Optimism vs. Pessimism (Hendry's Moves and The 2007 Cubs)

[Handlebar McSkullet]

The Soriano contract alone is enough to make me give Hendry a big fat F for his offseason.

 

See this is what bothers me. You (sorry im going to pick on you for right now) give Hendry an F for signing, arguably, the best free agent available. 8 year contract-- yes too long. 17 mil a year-- possibly too much. But He is 2 mil a year better than Drew, and easily 200k a year better than Carlos Lee.

 

I giggle at the pessimism. They didnt sign Furcal last year, and paid a huge price for it. Now they are getting every free agent under the sun, and people are having hissies over contract terms. The bottom line is they have a better roster this year then they had last year, and with all the arms in the bullpen, I doubt they are done.

[RichHillIsABeast]

That says that, even at the most polarized ends of the spectrum...location IS still a factor...it's just that there are other factors as well. This makes sense, giving the extreme nature of the movements of the ball of the two players in question. It does NOT say that location is NOT a factor at all. Most MLB pitchers are even more dependent on location because their movement is not as extreme as that of someone like Webb. Lilly is one of these pitchers.

 

No. You can't argue from the specific pitcher (Zito) to some other pitcher just b/c he's a FB pitcher. The evidence in that article made no link between FB pitchers and location, just Zito. There are many things that are different between pitchers, not just GB/FB ratio. That article did not isolate the effect. You are making assumptions on what the article said instead of just going with what the article said.

 

Wrong, the opening graphic demonstrated what effect pitch location has on the batted nature of the ball across the entire MLB.

 

Yeah, it's an AVERAGE. It lumps FB pitchers GB pitchers, and everyone in between together. It tells you next to nothing when you have guys with stuff where location matters and where location doesn't.

 

Then we get two extremes, Zito and Webb. That doesn't prove anything in the argument, other than location is not important depending on stuff. He would have been better taking the top 25 pitchers in GB/FB ratio and the bottom 25 pitchers in GB/FB ratio and making his argument. Using two pitchers doesn't make any claims on the rest of the pitchers in MLB.

 

So no, I don't believe that Lilly has the control he needs to do what you say on a regular basis.

 

That's fine. You're welcome to your opinion. I disagree.

 

Oh, and about the Mr. Oxford Engish Dictionary comment. It was in reference to you explaining what "slander" meant. Thanks for being so condescending. It was both mature and added merit to your argument. Tit for tat, my redbird smothering friend.

Edited December 11, 2006 by RichHillIsABeast

[Wolverineman]

I giggle at the pessimism. They didnt sign Furcal last year, and paid a huge price for it. Now they are getting every free agent under the sun, and people are having hissies over contract terms. The bottom line is they have a better roster this year then they had last year, and with all the arms in the bullpen, I doubt they are done.

 

Yeah, they are better. The problem is that for all the spending to make sense, they need to be an elite team this year. The roster, as of now, looks nothing like elite to me. I'd say they're around a true talent level of 78 wins. Sure they could get some breaks and get to around 88 wins and maybe make the playoffs, but that isn't very likely. People were upset about the Furcal miss because most felt that we were around a .500 team going into last season, and the upgrade from Cedeno to Furcal would have been big enough to increase our playoff chances drastically. I think most smart GMs would overpay by quite a lot to increase their team from a .500 team to a 89-90 win team. It's worth it. It's not worth it to increase from a crappy team to a mediocre one.

 

I think the other reason people are pessimistic about these signings yet were still mad about the Furcal one is reliability and length. You basically knew what you were getting from Furcal. Great D, a .350 OBP and pretty decent power for a SS. Sure there was a possibility of him tanking(his first month he actually did) or catching fire(which he did his whole second half) but you basically knew what you were going to get(his total body of work was right around what I expected). Soriano and DeRosa are both coming off of career years and neither are that young. There is a lot more risk associated with their signing. If Soriano regresses to his Texas days without the motivation of a contract year or playing for the Yankees, his contract will go down as one of the worst in history. For the money paid I think Hendry is expecting him to come close to reproducing last year's #s. That tells me that if Soriano does that, he'll just be worth his contract, but if he falters, he won't even be close to worth it. That's a lot or risk.

 

The Marquis deal is very similar, I think. I don't think he's as bad as his last year #s indicate, so he should be better. Hendry thinks Rothschild can fix him and get him back to just mediocrity instead of awful. That's fine. The problem is he paid him for his mediocrity, so Rothschild has to be successful for the deal to make sense. If not, it's a terrible waste of money. I don't think it's smart to spend that much on a project. If you can sign him for a 1 or 2 year deal with lots of incentives, then it can be smart because if he's "fixed", he way outproduces his salary and if he pitches like he did last year, you aren't saddled by his contract and can dump him into long relief or the waiver wire and not think twice.

 

The Lilly deal isn't that bad. I really wanted Lilly before the offseason started, but that was mainly because I figured he'd go for like 3/21 instead of 4/40 or whatever we gave him. He overpaid, but not by too much.

 

Overall, it seems like a last ditch effort to make the playoffs. At this point I don't think the team is near good enough to do that without a lot of luck. If we don't get that luck, we're saddled with another lousy team and the next GM is stuck with a bunch of horrendous contracts to deal with. I don't post here often so I don't know if my reasons are why people are pessimistic, but I know it's why I'm pessimistic about the season.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

I giggle at the pessimism. They didnt sign Furcal last year, and paid a huge price for it. Now they are getting every free agent under the sun, and people are having hissies over contract terms. The bottom line is they have a better roster this year then they had last year, and with all the arms in the bullpen, I doubt they are done.

 

I think most smart GMs would overpay by quite a lot to increase their team from a .500 team to a 89-90 win team. It's worth it. It's not worth it to increase from a crappy team to a mediocre one.

 

Overall, it seems like a last ditch effort to make the playoffs. At this point I don't think the team is near good enough to do that without a lot of luck. If we don't get that luck, we're saddled with another lousy team and the next GM is stuck with a bunch of horrendous contracts to deal with. I don't post here often so I don't know if my reasons are why people are pessimistic, but I know it's why I'm pessimistic about the season.

 

The problem with this logic is that you are assuming last years talent level at the start of the season was a 66 win team. That simply isnt true. The talent they had last year was AT WORST a 75-78 win team.

 

The best way to see my point is look at April's record with Lee. They were above .500. Im not saying they would have stayed that way the whole year, but certainly the team with Lee played like a team that was capable of winning the central. Lee was the conduit to the failure of the team. I simply see a team that on paper in 2006 was capable of winning 75-85 games. Now with all the spending this offseason, I truely believe the Cubs gained, at least, 10 wins. And if you dont agree with me then I think you are being......PESSIMISTIC!!!

 

Why? because going through the entire lineup/bench you can see extreme improvement, thus possible justifying the spending. The outfield is much more powerful, and nothing has decreased its defensive ability. the infield is a wash in my opinion, (I actually prefer walker for this lineup), the pitching staff is deeper and the younger players are more experienced, and I think this is one of the top bullpens in baseball or at least the NL.

 

This roster, as is, is capable of an 85-95 win season.

[BigbadB]

This line up is definitely going to put a scare into just about any left hander that steps on the mound.

 

Using last year splits except D Lee:

 

Soriano: .293 .401 .581 .982

DeRosa: .342 .394 .589 .983

D. Lee: .333 .439 .673 1.112 (2005 splits due to injury)

Ramirez: .261 .345 .521 .866

Murton: .301 .385 .485 .870

Barrett: .313 .396 .663 1.059

Jones: .234 .261 .416 .677

Theriot: .346 .460 .519 .979

 

I think Ramirez can do better in the OPS department with extra protection against lefties. Figure out someone to play in place of Jones and let's hope lefties start everyday against the Cubs.

 

Ryan Church: .265 .321 .429 .750

Cliff Floyd: even more useless than Jones against lefties.

[frostwyrm]

The Soriano contract alone is enough to make me give Hendry a big fat F for his offseason.

 

See this is what bothers me. You (sorry im going to pick on you for right now) give Hendry an F for signing, arguably, the best free agent available. 8 year contract-- yes too long. 17 mil a year-- possibly too much. But He is 2 mil a year better than Drew, and easily 200k a year better than Carlos Lee.

 

I giggle at the pessimism. They didnt sign Furcal last year, and paid a huge price for it. Now they are getting every free agent under the sun, and people are having hissies over contract terms. The bottom line is they have a better roster this year then they had last year, and with all the arms in the bullpen, I doubt they are done.

 

Soriano, who will soon be 31, put up an .821 and .808 OPS in the 2 years prior to 2006. Those numbers are barely average for a regular RF. His career OPS is only .835. There is no way in hell I commit $136M for Soriano, especially not for a corner OF spot. In two years' time, and very possibly in zero years' time, that contract will become a millstone around the franchise's neck.

[goonys evil twin]

The problem with this logic is that you are assuming last years talent level at the start of the season was a 66 win team. That simply isnt true. The talent they had last year was AT WORST a 75-78 win team.

I simply see a team that on paper in 2006 was capable of winning 75-85 games. Now with all the spending this offseason, I truely believe the Cubs gained, at least, 10 wins. And if you dont agree with me then I think you are being......PESSIMISTIC!!!

 

 

This roster, as is, is capable of an 85-95 win season.

 

So if you don't believe this roster is capable of 85-95 wins, you are being pessimistic? First off, there is a big difference between 85 and 95 wins. I think the team might be capable of 85 wins, but 95 will take a lot of breaks going their way. I would say it's more like 81-86, the way it's currently constructed.

 

I don't see how you can call such a prediction (a 15-20 game improvement over last year), pessimistic. I think you would have a really hard time finding people outside the Cubs community who thought they were better than that, and by and large, the general population does a better job than Cubs fans in predicting Cubs victory totals.

[Guest]

The problem with this logic is that you are assuming last years talent level at the start of the season was a 66 win team. That simply isnt true. The talent they had last year was AT WORST a 75-78 win team.

I simply see a team that on paper in 2006 was capable of winning 75-85 games. Now with all the spending this offseason, I truely believe the Cubs gained, at least, 10 wins. And if you dont agree with me then I think you are being......PESSIMISTIC!!!

 

 

This roster, as is, is capable of an 85-95 win season.

 

So if you don't believe this roster is capable of 85-95 wins, you are being pessimistic? First off, there is a big difference between 85 and 95 wins. I think the team might be capable of 85 wins, but 95 will take a lot of breaks going their way. I would say it's more like 81-86, the way it's currently constructed.

 

I don't see how you can call such a prediction (a 15-20 game improvement over last year), pessimistic. I think you would have a really hard time finding people outside the Cubs community who thought they were better than that, and by and large, the general population does a better job than Cubs fans in predicting Cubs victory totals.

Going into the 2006 season, the Cubs were picked as often as any other team to win the division by the general media. Of course, that was when people thought Prior, Wood and Miller would all contribute to the team, too.

[goonys evil twin]

Going into the 2006 season, the Cubs were picked as often as any other team to win the division by the general media. Of course, that was when people thought Prior, Wood and Miller would all contribute to the team, too.

 

I have a tough time believing that was the case Tim, 2005, sure, but going into 2006? I don't think so. The feeling I got from the general media was they had already written off the Cubs. A couple guys picked them, but by and large they were thought of as no better than 3rd.

[Wolverineman]

The problem with this logic is that you are assuming last years talent level at the start of the season was a 66 win team. That simply isnt true. The talent they had last year was AT WORST a 75-78 win team.

 

The best way to see my point is look at April's record with Lee. They were above .500. Im not saying they would have stayed that way the whole year, but certainly the team with Lee played like a team that was capable of winning the central. Lee was the conduit to the failure of the team. I simply see a team that on paper in 2006 was capable of winning 75-85 games. Now with all the spending this offseason, I truely believe the Cubs gained, at least, 10 wins. And if you dont agree with me then I think you are being......PESSIMISTIC!!!

 

Why? because going through the entire lineup/bench you can see extreme improvement, thus possible justifying the spending. The outfield is much more powerful, and nothing has decreased its defensive ability. the infield is a wash in my opinion, (I actually prefer walker for this lineup), the pitching staff is deeper and the younger players are more experienced, and I think this is one of the top bullpens in baseball or at least the NL.

 

I'd say that last year's team true talent level was around 72 wins looking back on it. I think the Lee injury cost 3-4, managerial incompetence cost us at least 1-2, and various other injuries may have cost 1-2. The only signing that seems to me to be a big leap forward is the Soriano one, but he's a pretty big risk. If he happens to play like he did last year, he's maybe a 3-5 win improvement over Pierre. Lilly is probably around a 1-2 win improvement over Maddux/Assorted others, and I don't think 2B or 5th Starter are really improved at all. Even giving Marquis/DeRosa the benefit of the doubt, I only see this team around a 78-80 win level. Which as I said before is good enough to make the playoffs if everything goes right, but I don't think it makes it worth spending all this money. So I'm saying they've improved by around 8-10 wins(assuming Piniella doesn't make the stupid moves Dusty did) as well. The difference is you seem to think losing Lee cost us 10-14 wins, which is absolutely ridiculous in my book.

 

I also disagree about the bullpen. It's good but nothing spectacular. IF Wood stays healthy and effective it'll be very good, but I'm not holding my breath on Wood staying healthy or effective. I'd like to see Wuertz get time at set-up or even closer but I don't think it'll happen. He's probably the best RP we have. Eyre and Howry are good #3/#4 guys in the pen. Of course considering the random nature of relief pitcher performance, it's kind of silly to rank bullpens at this point. But unless Wood is healthy and Wuertz gets a lot of time I don't see the 'pen being a major strength. I also don't see it being a weakness.

 

I think what it comes down to is I can't see this team going anywhere if something major happens that is bad. Like a Derrek Lee or Aramis Ramirez missing a month or so. Like Z missing significant time. Great teams are able to withstand those losses. Look at the Mets last year. They lost Pedro for most of the season and almost made the 'Series. The Dodgers had quite a few injuries they battled through. St. Louis missed Pujols & Carpetner for time and rarely had an effective Jim Edmonds. Sure they got lucky that the Central sucked, but they were still able to win 80+ games after losing that much. We lost less and could barely do better than Tampa and Kansas City. Oakland probably had the most injuries in baseball last year and still made the playoffs.

[EastonBlues22]

No. You can't argue from the specific pitcher (Zito) to some other pitcher just b/c he's a FB pitcher. The evidence in that article made no link between FB pitchers and location, just Zito. There are many things that are different between pitchers, not just GB/FB ratio. That article did not isolate the effect. You are making assumptions on what the article said instead of just going with what the article said.

The article shows the effect of location on every pitch in the MLB last year. Essentially, every pitcher in the MLB was rolled into one great composite picture and that's what came out. After the merging, the composite picture is that of a perfectly average MLB pitcher in all respects. The "movement" and "stuff" and "command" and "control" of the "average" MLB pitcher is held constant across all the locations...thus leaving what's left as a picture of what influence location alone has on the batted nature of batted balls for the average MLB pitcher. That is, it does have an important and significant effect.

 

IF you want to assume that what applies strongly to the average MLB pitcher (and even to some lesser extent the extreme FB case study) has absolutely no influence whatsoever on FB pitcher Ted Lilly...then that's your opinion. It's is possible that a FB pitcher with below average control and slightly above average "stuff" might buck the trend completely so that pitch location has no impact on his batted ball type. But that assumption is a far bigger logical leap than the one I'm making: That Lilly is close enough to a league-average MLB pitcher that the information in the article does apply to him.

 

Yeah, it's an AVERAGE. It lumps FB pitchers GB pitchers, and everyone in between together. It tells you next to nothing when you have guys with stuff where location matters and where location doesn't.

Averages are important...the vast majority of MLB pitchers are closer to average in any given area than they are to an extreme. If you take the "average" MLB pitcher profile, the vast majority of pitchers will have more in common with that profile than they have significant differences. The league average GB:FB ratio is 1.20. Zito is much closer to average (0.84 GB:FB last year) than Webb (4.07 GB:FB last year)...and Zito's GB:FB chart reflects that as his is much closer to normal than Webb's...that is, location for him is still important. The down corners (out and in) are the most likely locations to produce GBs for the average MLB pitcher...and Zito has more GBs than FBs in these areas. The average MLB pitcher gets more GBs than FBs as a whole over corners of the plate...so does Zito, as 8 of the 10 zones over the corners reflect more GBs than FBs. These don't seem like coincidences.

 

Likewise Lilly, even though he's also an extreme FB pitcher...he's still much closer to average than someone like Webb, and his graph would likely reflect that fact as well.

 

Then we get two extremes, Zito and Webb. That doesn't prove anything in the argument, other than location is not important depending on stuff. He would have been better taking the top 25 pitchers in GB/FB ratio and the bottom 25 pitchers in GB/FB ratio and making his argument. Using two pitchers doesn't make any claims on the rest of the pitchers in MLB.

You're right...using two pitchers doesn't make any claims on the rest of the pitchers in the MLB. However, the "average pitcher" composite chart sure does. All their inclusion shows is that extreme movement can mitigate the effects of location...however, the vast majority of MLB pitchers don't have tendencies as extreme as someone like Webb. They are much closer to average.

 

And location still is important for Zito, as I mentioned above. If he wants a GB, he pretty much has to hit the corner of the plate...this isn't a trend that runs counter to the average MLB pitcher experience.

 

Oh, and about the Mr. Oxford Engish Dictionary comment. It was in reference to you explaining what "slander" meant. Thanks for being so condescending. It was both mature and added merit to your argument. Tit for tat, my redbird smothering friend.

The word was "slam." That's the second time in this conversation that you've said an outright lie simply because you don't know what a word is. It's not like I'm nitpicking punctuation or spelling. Once you said that you didn't slam Mazzone and Duncan, when you clearly did. And just now you made an incorrect reference to something that I said. Those are the only two times I've corrected you.

 

If you chafe at being corrected (not everyone does), then simply don't make don't make the mistake.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

The problem with this logic is that you are assuming last years talent level at the start of the season was a 66 win team. That simply isnt true. The talent they had last year was AT WORST a 75-78 win team.

I simply see a team that on paper in 2006 was capable of winning 75-85 games. Now with all the spending this offseason, I truely believe the Cubs gained, at least, 10 wins. And if you dont agree with me then I think you are being......PESSIMISTIC!!!

 

 

This roster, as is, is capable of an 85-95 win season.

 

So if you don't believe this roster is capable of 85-95 wins, you are being pessimistic?

 

I would say it's more like 81-86, the way it's currently constructed.

 

I don't see how you can call such a prediction (a 15-20 game improvement over last year), pessimistic.

 

That was not what I was saying and I made that very clear, I believe no matter how you view each individual addition, this team has improved by ten wins. I believe if you do not agree, your reasoning will be pessimistic in reasoning. The question is what the 2006 team was capable of, which by no means has anything to do with pessimism. I believe the 2006 team without injuries but no counting wood or prior was an at worst 75 win team. What you believe the team was capable of is your own opinion.

 

I stated 85 was the lowest win total.

 

Where are you getting 15-20 wins, on the actual 66 win total? As a stated in the begining, I dont believe you can base the possible improvement on results of last year because of injuries. And even it was the case then I would state that if you dont believe this team is a 19 win improvement, you are being pessimistic.

[goonys evil twin]

That was not what I was saying and I made that very clear, I believe no matter how you view each individual addition, this team has improved by ten wins. I believe if you do not agree, your reasoning will be pessimistic in reasoning. The question is what the 2006 team was capable of, which by no means has anything to do with pessimism.

 

That doesn't make any sense. There's no reasonable way to come to the conclusion that they are ten games better than last year's team, if you can't also come to a very specific assessment of what the 2006 was really capable of.

 

What if I said last year's team should have won 85 games, but this team is only 5 games better, so they'll win 90. Under your rules, that's pessimism.

 

Why don't you just stop worrying about labelling other fans as pessimistic, and just take their predictions/assumptions for what they are worth? That is predictions/assumptions of other fans.

 

The Cubs suck and they have sucked for a very long time. To call fans of that team pessimistic because they aren't assuming a great turnaround is unfair and unjustified. If you think they are 10 wins better, good for you. But it's an arbitrary number and an arbitrary definition of pessimism and optimism.

[Wheelimus]

As of now, with this potential roster (if the season started today)

 

1B - Derrek Lee

2B - Mark DeRosa

3B - Aramis Ramirez

SS - Cesar Izturis

LF - Matt Murton

CF - Jacque Jones

RF - Alfonso Soriano

C - Michael Barrett

 

1B/OF - Daryl Ward

2B/SS - Ryan Theriot

OF - Angel Pagan

Utility - Ronny Cedeno

25th man - ?

 

SP - Carlos Zambrano

SP - Rich Hill

SP - Ted Lilly

SP - Jason Marquis

SP - Mark Prior/Wade Miller/young arm

 

Closer - Ryan Dempster

Setup - Kerry Wood

RP - Bob Howry

RP - Scott Eyre

RP - Michael Wuertz

RP - Will Ohman

 

I think we would easily be the favorites to win the division, with Houston losing Clemens and Pettite, the Cardinals likely to lose most of their rotation, etc.

[treebird]

As of now, with this potential roster (if the season started today)

 

1B - Derrek Lee

2B - Mark DeRosa

3B - Aramis Ramirez

SS - Cesar Izturis

LF - Matt Murton

CF - Jacque Jones

RF - Alfonso Soriano

C - Michael Barrett

 

1B/OF - Daryl Ward

2B/SS - Ryan Theriot

OF - Angel Pagan

Utility - Ronny Cedeno

25th man - ?

 

SP - Carlos Zambrano

SP - Rich Hill

SP - Ted Lilly

SP - Jason Marquis

SP - Mark Prior/Wade Miller/young arm

 

Closer - Ryan Dempster

Setup - Kerry Wood

RP - Bob Howry

RP - Scott Eyre

RP - Michael Wuertz

RP - Will Ohman

 

I think we would easily be the favorites to win the division, with Houston losing Clemens and Pettite, the Cardinals likely to lose most of their rotation, etc.

 

even if the cardinals lose most of their rotation, our rotation is still really capable of being zambrano + 4 guys with an era around 5.00.

[CubColtPacer]

As of now, with this potential roster (if the season started today)

 

1B - Derrek Lee

2B - Mark DeRosa

3B - Aramis Ramirez

SS - Cesar Izturis

LF - Matt Murton

CF - Jacque Jones

RF - Alfonso Soriano

C - Michael Barrett

 

1B/OF - Daryl Ward

2B/SS - Ryan Theriot

OF - Angel Pagan

Utility - Ronny Cedeno

25th man - ?

 

SP - Carlos Zambrano

SP - Rich Hill

SP - Ted Lilly

SP - Jason Marquis

SP - Mark Prior/Wade Miller/young arm

 

Closer - Ryan Dempster

Setup - Kerry Wood

RP - Bob Howry

RP - Scott Eyre

RP - Michael Wuertz

RP - Will Ohman

 

I think we would easily be the favorites to win the division, with Houston losing Clemens and Pettite, the Cardinals likely to lose most of their rotation, etc.

 

even if the cardinals lose most of their rotation, our rotation is still really capable of being zambrano + 4 guys with an era around 5.00.

 

The chances of all our rotation being 4 guys with ERA's around 5 is still about the same as having all 4 guys with ERA's under 4. Both could happen, but it is not likely that all of them will have that bad or that good of years at the same time. The team will likely have a couple go 4 or under, and a couple be 4.4 or above, with one likely closer to 5 or worse. It's just hard to tell which one will be which right now.

[danesoz]

The chances of all our rotation being 4 guys with ERA's around 5 is still about the same as having all 4 guys with ERA's under 4. Both could happen, but it is not likely that all of them will have that bad or that good of years at the same time. The team will likely have a couple go 4 or under, and a couple be 4.4 or above, with one likely closer to 5 or worse. It's just hard to tell which one will be which right now.

 

I think that Lilly and hopefully Hill can keep their ERA under 4. Hill in a full season could produce a ERA around 3.5 (or less). and I think Lilly being taken out of the AL East and put in the NL Central can put his ERA a little lower than 4. This is the NL Central we are talking about here guys. :lol:

[goonys evil twin]

The chances of all our rotation being 4 guys with ERA's around 5 is still about the same as having all 4 guys with ERA's under 4. Both could happen, but it is not likely that all of them will have that bad or that good of years at the same time. The team will likely have a couple go 4 or under, and a couple be 4.4 or above, with one likely closer to 5 or worse. It's just hard to tell which one will be which right now.

 

Of all the likely scenarios, the most likely is that more than 5 guys will start for the Cubs next year.

[CubColtPacer]

The chances of all our rotation being 4 guys with ERA's around 5 is still about the same as having all 4 guys with ERA's under 4. Both could happen, but it is not likely that all of them will have that bad or that good of years at the same time. The team will likely have a couple go 4 or under, and a couple be 4.4 or above, with one likely closer to 5 or worse. It's just hard to tell which one will be which right now.

 

Of all the likely scenarios, the most likely is that more than 5 guys will start for the Cubs next year.

 

That's certainly true-but it looks like the Cubs will at least have that option covered next year, as there will be a few pitchers ready to step in if one of the first 5 get injured or falter (barring trades that really clear out some of those arms).

[Handlebar McSkullet]

That was not what I was saying and I made that very clear, I believe no matter how you view each individual addition, this team has improved by ten wins. I believe if you do not agree, your reasoning will be pessimistic in reasoning. The question is what the 2006 team was capable of, which by no means has anything to do with pessimism.

 

 

Why don't you just stop worrying about labelling other fans as pessimistic, and just take their predictions/assumptions for what they are worth? That is predictions/assumptions of other fans.

 

Normally I agree with you but the title of this thread is optimism v. pessimism, if i didnt care I wouldnt write in the thread. If you dont care then dont comment. Its a discussion about the terms and I put my two cents in.

[Wheelimus]

even if the cardinals lose most of their rotation, our rotation is still really capable of being zambrano + 4 guys with an era around 5.00.

 

Disagree. Lets look at each pitcher and what he'll likely produce.

 

Z - Obviously, our ace. Likely to produce better than 2006.

 

Lilly - Way overstating him. He's been consistent, with his ERA never hitting more than 4.5, save 2005 when he only threw 126 innings. 3 of the last 4 years he's put up ERA's in the low 4. Benefiting from the league switch and not facing the Red Sox and Yankees so much, I think he posts an ERA in the high 3's next year.

 

Marquis - Potential disaster, which is why it's good that we have a glut of starters because I don't see Uncle Lou putting up with a 6+ ERA for very long. He will either get back to his '04 and '05 form and put up an (at best) high 3 or (middling) a low 4 or (at worst) mid 4 ERA next season. If he doesn't, then he's likely in '06 disaster form and gets yanked from the rotation.

 

Hill - I just don't see him forgetting how to pitch between now and spring. Mark him down for a high 3 ERA, I do believe. And he may do better

 

Prior - Ah, the variable. I refuse to write him off like others. He's had a lot of injuries but if you forget '06, in the previous year he made 30, 21, and 27 starts. Not perfect, but better than some getting big dollars. He may not be ready on opening day, but I sincerely feel he'll contribute big time this year. If he's healthy, ERA in the low 3's

 

Wade Miller - Showed flashes of his old self in that last 5 inning shutout start. There is still a chance he rebuilds a little more velocity and becomes a solid arm again. Low 4 ERA isn't out of the question.

 

The kids - All of the kids from last season should, in theory, perform better with the experience behind them now. Marmol probably needs to stay in AAA this year barring horror. But Marshall should get to compete for the fifth starter spot. It wasn't until he came back from injury and struggled that his ERA creeped above 5. He showed potential. No reason to think that a 2007 with an ERA in the very low 4's is impossible.

 

So, to me, it's more likely that out of a group of Zambrano, Lilly, Hill, Prior, Marquis, Miller, and Marshall, you'll get three rotation spots under 4, one just slightly over, and one closer to 5, but still under. Good enough, most likely, to take the division.

[goonys evil twin]

Marquis - Potential disaster, which is why it's good that we have a glut of starters because I don't see Uncle Lou putting up with a 6+ ERA for very long. He will either get back to his '04 and '05 form and put up an (at best) high 3 or (middling) a low 4 or (at worst) mid 4 ERA next season. If he doesn't, then he's likely in '06 disaster form and gets yanked from the rotation.

 

While this might be true, I think they would have a pretty long leash on Marquis, enough to allow him to do great damage before being replaced. This is for 2 reasons, guys who sign deals like his get more chances than others, and the whole "Larry will fix him" theory is going to take time anyway. If he's putting up a 5.50 ERA, he'll be out there for most starts for a few months as they try and salvage what they can out of him.

[goonys evil twin]

That was not what I was saying and I made that very clear, I believe no matter how you view each individual addition, this team has improved by ten wins. I believe if you do not agree, your reasoning will be pessimistic in reasoning. The question is what the 2006 team was capable of, which by no means has anything to do with pessimism.

 

 

Why don't you just stop worrying about labelling other fans as pessimistic, and just take their predictions/assumptions for what they are worth? That is predictions/assumptions of other fans.

 

Normally I agree with you but the title of this thread is optimism v. pessimism, if i didnt care I wouldnt write in the thread. If you dont care then dont comment. Its a discussion about the terms and I put my two cents in.

 

Ok, you make a good point. I was under the impression that this thread came about from a split from another thread where this tired topic took hold.

 

That being said, the whole debate is silly, and telling people they are pessimistic if they feel the current roster is no more than 10 games better than the roster on opening day 2006 is absurd. It's virtually the same roster with Lilly replacing Maddux, Marquis replacing Marshall and Soriano replacing Pierre. The only guaranteed improvement is with Soriano. And 10 games is a lot for any one man to make up.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

That was not what I was saying and I made that very clear, I believe no matter how you view each individual addition, this team has improved by ten wins. I believe if you do not agree, your reasoning will be pessimistic in reasoning. The question is what the 2006 team was capable of, which by no means has anything to do with pessimism.

 

 

Why don't you just stop worrying about labelling other fans as pessimistic, and just take their predictions/assumptions for what they are worth? That is predictions/assumptions of other fans.

 

Normally I agree with you but the title of this thread is optimism v. pessimism, if i didnt care I wouldnt write in the thread. If you dont care then dont comment. Its a discussion about the terms and I put my two cents in.

 

Ok, you make a good point. I was under the impression that this thread came about from a split from another thread where this tired topic took hold.

 

That being said, the whole debate is silly, and telling people they are pessimistic if they feel the current roster is no more than 10 games better than the roster on opening day 2006 is absurd. It's virtually the same roster with Lilly replacing Maddux, Marquis replacing Marshall and Soriano replacing Pierre. The only guaranteed improvement is with Soriano. And 10 games is a lot for any one man to make up.

 

Now that I think of it... I totally agree with you if you break it down like that. I think what they do with CF is big, right now I vote for jock to play CF.

[Rob]

Question:

 

If I were to completely reverse course and predict that Hill, Lilly, and Marquis would post sub 4 ERAs over 80 starts between them, but that this would be the year that Z's arm blows up Livan Hernandez style from all the abuse and he posts a high 5 ERA over his 32 starts, would that be optimistic or pessimistic?