The 2006 team and the 2007 team

[CubsWin]

The Cubs have a major hole at SS when compared to the team that won a league leading 97 games last season, the New York Mets. Carlos Delgado, Carlos Beltran and David Wright can roughly, roughly be equated to Derrek Lee, Alphonso Soriano and Aramis Ramirez. But the Cubs have nothing like Jose Reyes roaming their infield. The case can be made that Barrett beats LoDuca soundly if only with the bat which makes up some of the difference between Reyes and Izturis, but only some of it. Some more of that difference can be made by comparing Murton to Chavez/Floyd and Jones to Nady/Green or some combination thereof. But there is still a decent sized gap left.

 

The starting pitching is rather similar, with the Cubs probably coming out on top even if another starter isn't added. The Mets only had two pitchers with 30+ starts last season, Glavine and Traschel. Each won 15 games, but Traschel did so with an ugly 4.97 ERA. If only two of Zambrano, Hill and Lilly start 30 or more games, I think the Cubs get better performances than what Glavine and Traschel gave the Mets last season. After that Pedro was very average (9-8, 4.48 in 23 starts) and Orlando Hernandez was only slightly better (9-7, 4.09 in 20 starts). If the odd man out of the Z, Hill, Lilly trio and whomever the 4th starter is (Miller or Prior) can match that production, the Cubs are still ahead when comparing the rotations. The 5th starter spot is a combination of John Maine and about 8 other starters that either got injured (Victor Zambrano) or filled in for the injured guys. Their combined ERA was 5.40. If the Cubs 5th starter can approximate that kind of performance, then it would be fair to say that the '07 Cubs rotation is better than the 97-win Mets of '06. The big difference is the '06 Mets bullpen performed better than the Cubs pen likely will in '07. How much better is difficult to say due to the uncertain performance levels of Kerry Wood, Ryan Dempster and Michael Wuertz. If each perform close to their ceilings, then the pens are more comparable, if not...

 

Judging by this highly unscientific comparison, the Cubs should fall well short of 97 wins. Mid to high 80s is a strong possibility. If Prior can give the Cubs some sort of consistent performance, and Wood can provide a somewhat dominant presence out of the pen, then maybe they can break the 90-win barrier. If Izturis returns to his all-star form and DeRosa and Soriano prove that last season were not flukes, then maybe the 95-win barrier can be cracked, but we are getting into some pretty unlikely territory here.

 

However, if injuries decimate key players yet again this season, breaking .500 will be difficult. Of course, thats true for just about any team save maybe the Yanks and Red Sox.

[AramisRamirez]

 

2007 Miller/Prior at 35 starts > 2006 Marshall + Marmol at 35 starts

 

I can see making an argument for why Wood, Prior, and Miller will be unlikely to have many effective innings for the Cubs this season, but I still have no idea what it means to plan for them to be injured.

 

well, by planning on them to be injured....you take into account that kerry wood and mark prior have basically been injured since 2004. in my opinion its not a stretch of the imagination to believe they may actually be injured in 2007.

[AlwaysaCub]

If we can be a .500 team in the NL Central, that would be fantastic.

 

There would be nothing fantastic about it. It might be enough to win the division (far from a lock), but that's not really much of an accomplishment.

 

Yeah, the Cardinals won the NL Central in 2006 with 82 wins. Not much of an accomplishment. What did it allow them to do? Win the World Series. Now, is that not much of an accomplishment?

 

The point is to get to the dance. Who cares how it happened?

[cubs121]

If we can be a .500 team in the NL Central, that would be fantastic.

 

There would be nothing fantastic about it. It might be enough to win the division (far from a lock), but that's not really much of an accomplishment.

 

Yeah, the Cardinals won the NL Central in 2006 with 82 wins. Not much of an accomplishment. What did it allow them to do? Win the World Series. Now, is that not much of an accomplishment?

 

The point is to get to the dance. Who cares how it happened?

I agree. Who cares HOW you get there, JUST GET THERE!

[TheDude]

 

2007 Miller/Prior at 35 starts > 2006 Marshall + Marmol at 35 starts

 

 

i would never in a million years count of wade miller and mark prior combining for 35 starts. i wouldnt count on anything more than 1 single start for the entire seaon out of both of them combined. i have said this countless times, but for us to pencil in prior/wade for anything is insane...let alone 35 starts. in my opinion, i wouldnt even act like either exist and we should plan on neither being on the roster and IF we get anything out of either of them its a bonus. i also would include wood into that category and just plan on him riding the pine for the entire 2007 season.

 

You assume health with a contingency plan. In previous years, there was no solid plan for replacement. This year there is such a plan, though it's debatable whether it's solid.

 

But you cannot assume injury. You must assume the pitchers will compete for a rotation spot in ST, because if they are healthy, they will win the spot no question.

 

If they are no healthy, the team has about 10 starters ready to go, lol.

[goonys evil twin]

If we can be a .500 team in the NL Central, that would be fantastic.

 

There would be nothing fantastic about it. It might be enough to win the division (far from a lock), but that's not really much of an accomplishment.

 

Yeah, the Cardinals won the NL Central in 2006 with 82 wins. Not much of an accomplishment. What did it allow them to do? Win the World Series. Now, is that not much of an accomplishment?

 

The point is to get to the dance. Who cares how it happened?

I agree. Who cares HOW you get there, JUST GET THERE!

 

No matter how bad we think the competition is, .500 does not guarantee you a thing. STL won the WS in spite of the fact that they weren't a very good team. That does not mean it is wise for a big market team to try and emulate that not very good team. People are assuming .500, or a little better will get the Cubs in, but that isn't a very good bet. The goal should be to try and win at least 90, to give them a good shot at the postseason.

[Balsa]

Looking at position players:

 

Murton - Murton: Hopefully will continue to improve (+)

Soriano - Pierre: HUGE improvement, even if 2006 was a fluke (+++)

DLee - 1B 2006: HUGE improvement (++)

Barrett - Barrett: Career year last year, could see dip in production (~= or ~ -)

Aram - Aram: Same as Barrett (~= or ~ -)

Izturis - Cedeno/Perez: Probably about the same, chance for improvement (~+)

DeRosa - 2B 2006: Toss-up. Could go either way. (- or = or +)

Jones - Jones: Resurgent year last year, could see dip in production (~= or ~ -)

 

So by my tally:

 

3 probable improvements, some of them huge

 

3 possible dips in production due to great years last year

 

One complete tossup

 

I'd say that adds up to about an 12-15 win improvement if we assume pitching is the same. Which obviously should be better.

 

So I'd guess 15-18 win difference, and add in a few wins for Lou instead of Dusty and we get 18-21 win improvement, which gives the Cubs a Balsa-Projected-Wins of 84-87. Which I think should be enough for the NL Central.