BA Picks Cubs 5th in Division (Media Prediction Thread)

[Laura]

BA National League Preview

 

At least the Cubs aren't picked to finish last.

 

1. Milwaukee Brewers

2. St. Louis Cardinals

3. Cincinnati Reds

4. Houston Astros

5. Chicago Cubs

6. Pittsburgh Pirates

 

QUICK TAKE: The Cubs moved backward in the NL Central for the third straight year, so they have a new team president (John McDonough), new manager (Lou Piniella) and $298 million of new free agents. Yet they still have questions about their ability to get on base, their defense and their pitching depth.

 

IN THE SPOTLIGHT: GM Jim Hendry. If his spending spree doesn’t produce results, he may not get another chance to end his club’s 98-year (and counting) championship drought.

[USSoccer]

Yeah, right. We're going to finish 5th...if Aramis and Lee both get hurt and Z's elbow melts.

[Banedon]

How about we make this the "Media Predictions" thread?

 

SI.com has the Cubs 2nd in the division behind the Cards.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/specials/spring_training/2007/previews/index.html

 

1 Cardinals

2 Cubs

3 Brewers

4 Astros

5 Pirates

6 Reds (27)

 

They have the Angels over the Dodgers in the WS.

[98navigator]

I wonder how many wins BA is projecting?

 

BP has the Cubs slotted for second place and 84 wins (the Brewers are projected for 85 wins):

 

1. Brewers

2. Cubs

3. Cardinals

4. Houston

5. Pirates

6. Reds

Edited March 22, 2007 by 98navigator

[Soul]

Predicting this division is difficult. There's no clear front runner. I'm suprised to see us ranked 5th though.

[woodchip2153]

THT also has us second behind the Cardinals.

 

 

5th is a ridiculous prediction. It may happen, but a lot of things would have to go wrong for the Cubs and right for other teams.

[98navigator]

THT also has us second behind the Cardinals.

 

 

5th is a ridiculous prediction. It may happen, but a lot of things would have to go wrong for the Cubs and right for other teams.

 

The Hardball Times isn't completely sold on the Cards winning the division but they gave them the benefit of the doubt in the listing.

 

Our data predict a strong bounce for the Cubs, which is not surprising after an offseason splurge that made Wall Street bonuses seem inconsequential. The Cardinals will be in the mix too with an offense anchored by Pujols who is projected to contribute nearly 7 WAR! It should be close. Both teams are expected to make the postseason albeit one via the wild card.

[oldstyle81]

the people who wrote that are [expletive], we cant move backwards if we finished in last place last year

[David]

the people who wrote that are [expletive], we cant move backwards if we finished in last place last year

 

They're not saying the Cubs are moving backwards this year. They're saying they moved backward in the division in 2004, 2005, and 2006.

[YearofDaCubs]

5th place finish is just ridiculous.

[UMFan83]

5th place isnt that suprising if you are under the belief that the 2-5 teams in the division will be seperated by a handful of games as I do. I think the 2-5 teams will range between 84-77 wins.

[Jehrico]

Am I the only one who thinks BA has gone down in quality of analysis and reporting the last year or two? I thought they were much better a few years ago than what I've seen lately.

[Backtobanks]

BA National League Preview

 

At least the Cubs aren't picked to finish last.

 

1. Milwaukee Brewers

2. St. Louis Cardinals

3. Cincinnati Reds

4. Houston Astros

5. Chicago Cubs

6. Pittsburgh Pirates

 

QUICK TAKE: The Cubs moved backward in the NL Central for the third straight year, so they have a new team president (John McDonough), new manager (Lou Piniella) and $298 million of new free agents. Yet they still have questions about their ability to get on base, their defense and their pitching depth.

 

IN THE SPOTLIGHT: GM Jim Hendry. If his spending spree doesn’t produce results, he may not get another chance to end his club’s 98-year (and counting) championship drought.

 

You can question a lot of things about the 2007 Cubs, but pitching depth is certainly not one of them. To tell the truth, I would think the Cubs have one of the deepest staffs in baseball. Now if you want to argue about the quality of certain pitchers, that's different.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

BA is great for the minors. Their work with the majors, not so much. Most projections I've seen have the Cubs, Cards, and Brewers sharing the top three spots with the rankings depending on whose projections you trust.

[Jehrico]

BA is great for the minors. Their work with the majors, not so much. Most projections I've seen have the Cubs, Cards, and Brewers sharing the top three spots with the rankings depending on whose projections you trust.

Agreed, but is BA as good for the minors today as it was in '03 or '04? They're still good, but I'm not as impressed as I used to be.

[biittner77]

I'm guessing that by pitching depth they mean that the rotation is Zambrano, medicority and question marks. The Cards have shown that productive offense + quality BP+ medicore rotation with legit ace = division champs.

 

If the Cubs get the kind of offensive boost they expect from having Soriano and a healthy Lee they can certainly win the division.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't get the outrage. The Cubs were terrible last year people. They could gain 14 wins this year and still be below .500. You really have to be thinking optimistically to even put them at 85 wins and 2nd place. That's an enormous jump, not unheard of, but spectacularly rare.

 

A lot of people around here are assuming really big improvements, without factoring in much in terms of realistic letdowns. This team is hard to judge. I have them somewhere in the 80's for wins right now and hoping for at least 2nd, and hopefully 1st. But there's no legitimate beef against somebody who has them winning less than 81 and finishing in 4th or 5th.

 

Last year people were outraged at those who thought the team might not be better than the 2005 version. I don't get why it's such a sin to think the Cubs might not make a huge leap this year.

[98navigator]

This team can not be judged based on last season's 96 losses. I keep hearing that the Cubs aren't 20+ wins better than last season. This isn't the same team that played the majority of the games in 2006. That team relied heavily on AAA/AA guys in the starting rotation, had a horrible bench, a revolving door at firstbase, very little power, the lowest walks in the League, etc

[CaliforniaRaisin]

5th place isnt that suprising if you are under the belief that the 2-5 teams in the division will be seperated by a handful of games as I do. I think the 2-5 teams will range between 84-77 wins.

 

Yeah, I hear you.

[goonys evil twin]

This team can not be judged based on last season's 96 losses. I keep hearing that the Cubs aren't 20+ wins better than last season. This isn't the same team that played the majority of the games in 2006. That team relied heavily on AAA/AA guys in the starting rotation, had a horrible bench, a revolving door at firstbase, very little power, the lowest walks in the League, etc

 

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that.

 

You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game. People are assuming 100% health for all but Prior and Wood and no major setbacks. That's foolish. This team could probably win anywhere from 75-85 wins. I'm looking at the upper part of that range. But it's hardly unfair to think more about the lower end.

[b_wiggy_66]

I don't get the outrage. The Cubs were terrible last year people. They could gain 14 wins this year and still be below .500. You really have to be thinking optimistically to even put them at 85 wins and 2nd place. That's an enormous jump, not unheard of, but spectacularly rare.

 

A lot of people around here are assuming really big improvements, without factoring in much in terms of realistic letdowns. This team is hard to judge. I have them somewhere in the 80's for wins right now and hoping for at least 2nd, and hopefully 1st. But there's no legitimate beef against somebody who has them winning less than 81 and finishing in 4th or 5th.

 

Last year people were outraged at those who thought the team might not be better than the 2005 version. I don't get why it's such a sin to think the Cubs might not make a huge leap this year.

 

Last year we didn't have Soriano and D-Lee(our best all-around hitter) was out almost all year. We had a rotation with guys like Les Walrond, Glendon Rusch and Ryan O'Malley starting games. We had Guzman in there for almost ten starts and he didn't get a single win. Barrett was out the last month or so as well. Not to mention we had Dustbrain as our manager.

 

This year every aspect of our team is greatly improved. Starting pitching, Lineup, Defense (Yes I believe our defense is not that bad), and our bench. Our bullpen was solid last year and still is.

[soapy]

I don't get the outrage. The Cubs were terrible last year people. They could gain 14 wins this year and still be below .500. You really have to be thinking optimistically to even put them at 85 wins and 2nd place. That's an enormous jump, not unheard of, but spectacularly rare.

 

Agreed. What sure things are there on this team aside from Lee, Ramirez and Zambrano? There are a lot of question marks, IMO. Soriano could regress to his 2004-2005 numbers, DeRosa could very easily (some might even argue that it's likely) regress a great deal from 2006. Izturis is a good bet to be bad, injured or both. Jones' numbers were up from his previous two years in 2006 and could easily come back down. Marquis was obscenely bad last year and Lilly isn't exactly a great fit (pitching style wise) for the NL Central. Prior is a huge question mark and who the hell knows what Miller will provide.

 

Certainly they should be better than last year and there are some positives to consider (Guzman, Murton, better bench), but the Cubs are a pretty far cry from a lock for the playoffs.

Edited March 22, 2007 by soapy

[VanceJergins]

I don't get the outrage. The Cubs were terrible last year people. They could gain 14 wins this year and still be below .500. You really have to be thinking optimistically to even put them at 85 wins and 2nd place. That's an enormous jump, not unheard of, but spectacularly rare.

 

A lot of people around here are assuming really big improvements, without factoring in much in terms of realistic letdowns. This team is hard to judge. I have them somewhere in the 80's for wins right now and hoping for at least 2nd, and hopefully 1st. But there's no legitimate beef against somebody who has them winning less than 81 and finishing in 4th or 5th.

 

Last year people were outraged at those who thought the team might not be better than the 2005 version. I don't get why it's such a sin to think the Cubs might not make a huge leap this year.

 

I think people are also factoring in that the Cards and Astros have lost some key parts. The Cardinals have 1 ace, 4 question marks, and a sharply declining Edmonds. The only team other than the Cubs that should be improved is the Brewers.

 

The Cubs rotation should be the biggest improvement. Last year we started with Zambrano, Rusch, Maddux, Marshall, Williams, compared to Zambrano, Lilly, Marquis, Hill, Miller/Guzman this year. There's also a better chance of Prior coming back this season. Last year's rotation was disgusting while this year's could be top 5 in the NL

 

The bench is vastly improved, the bullpen should be improved, the coaching is vastly improved, and you have Soriano and Lee, and Izturis will sadly probably be a significant improvement over Cedeno last year.

 

Barring huge injuries and crazy flukes, I think its pretty crazy to pick the Cubs to finish 5th.

[Jehrico]

This team can not be judged based on last season's 96 losses. I keep hearing that the Cubs aren't 20+ wins better than last season. This isn't the same team that played the majority of the games in 2006. That team relied heavily on AAA/AA guys in the starting rotation, had a horrible bench, a revolving door at firstbase, very little power, the lowest walks in the League, etc

 

[slight exaggeration]Don't forget worst manager in the history of baseball not named Don Baylor.[/slight exaggeration]

[Danny82]

This team can not be judged based on last season's 96 losses. I keep hearing that the Cubs aren't 20+ wins better than last season. This isn't the same team that played the majority of the games in 2006. That team relied heavily on AAA/AA guys in the starting rotation, had a horrible bench, a revolving door at firstbase, very little power, the lowest walks in the League, etc

 

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that.

 

You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game.

 

I think you are exhibiting blind pessimism if you can't admit that the Cubs had more than what would be considered an "average" amount of bad breaks last year and had to rely (more than nearly every other team) on not ready minor league players to fill in for quite a few holes--namely in the rotation.