Dayn Perry: Cubs only have a decent shot to win NL Central

[CP_414]

 

You know what else is a fine premise for an article: despite being World Series champs, the Cardinals are not clear favorites in the division. Or despite spending $100 Million on Carlos Lee, the Astros are not clear favorites. Or despite signing the NLCS MVP, and the most expensive free agent in team history the Brewers are not clear favorites. Let's see some of those articles.

 

Those are all fine premises for articles, but they arent what this article is about. However, the fact that this article states that there are no favorites for the NL central, implies all of those things you've said above. I guess some people just blindly hate certain journalists or anyone who says anything discouraging about the cubs. Thats your perogative, but the fact that you're argument against the article does not actually mention anything in the article, says a lot.

 

I didn't see the need in sitting here rehashing line for line what has already been said. I commented that his contention that we need to be healthy is about as obvious as it gets and is true for every team in the league.

 

Why does Wood have to be the closer? If Dempster plays like he did in 05, we are fine at closer. What impact does Zambrano's 08 contract have on his 07 season? None. Mark Prior needs to be healthy, you think? Soriano will bat leadoff and we can absolutly win with him there. Wood is "warming to the idea of pitching in relief"? He signed a contract KNOWING he will only pitch in relief when he could have gone elsewhere for a chance to start. He has incentives for games finished, but none for games started, I think he is beyond "warming up to the idea." I have not seen anything from the Cubs implying Floyd took Murton's starting job.

 

This is weak journalism. He makes a bunch of obvious statements that could be done for any team and then gets some facts wrong. You can call it blind hate or whatever you want, a 2nd grader could write a better and more informative column.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Ronnie Woo Woo

[XZero771679666304]

 

You know what else is a fine premise for an article: despite being World Series champs, the Cardinals are not clear favorites in the division. Or despite spending $100 Million on Carlos Lee, the Astros are not clear favorites. Or despite signing the NLCS MVP, and the most expensive free agent in team history the Brewers are not clear favorites. Let's see some of those articles.

 

Those are all fine premises for articles, but they arent what this article is about. However, the fact that this article states that there are no favorites for the NL central, implies all of those things you've said above. I guess some people just blindly hate certain journalists or anyone who says anything discouraging about the cubs. Thats your perogative, but the fact that you're argument against the article does not actually mention anything in the article, says a lot.

 

I think the point is that Perry writes a disproportionate number of articles dissecting the Cubs. He is an admitted Cardinal fan, and that skews things a bit. If you check Fox Sports' MLB page regularly, you will see what I am talking about.

 

What he says in the article is fine. The fact that he is always the one on that staff that regularly writes regarding the Central is not. This article is right on the heels of another criticizing the Cubs for the Samardzija signing. Add to that he always makes sure to besmirch the Cubs whenever the opportunity presents itself, and its hard to read his stuff without getting defensive.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I've pretty much stopped reading Perry. He doesn't have any insight that I consider fresh or interesting, he doesn't have any sources which make his information new, and he isn't able to write without allowing his biases to influence what he writes, so there's little reason to waste my time with him.

[nilodnayr]

1) The Cubs tanked most of the end of the season in order to do their more valuable thing of figuring out who could contribute in 2007.

 

That would be a great argument if it was true. In Sept the team had a .414 winning percentage...better than their season total of .407. Who did we play other than Theriot, who was awesome?

 

Well, it extends all the way back to the trading of Maddux and Walker-when most people talk about last years team, they talk about those two being on it-the team could have been a couple games better with those two. Lee would have come back and stayed if they were in the race. Z was held out one more start then he normally would have when he hurt his back. Aramis sat a couple more days then he normally would. There were a few more things with pitchers, but the biggest things were the trading of Maddux and Lee coming back late, and then leaving early. This is a team who had Henry Blanco playing first base for multiple games-that doesn't strike me as a team trying to win.

 

Their winning percentage after Maddux got traded was .404. Right inline with their season total. Whether they were trying to win or not, they still ended up being just as good in Aug and Sept as they were the rest of the year.

[CubColtPacer]

1) The Cubs tanked most of the end of the season in order to do their more valuable thing of figuring out who could contribute in 2007.

 

That would be a great argument if it was true. In Sept the team had a .414 winning percentage...better than their season total of .407. Who did we play other than Theriot, who was awesome?

 

Well, it extends all the way back to the trading of Maddux and Walker-when most people talk about last years team, they talk about those two being on it-the team could have been a couple games better with those two. Lee would have come back and stayed if they were in the race. Z was held out one more start then he normally would have when he hurt his back. Aramis sat a couple more days then he normally would. There were a few more things with pitchers, but the biggest things were the trading of Maddux and Lee coming back late, and then leaving early. This is a team who had Henry Blanco playing first base for multiple games-that doesn't strike me as a team trying to win.

 

Their winning percentage after Maddux got traded was .404. Right inline with their season total. Whether they were trying to win or not, they still ended up being just as good in Aug and Sept as they were the rest of the year.

 

True-but the team was different by July than it had been in May and June. The team was just starting to play better in July when the pitching staff turned into Z and the 4 rookies in August (admittedly, Hill was amazing, which helped). The team had a 2 month slump where they were one of the worst teams to ever take the field-it's not like they were a consistent .404 the entire year.

[XZero771679666304]

1) The Cubs tanked most of the end of the season in order to do their more valuable thing of figuring out who could contribute in 2007.

 

That would be a great argument if it was true. In Sept the team had a .414 winning percentage...better than their season total of .407. Who did we play other than Theriot, who was awesome?

 

Well, it extends all the way back to the trading of Maddux and Walker-when most people talk about last years team, they talk about those two being on it-the team could have been a couple games better with those two. Lee would have come back and stayed if they were in the race. Z was held out one more start then he normally would have when he hurt his back. Aramis sat a couple more days then he normally would. There were a few more things with pitchers, but the biggest things were the trading of Maddux and Lee coming back late, and then leaving early. This is a team who had Henry Blanco playing first base for multiple games-that doesn't strike me as a team trying to win.

 

Their winning percentage after Maddux got traded was .404. Right inline with their season total. Whether they were trying to win or not, they still ended up being just as good in Aug and Sept as they were the rest of the year.

 

The winning percentage was the same in the second half because players like Ramirez, Hill, Theriot, Jones and Murton were much stronger post-ASB. It was clear the team had phoned it in as far as winning goes for most of the second half.

[nilodnayr]

 

You know what else is a fine premise for an article: despite being World Series champs, the Cardinals are not clear favorites in the division. Or despite spending $100 Million on Carlos Lee, the Astros are not clear favorites. Or despite signing the NLCS MVP, and the most expensive free agent in team history the Brewers are not clear favorites. Let's see some of those articles.

 

Those are all fine premises for articles, but they arent what this article is about. However, the fact that this article states that there are no favorites for the NL central, implies all of those things you've said above. I guess some people just blindly hate certain journalists or anyone who says anything discouraging about the cubs. Thats your perogative, but the fact that you're argument against the article does not actually mention anything in the article, says a lot.

 

I didn't see the need in sitting here rehashing line for line what has already been said. I commented that his contention that we need to be healthy is about as obvious as it gets and is true for every team in the league.

 

Why does Wood have to be the closer? If Dempster plays like he did in 05, we are fine at closer. What impact does Zambrano's 08 contract have on his 07 season? None. Mark Prior needs to be healthy, you think? Soriano will bat leadoff and we can absolutly win with him there. Wood is "warming to the idea of pitching in relief"? He signed a contract KNOWING he will only pitch in relief when he could have gone elsewhere for a chance to start. He has incentives for games finished, but none for games started, I think he is beyond "warming up to the idea." I have not seen anything from the Cubs implying Floyd took Murton's starting job.

 

This is weak journalism. He makes a bunch of obvious statements that could be done for any team and then gets some facts wrong. You can call it blind hate or whatever you want, a 2nd grader could write a better and more informative column.

 

Yes, any team in any sport nees to be healthy. The point is, that the cubs have more players (and more important players) that were injured last year/we are not confident they are healthy this year. Its not news or anything, but if you are reading an article from a journalist (other than Bruce, of course) and are expecting anything really new and insightful, then you have to be kidding yourself.

 

Wood doesnt have to be the closer, but Dempster pitched about as well as he did in 2005, last year and it didn't work out too well for him (a convo that has already ocurred in a different thread). I think his point is that Z doesnt need the extra distraction during the season. I don't necessarily agree with taht point, but a second theme of his article is that Hendry has not done a good job of focusing on the future this offseason. Not locking up Z is a good point in that argument. Soriano is much better suited to hit in the middle of the order, not leadoff. We all know this. We CAN win with him at leadoff, but its not going to help as much as he could. Everything I've read from Wood is that he sees pitching in relief in 07 as a necessary step to proving he is healthy enough to be a starter in 08. The contract that Floyd signed could be assumed as proof that if Floyd is healthy he will get significant time. Like I said, I wouldnt assume either way.

[CP_414]

 

You know what else is a fine premise for an article: despite being World Series champs, the Cardinals are not clear favorites in the division. Or despite spending $100 Million on Carlos Lee, the Astros are not clear favorites. Or despite signing the NLCS MVP, and the most expensive free agent in team history the Brewers are not clear favorites. Let's see some of those articles.

 

Those are all fine premises for articles, but they arent what this article is about. However, the fact that this article states that there are no favorites for the NL central, implies all of those things you've said above. I guess some people just blindly hate certain journalists or anyone who says anything discouraging about the cubs. Thats your perogative, but the fact that you're argument against the article does not actually mention anything in the article, says a lot.

 

I didn't see the need in sitting here rehashing line for line what has already been said. I commented that his contention that we need to be healthy is about as obvious as it gets and is true for every team in the league.

 

Why does Wood have to be the closer? If Dempster plays like he did in 05, we are fine at closer. What impact does Zambrano's 08 contract have on his 07 season? None. Mark Prior needs to be healthy, you think? Soriano will bat leadoff and we can absolutly win with him there. Wood is "warming to the idea of pitching in relief"? He signed a contract KNOWING he will only pitch in relief when he could have gone elsewhere for a chance to start. He has incentives for games finished, but none for games started, I think he is beyond "warming up to the idea." I have not seen anything from the Cubs implying Floyd took Murton's starting job.

 

This is weak journalism. He makes a bunch of obvious statements that could be done for any team and then gets some facts wrong. You can call it blind hate or whatever you want, a 2nd grader could write a better and more informative column.

 

Yes, any team in any sport nees to be healthy. The point is, that the cubs have more players (and more important players) that were injured last year/we are not confident they are healthy this year. Its not news or anything, but if you are reading an article from a journalist (other than Bruce, of course) and are expecting anything really new and insightful, then you have to be kidding yourself.

 

Wood doesnt have to be the closer, but Dempster pitched about as well as he did in 2005, last year and it didn't work out too well for him (a convo that has already ocurred in a different thread). I think his point is that Z doesnt need the extra distraction during the season. I don't necessarily agree with taht point, but a second theme of his article is that Hendry has not done a good job of focusing on the future this offseason. Not locking up Z is a good point in that argument. Soriano is much better suited to hit in the middle of the order, not leadoff. We all know this. We CAN win with him at leadoff, but its not going to help as much as he could. Everything I've read from Wood is that he sees pitching in relief in 07 as a necessary step to proving he is healthy enough to be a starter in 08. The contract that Floyd signed could be assumed as proof that if Floyd is healthy he will get significant time. Like I said, I wouldnt assume either way.

 

So you are agreeing his point about being healthy was obvious and true of any team. You agree Z's contract doesn't impact his 2007 season. You agree he is wrong to assume Floyd has LF. You agree Wood has already accepted a bullpen roll for 2007. You agree we can win with Soriano hitting leadoff. You agree with all these points, disagreesing with the author of the article, yet you STILL defend the article?

[nilodnayr]

 

So you are agreeing his point about being healthy was obvious and true of any team. You agree Z's contract doesn't impact his 2007 season. You agree he is wrong to assume Floyd has LF. You agree Wood has already accepted a bullpen roll for 2007. You agree we can win with Soriano hitting leadoff. You agree with all these points, disagreesing with the author of the article, yet you STILL defend the article?

 

Health is a need of any team. However, moreso on this team than most others given the recent and current health issues. I agree with him here.

 

Like I said, I disagree that if Z's contract is looming during the season it will not affect his performance. But, it is a huge concern for the future of the team, which is another point in the article. I partially agree with him here.

 

I believe it is wrong to assume Floyd will be starting. I also believe it is wrong to assume Murton will be starting. I disagree with him here.

 

Wood will be in the bullpen for 2007, but his comments show that he feels it is necessary to do so, so he can become a starter. I dont think its going to be a problem. I disagree with him here.

 

We can win with Soriano at leadoff, Perry acknowledges that as well, but it would not be the optimal way to use him. I agree with him here.

 

While I may not agree completely with every little point he makes, I completely agree with the overall theme of the article, the cubs spent a lot of money this offseason, did not plan well for the future, and still are not clear favorites to win the division.

[DiamondMind]

Last season the Cubs finished in last place and 17.5 games out of first place, so there's much ground to make up. If you look at the team's runs scored and runs allowed, you find that the Cubs should've finished 70-92 instead of their actual record of 66-96. The upshot is that they weren't quite as bad as you might think. But have they done enough to make up, say, 15 games in the standings?

 

I hate hate hate hate hate hate this argument.

 

I lurk a lot and usually disagree with what you post, TT, but even I have to admit that argument holds no merit. Does Dayn Perry have some dirty pictures of Rupert Murdoch?

[CP_414]

 

So you are agreeing his point about being healthy was obvious and true of any team. You agree Z's contract doesn't impact his 2007 season. You agree he is wrong to assume Floyd has LF. You agree Wood has already accepted a bullpen roll for 2007. You agree we can win with Soriano hitting leadoff. You agree with all these points, disagreesing with the author of the article, yet you STILL defend the article?

 

Health is a need of any team. However, moreso on this team than most others given the recent and current health issues. I agree with him here.

 

Like I said, I disagree that if Z's contract is looming during the season it will not affect his performance. But, it is a huge concern for the future of the team, which is another point in the article. I partially agree with him here.

 

I believe it is wrong to assume Floyd will be starting. I also believe it is wrong to assume Murton will be starting. I disagree with him here.

 

Wood will be in the bullpen for 2007, but his comments show that he feels it is necessary to do so, so he can become a starter. I dont think its going to be a problem. I disagree with him here.

 

We can win with Soriano at leadoff, Perry acknowledges that as well, but it would not be the optimal way to use him. I agree with him here.

 

While I may not agree completely with every little point he makes, I completely agree with the overall theme of the article, the cubs spent a lot of money this offseason, did not plan well for the future, and still are not clear favorites to win the division.

 

To each his own. If I disagreed with a canidate that often, I wouldn't vote for him, and if I disagreed with an article that often, I wouldn't defend it.

[Lefty]

Who cares what other people think? It is a waste of energy. If we win 90, great. If we win 75, give him his props.