marmol

 

My guess is that at least one of thesix pitchers listed in the fourth spot would be dealt to get Giles. Maybe two of those guys are gone as well.

 

The biggest question marks are Sheffield's health and whether the rookies can be effective at the bottom of the rotation. To hedge my bets, I'd try to sign a few productive bench players like DeRosa.

[waffle]

I do think that the intangibles are what screwed up this team.

 

 

Believe that all you want, but it was the tangibles that sunk this ship. Too many overly aggressive hitters. Too many guys who value putting the ball in play over getting on base. Too few baserunners, not enough power. And the pitching staff that has allowed so many baserunners in recent years simply imploded with the burden of constantly working under pressure. They don't have the benefit of an offense that will bail them out, and they always work with men on base because they walk so many.

 

 

The Cubs problems center on the walk, they have for years. They don't take enough and they surrender enough. It's a very tangible problem that was never addressed because management doesn't see it as a problem.

 

It's not intangibles that hurt, it's very real, measure commodities.

 

Isn't that a coaching issue also?

[goonys evil twin]

I do think that the intangibles are what screwed up this team.

 

 

Believe that all you want, but it was the tangibles that sunk this ship. Too many overly aggressive hitters. Too many guys who value putting the ball in play over getting on base. Too few baserunners, not enough power. And the pitching staff that has allowed so many baserunners in recent years simply imploded with the burden of constantly working under pressure. They don't have the benefit of an offense that will bail them out, and they always work with men on base because they walk so many.

 

 

The Cubs problems center on the walk, they have for years. They don't take enough and they surrender enough. It's a very tangible problem that was never addressed because management doesn't see it as a problem.

 

It's not intangibles that hurt, it's very real, measure commodities.

 

Isn't that a coaching issue also?

 

Yes, it's coaching related, but more importantly, organizational. The organization fails to address those issues, and actually deosn't see them as problems, so the coach isn't going to instrust otherwise.

 

But the point is it's tangible. Not a fluke.

[RynoRules]

Andruw Jones in CF, please.

 

I like it.

 

Can you imagine all of the "Aramis doesn't hustle" crowd dealing with Andruw? Talk about exploding heads...

 

I know. The thing is that Jones is so fluid that it looks like he isn't hustling when he is, IMO. Did you see his catch last night?

 

I did indeed. I would be incredibly happy with Jones in CF at Wrigley.

 

It was an idea that I brought up a month or so ago with my dad and he flipped. His first argument was, exactly, "that guy has no hustle at all! He doesn't even try unless he hits one of the park!" Some people...

 

If you get Andruw and keep ARam (and assumin we do nothing else to improve the everyday team, which is unlikely, IMO), you have a lineup that potentially looks something like this:

 

Murt

Izturis

Lee

A. Jones

ARam

Barrett

J. Jones

Cedeno

 

Not great, but not horrendous, especially in our League. If you then bolster the starting staff with Schmidt and another, B-level starter, that's not a bad team, and likely good enough to at least win the WC.

[snoodmonger]

I've seen a few in favor of moving Jacque to CF, and I just don't see how that's viable. Maybe the stats will prove me wrong, but it seems like he's played a pretty bad RF this year. If so, how will he succeed in CF?

[waffle]

Andruw Jones in CF, please.

 

I like it.

 

Can you imagine all of the "Aramis doesn't hustle" crowd dealing with Andruw? Talk about exploding heads...

 

I know. The thing is that Jones is so fluid that it looks like he isn't hustling when he is, IMO. Did you see his catch last night?

 

I did indeed. I would be incredibly happy with Jones in CF at Wrigley.

 

It was an idea that I brought up a month or so ago with my dad and he flipped. His first argument was, exactly, "that guy has no hustle at all! He doesn't even try unless he hits one of the park!" Some people...

 

If you get Andruw and keep ARam (and assumin we do nothing else to improve the everyday team, which is unlikely, IMO), you have a lineup that potentially looks something like this:

 

Murt

Izturis

Lee

A. Jones

ARam

Barrett

J. Jones

Cedeno

 

Not great, but not horrendous, especially in our League. If you then bolster the starting staff with Schmidt and another, B-level starter, that's not a bad team, and likely good enough to at least win the WC.

 

Exactly. ITS NOT THAT BAD

 

Take that team, add a manager who actually cares about winning and losing. LOSES SLEEP over it and takes pleasure in playing consistent, solid baseball, and add (for comparison purposes) average pitching, and you cannot tell me that lineup couldn't be competitive.

 

Are we that bad? Is detroit that good? Are the Reds that much better? The Phillies? The Dodgers? THE PADRES????

 

Sure, this lineup isn't perfect by any stretch and I have not claimed it is, but it is better than a 60-70 win team.

 

If this team performed up to expectations under a coach who had a clue and played with FIRE EVERY DAY it could be competing for the WC and/or the division.

[Magnetic Curses]

Andruw Jones in CF, please.

 

I like it.

 

Can you imagine all of the "Aramis doesn't hustle" crowd dealing with Andruw? Talk about exploding heads...

 

I know. The thing is that Jones is so fluid that it looks like he isn't hustling when he is, IMO. Did you see his catch last night?

 

I did indeed. I would be incredibly happy with Jones in CF at Wrigley.

 

It was an idea that I brought up a month or so ago with my dad and he flipped. His first argument was, exactly, "that guy has no hustle at all! He doesn't even try unless he hits one of the park!" Some people...

 

If you get Andruw and keep ARam (and assumin we do nothing else to improve the everyday team, which is unlikely, IMO), you have a lineup that potentially looks something like this:

 

Murt

Izturis

Lee

A. Jones

ARam

Barrett

J. Jones

Cedeno

 

Not great, but not horrendous, especially in our League. If you then bolster the starting staff with Schmidt and another, B-level starter, that's not a bad team, and likely good enough to at least win the WC.

 

make no mistake about it, that's bad.

 

any lineup with cedeno and izturis in it is bad. jones would make it slightly better, but izturis batting second is asking for disaster.

 

ship cedeno off with marshall and howry for freel and then it gets better.

 

how about jacques jones + cash for brady clark and a prospect?

 

clark

freel

lee

aram

a. jones

barrett

murton

izturis

 

much better.

[jmajew]

I agree with Vance in that it looks like Giles will be traded this offseason and that he should be one of our top targets.

 

I do not think Soriano is worth the money if we are gonna play him in LF and I do not think CLee has ever been a good enough player to make more than 11 mil a year. He has never had an OPS above 900. Why would you pay 10 mil more a year for CLee or Soriano is not a smart investment because the uprgrade over Murton is not that big. If soriano were to play second then it would make sense.

 

Then I'd sign Lofton to play CF for next year and sign Craig Wilson to platoon with Jones.

 

Vs. RHP

Lofton

Giles

DLee

Ramirez

Jones

Barrett

Murton

Izturis

 

Vs. LHP

Lofton

Giles

DLee

Ramirez

Barrett

Wilson

Murton

Izturis

 

If you get Soriano you will obviously then have Lofton batting leadoff and Murton batting second and Soriano would bat 5th vs Lefties and 6th vs Righties.

 

Bench

Theriot

Cedeno

Pagan

Wilson/Jones

C (minor leaguer)

Nevin/Restovich

 

 

For the rotation I would go with Barry Zito if possible but he will probalby cost too much. So I would suggest Cory Lidle and Gil Meche.

 

Zambrano

Lidle

Meche

Prior

Hill

Marshall

 

Dempster

Howry

Eyre

Wuertz

Ohman

Novoa/Aardsma/etc

 

Obviously if we can get Zito for 10-12 mil a year I would do it and then not sign both Lidle and Meche.

[RynoRules]

Andruw Jones in CF, please.

 

I like it.

 

Can you imagine all of the "Aramis doesn't hustle" crowd dealing with Andruw? Talk about exploding heads...

 

I know. The thing is that Jones is so fluid that it looks like he isn't hustling when he is, IMO. Did you see his catch last night?

 

I did indeed. I would be incredibly happy with Jones in CF at Wrigley.

 

It was an idea that I brought up a month or so ago with my dad and he flipped. His first argument was, exactly, "that guy has no hustle at all! He doesn't even try unless he hits one of the park!" Some people...

 

If you get Andruw and keep ARam (and assumin we do nothing else to improve the everyday team, which is unlikely, IMO), you have a lineup that potentially looks something like this:

 

Murt

Izturis

Lee

A. Jones

ARam

Barrett

J. Jones

Cedeno

 

Not great, but not horrendous, especially in our League. If you then bolster the starting staff with Schmidt and another, B-level starter, that's not a bad team, and likely good enough to at least win the WC.

 

make no mistake about it, that's bad.

 

any lineup with cedeno and izturis in it is bad. jones would make it slightly better, but izturis batting second is asking for disaster.

 

ship cedeno off with marshall and howry for freel and then it gets better.

 

how about jacques jones + cash for brady clark and a prospect?

 

clark

freel

lee

aram

a. jones

barrett

murton

izturis

 

much better.

 

Let me be more clear - I agree its not a perfect scenario, far from it. I especialy agree that any lineup with Cedeno and Izturis in it is not good. I was just trying to put together a realistic scenario based on my diminished expectations. I'd much rather have Freel at 2B as you suggested.

[snoodmonger]

Andruw Jones in CF, please.

 

I like it.

 

Can you imagine all of the "Aramis doesn't hustle" crowd dealing with Andruw? Talk about exploding heads...

 

I know. The thing is that Jones is so fluid that it looks like he isn't hustling when he is, IMO. Did you see his catch last night?

 

I did indeed. I would be incredibly happy with Jones in CF at Wrigley.

 

It was an idea that I brought up a month or so ago with my dad and he flipped. His first argument was, exactly, "that guy has no hustle at all! He doesn't even try unless he hits one of the park!" Some people...

 

If you get Andruw and keep ARam (and assumin we do nothing else to improve the everyday team, which is unlikely, IMO), you have a lineup that potentially looks something like this:

 

Murt

Izturis

Lee

A. Jones

ARam

Barrett

J. Jones

Cedeno

 

Not great, but not horrendous, especially in our League. If you then bolster the starting staff with Schmidt and another, B-level starter, that's not a bad team, and likely good enough to at least win the WC.

 

Exactly. ITS NOT THAT BAD

 

Take that team, add a manager who actually cares about winning and losing. LOSES SLEEP over it and takes pleasure in playing consistent, solid baseball, and add (for comparison purposes) average pitching, and you cannot tell me that lineup couldn't be competitive.

 

we that bad? Is detroit that good? Are the Reds that much better? The Phillies? The Dodgers? THE PADRES????

 

Sure, this lineup isn't perfect by any stretch and I have not claimed it is, but it is better than a 60-70 win team.

 

If this team performed up to expectations under a coach who had a clue and played with FIRE EVERY DAY it could be competing for the WC and/or the division.

 

I see what you're saying, and I understand that, realistically, maybe that should be our 2007 goal, but I have a philosophical problem with assembling a team that should "compete for the wild card." The wild card shouldn't enter a GM's mind in the off-season. He should be thinking, "Can this team win a WS?" And while anything's possible, chances are a team built to scrap for a wild card and maybe a division isn't going to be a championship caliber team.

 

The mindset of the Cubs needs to be the same as the mindset of Boston, NY, StL, the mets...build a team that can win in the post-season.