Last Years Cardinals or This Years Cubs

[kente777]

Talentwise, I think the Cubs have more talent. Of course, I thought SD, NYM, and Det had more talent than STL last year too.

 

I don't see the Cubs getting the same starting pitching the Cards had in the posteseason last year.

 

Carpenter, Suppan, Weaver were outstanding and Reyes did well in game 1 of the WS.

 

They pitched over their heads last year and the Cubs would have to do likewise, putting odds on that are smaller rather than expected.

 

If we do make it, I think even with the NL as weak as it is there's a real solid chance we get swept right out without much of a thought.

 

All it took was a sweep by the Marlins to bring the Soul we all know back. :)

 

LOL.

 

I told you, they crushed the confidence right out of me. I'm still unable to believe we just got swept by those guys.

 

What worries me the most is whether this team can win when they have to. From a standings perspective going into the Marlins series, the Cubs had the have the attitude of winning 2 out of 3. As it turns out, it wasn't must win because of the Brewers losses. Nevertheless, the Cubs couldn't win when it mattered.

 

That's what worries me about the Reds series, especially since the starting pitching will be much better than the Marlins.

 

And then IF we make the playoffs, we're most likely going out West for the 1st round where we historically don't play very well.

[Exile on Waveland]

Being fiscally responsible -- which the Cubs aren't -- has absolutely nothing to do with winning in the playoffs or if last year's Cardinals or this year's Cubs are better.

[CubinNY]

Being fiscally responsible -- which the Cubs aren't -- has absolutely nothing to do with winning in the playoffs or if last year's Cardinals or this year's Cubs are better.

No one said it did. But I say they are not putt together well. And they aren't.

 

What I'm refuting is the idea that the 2007 Cubs are "significantly" better than the 2006 Cardinals. They aren't.

[Soul]

Talentwise, I think the Cubs have more talent. Of course, I thought SD, NYM, and Det had more talent than STL last year too.

 

I don't see the Cubs getting the same starting pitching the Cards had in the posteseason last year.

 

Carpenter, Suppan, Weaver were outstanding and Reyes did well in game 1 of the WS.

 

They pitched over their heads last year and the Cubs would have to do likewise, putting odds on that are smaller rather than expected.

 

If we do make it, I think even with the NL as weak as it is there's a real solid chance we get swept right out without much of a thought.

 

All it took was a sweep by the Marlins to bring the Soul we all know back. :)

 

LOL.

 

I told you, they crushed the confidence right out of me. I'm still unable to believe we just got swept by those guys.

 

What worries me the most is whether this team can win when they have to. From a standings perspective going into the Marlins series, the Cubs had the have the attitude of winning 2 out of 3. As it turns out, it wasn't must win because of the Brewers losses. Nevertheless, the Cubs couldn't win when it mattered.

 

That's what worries me about the Reds series, especially since the starting pitching will be much better than the Marlins.

 

And then IF we make the playoffs, we're most likely going out West for the 1st round where we historically don't play very well.

 

Exactly. They "needed" to win in Florida, and just simply could not.

 

Yes, I know they didn't actually NEED it, but at the time it was thought that those were critical games -- and also I don't think we can minimize the impact of now not being able to rest anyone for the Cincy series.

 

Basically needed 'em, and couldn't get 'em. That tells me a lot about this team, and it's not good.

[CubColtPacer]

The 2007 Cubs are better than the 2006 Cardinals by a fairly wide margin. However, whether that will translate into getting anywhere in the playoffs is another story.

I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that except for blind homerism.

 

The 2007 Cubs are as mediocre as the 2006 Cardinals. I also believe they are a worse put together team.

 

Why?

Because they are? Last year the Cardinals won 83 games. The best the Cubs can do is win 87. There is not a whole lot of difference there.

 

In 2006 the Cardinals fifth in RS/game in the NL and 8th in pitching. In 2007 the Cubs are 8th in RS/game and 2nd in pitching. There's not a whole lot of difference there.

 

Now, on being put together worse. The Cubs spent a lot of money this offseason and at best they will have 4 more wins to show for it.

 

You still haven't explained why the 2006 Cardinals were a better put together team then this year Cubs?

Well they had a CFer for one. They had a SS who got on base. They had the best player in baseball at first. They had a catcher who shut down the running game and hit. Aramis and Rolen are about even. But most importantly,

 

THEY SPENT $88 M DOLLARS TO DO SO. ABOUT $40 M LESS THAN THE CUBS THIS YEAR.

 

Or to put it another way the Cards spent 1 M/win. The Cubs have spend 1.45 M/win

 

The Cardinals payroll was 88.89 million last year. The Cubs payroll is 99.67 million this year. That's hardly a difference of 40 million.

[CubinNY]

The 2007 Cubs are better than the 2006 Cardinals by a fairly wide margin. However, whether that will translate into getting anywhere in the playoffs is another story.

I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that except for blind homerism.

 

The 2007 Cubs are as mediocre as the 2006 Cardinals. I also believe they are a worse put together team.

 

Why?

Because they are? Last year the Cardinals won 83 games. The best the Cubs can do is win 87. There is not a whole lot of difference there.

 

In 2006 the Cardinals fifth in RS/game in the NL and 8th in pitching. In 2007 the Cubs are 8th in RS/game and 2nd in pitching. There's not a whole lot of difference there.

 

Now, on being put together worse. The Cubs spent a lot of money this offseason and at best they will have 4 more wins to show for it.

 

You still haven't explained why the 2006 Cardinals were a better put together team then this year Cubs?

Well they had a CFer for one. They had a SS who got on base. They had the best player in baseball at first. They had a catcher who shut down the running game and hit. Aramis and Rolen are about even. But most importantly,

 

THEY SPENT $88 M DOLLARS TO DO SO. ABOUT $40 M LESS THAN THE CUBS THIS YEAR.

 

Or to put it another way the Cards spent 1 M/win. The Cubs have spend 1.45 M/win

 

The Cardinals payroll was 88.89 million last year. The Cubs payroll is 99.67 million this year. That's hardly a difference of 40 million.

The quote I found was 120 million, well 118 million.

 

http://www.cubsnet.com/node/790

[C.C.]

The 2007 Cubs are better than the 2006 Cardinals by a fairly wide margin. However, whether that will translate into getting anywhere in the playoffs is another story.

I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that except for blind homerism.

 

The 2007 Cubs are as mediocre as the 2006 Cardinals. I also believe they are a worse put together team.

 

Why?

Because they are? Last year the Cardinals won 83 games. The best the Cubs can do is win 87. There is not a whole lot of difference there.

 

In 2006 the Cardinals fifth in RS/game in the NL and 8th in pitching. In 2007 the Cubs are 8th in RS/game and 2nd in pitching. There's not a whole lot of difference there.

 

Now, on being put together worse. The Cubs spent a lot of money this offseason and at best they will have 4 more wins to show for it.

 

You still haven't explained why the 2006 Cardinals were a better put together team then this year Cubs?

Well they had a CFer for one. They had a SS who got on base. They had the best player in baseball at first. They had a catcher who shut down the running game and hit. Aramis and Rolen are about even. But most importantly,

 

THEY SPENT $88 M DOLLARS TO DO SO. ABOUT $40 M LESS THAN THE CUBS THIS YEAR.

 

Or to put it another way the Cards spent 1 M/win. The Cubs have spend 1.45 M/win

 

The Cardinals payroll was 88.89 million last year. The Cubs payroll is 99.67 million this year. That's hardly a difference of 40 million.

The quote I found was 120 million, well 118 million.

 

http://www.cubsnet.com/node/790

 

That quote is wrong. Hell, the W.Sox payroll is more then the Cubs this year.

[CubinNY]

The 2007 Cubs are better than the 2006 Cardinals by a fairly wide margin. However, whether that will translate into getting anywhere in the playoffs is another story.

I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that except for blind homerism.

 

The 2007 Cubs are as mediocre as the 2006 Cardinals. I also believe they are a worse put together team.

 

Why?

Because they are? Last year the Cardinals won 83 games. The best the Cubs can do is win 87. There is not a whole lot of difference there.

 

In 2006 the Cardinals fifth in RS/game in the NL and 8th in pitching. In 2007 the Cubs are 8th in RS/game and 2nd in pitching. There's not a whole lot of difference there.

 

Now, on being put together worse. The Cubs spent a lot of money this offseason and at best they will have 4 more wins to show for it.

 

You still haven't explained why the 2006 Cardinals were a better put together team then this year Cubs?

Well they had a CFer for one. They had a SS who got on base. They had the best player in baseball at first. They had a catcher who shut down the running game and hit. Aramis and Rolen are about even. But most importantly,

 

THEY SPENT $88 M DOLLARS TO DO SO. ABOUT $40 M LESS THAN THE CUBS THIS YEAR.

 

Or to put it another way the Cards spent 1 M/win. The Cubs have spend 1.45 M/win

 

The Cardinals payroll was 88.89 million last year. The Cubs payroll is 99.67 million this year. That's hardly a difference of 40 million.

The quote I found was 120 million, well 118 million.

 

http://www.cubsnet.com/node/790

 

That quote is wrong. Hell, the W.Sox payroll is more then the Cubs this year.

Whatever, it's a lot more.

 

I don't know where to find accurate information but that was the most up-to-date I could find 8/25/07.

[Backtobanks]

There is no way to predict what will happen in the playoffs and WS. At this point, it's just a matter of who gets 1 or 2 players hot for a few weeks. What everyone is argueing about is which team is better "on paper". Players like Zambrano, Lilly, Hill, DLee, Soriano, and Ramirez could totally dominate for a few weeks or totally suck. The same could be said about any other playoff team's players.

[CubColtPacer]

The 2007 Cubs are better than the 2006 Cardinals by a fairly wide margin. However, whether that will translate into getting anywhere in the playoffs is another story.

I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that except for blind homerism.

 

The 2007 Cubs are as mediocre as the 2006 Cardinals. I also believe they are a worse put together team.

 

Why?

Because they are? Last year the Cardinals won 83 games. The best the Cubs can do is win 87. There is not a whole lot of difference there.

 

In 2006 the Cardinals fifth in RS/game in the NL and 8th in pitching. In 2007 the Cubs are 8th in RS/game and 2nd in pitching. There's not a whole lot of difference there.

 

Now, on being put together worse. The Cubs spent a lot of money this offseason and at best they will have 4 more wins to show for it.

 

You still haven't explained why the 2006 Cardinals were a better put together team then this year Cubs?

Well they had a CFer for one. They had a SS who got on base. They had the best player in baseball at first. They had a catcher who shut down the running game and hit. Aramis and Rolen are about even. But most importantly,

 

THEY SPENT $88 M DOLLARS TO DO SO. ABOUT $40 M LESS THAN THE CUBS THIS YEAR.

 

Or to put it another way the Cards spent 1 M/win. The Cubs have spend 1.45 M/win

 

The Cardinals payroll was 88.89 million last year. The Cubs payroll is 99.67 million this year. That's hardly a difference of 40 million.

The quote I found was 120 million, well 118 million.

 

http://www.cubsnet.com/node/790

 

That is very inaccurate in places. First, look at Kendall's line. That site has him listed as the Cubs paying him 7.5 million when the Cubs are actually paying 900k. Although the site does have it in the notes that the 7.5 is incorrect for what the Cubs are actually paying.

 

Also, that site is adding all the contracts of people on the 40 man, not just the 25 man. The Cardinals figure of 88.89 million was only for the 25 man roster.

 

Here are the payrolls for the teams in April. The Cubs haven't changed much in payroll since then. They saved about a million on Barrett, and then spent about that much on Kendall. They saved some on Izturis, and spent that on Trachsel.

 

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2007

[soccer10k]

ONe difference is that STL was hurt the majority of the year last year...at times losing Rolen, Edmonds, Pujols, Molina, Eckstein and Encarnacion for large stretches....I hate to admit this, but when they got to the playoffs, it really was the first time they had their full team healthy and together.

 

The Cubs had Ramirez and Soriano out for long stretches and they aren't completely healthy now. Howry and Eyre sucked in the beginning of the year (Eyre for about half the year) but since then they've been pitching great. Dempster missed a month. Wood didn't come back until August. I realize the pitchers don't affect the team as much as the position starters since they don't play as much but it's not like the Cubs have been injury free this year.

[Fro]

Considering how many 1-run games we lost early in the year, the margin between this team being the best in the NL (let's say 91 wins) and a "medicore" 85 wins or so is pretty narrow.

 

If you make our record in 1-run games a mere .500 in the first 2 months of the season, you're right up there at 90 wins.

 

If they won those 1-run games then at a 66% clip like they have the rest of the year we'd have home field advantage already clinched for the NL.

[CubinNY]

Considering how many 1-run games we lost early in the year, the margin between this team being the best in the NL (let's say 91 wins) and a "medicore" 85 wins or so is pretty narrow.

 

If you make our record in 1-run games a mere .500 in the first 2 months of the season, you're right up there at 90 wins.

 

If they won those 1-run games then at a 66% clip like they have the rest of the year we'd have home field advantage already clinched for the NL.

If I was good looking I'd be sleeping with a model.