Why are people in such a hurry to get Theriot out of town?

[Guest]

 

Wait, so you think we need to improve our starting pitching because of the NLDS? Only 3 starters started games in the NLDS. Which of Z, Lilly, and Hill is it that we should rush to replace? And who, pray tell, in the world are we going to acquire that's an improvement on those 3 this season? Seriously. I thought you were arguing that we replace Marquis with someone less likely to suck. But it seems like you're arguing that Z, Lilly and/or Hill should be shown the door. In which case, I'm not sure we have the assets to even begin to fix our problems.

 

You don't think we could use another quality starter? I didn't say anything about getting rid of anyone, and I don't base that on the NLDS exclusively. We lost because we didn't hit.

 

If you get the opportunity to add another quality starter, sure, go for it. But the first, second and third thing they do is improve the offense. It is, by far, the most glaring need. If they have money to spend, and spend it on pitching, they would not be doing a good job.

I'm all for getting the best players they can relative to the current makeup of the team, whether it is pitching or hitting. That's likely to be on offense for the simple fact that it has bigger holes. But if it came in the form of a pitcher, I wouldn't complain.

[Tracer Bullet]

 

Wait, so you think we need to improve our starting pitching because of the NLDS? Only 3 starters started games in the NLDS. Which of Z, Lilly, and Hill is it that we should rush to replace? And who, pray tell, in the world are we going to acquire that's an improvement on those 3 this season? Seriously. I thought you were arguing that we replace Marquis with someone less likely to suck. But it seems like you're arguing that Z, Lilly and/or Hill should be shown the door. In which case, I'm not sure we have the assets to even begin to fix our problems.

 

You don't think we could use another quality starter? I didn't say anything about getting rid of anyone, and I don't base that on the NLDS exclusively. We lost because we didn't hit.

 

You're not serious, are you? You realize that the posts you wrote, like a page ago, are still visible to others, right?

 

What's quite clear from your below statement is that you think, based on the NLDS, that we need to improve our starting pitching. In baseball, to "improve" a position in the off season almost exclusively means to replace that player(s) with another, different player. If you meant that our starters needed to pitch better, that might have been something, but that's not what you said. And if that decision is based at all on the NLDS, the only starters that started in those 3 games were Z, Lilly, and Hill. So yes, by clear implication, you argued that at least 1 of those 3 needed to be "improved" (i.e., replaced).

 

I'm sure that once I pointed out the consequence of your suggestion, you realized it was a bad idea. But that is, in fact, what you said.

 

Has anyone actually said they would prefer Theriot over a clearly better shortstop like Tejada, Rodriguez, etc? I haven't see that, only that some feel Theriot is a better option than Cedeno right now (including the Cubs organization).

 

I think the Cubs would be much better served spending whatever money they can to get better starting pitching and maybe resolve the OF issue (deal someone and have at least two everyday producers out there).

 

I would think that if $20 million was available to spend, I'd throw it at starting pitching before I would try and land a SS or OF (I used to think Murton wouldn't work in RF, but I am retracting that).

 

the cubs starting rotation had the 3rd best era in the majors this year and the offense scored the 18th most runs. why would you go after starting pitching instead of offense?

 

I'm assuming you are not serious because I am sure even you watched the NLDS. You don't think it is important to improve the starting pitching?

 

 

Look at the title of the thread.

 

OK, so?

 

The implication from the bolded section is obvious - you nearly explicitly stated that due to what you saw in the NLDS, we need to improve our starting pitching. I'm not sure how you could possibly interpret that to mean anything else. And it certainly cannot be interpreted to mean that we lost the NLDS because of our hitting (which is in fact true, but not at all what you said before).

 

I really have no idea what you're arguing now - we should improve our starting pitching by replacing Marquis? If so, I agree. But that's not what you said before and I'm not entirely sure that's what you're arguing now. You really haven't been very clear on exactly what you're arguing now.

 

To answer your question - I'm not sure we do. I'm ok with Z, Lilly, Hill, Marshall and X (if X isn't Traschel or Marquis - I'm thinking Gallagher, Prior, etc). If we want to add another SP by a relatively minor trade, whatever (again, assuming that isn't an acquisition of a Traschel type). But I certainly don't think we should spend a significant amount of time worrying about improving our starters. Z, Lilly, Hill and Marshall were quite good. And Marquis was much less sucky than I expected (but I wouldn't bank on that continuing). I'd certainly like a little better pitching from Z, but I'm hoping this year was a fluke and he'll be back to the 3.00 - 3.40 ERA and 1.20 - 1.25 WHIP soon.

[Tracer Bullet]

 

Wait, so you think we need to improve our starting pitching because of the NLDS? Only 3 starters started games in the NLDS. Which of Z, Lilly, and Hill is it that we should rush to replace? And who, pray tell, in the world are we going to acquire that's an improvement on those 3 this season? Seriously. I thought you were arguing that we replace Marquis with someone less likely to suck. But it seems like you're arguing that Z, Lilly and/or Hill should be shown the door. In which case, I'm not sure we have the assets to even begin to fix our problems.

 

You don't think we could use another quality starter? I didn't say anything about getting rid of anyone, and I don't base that on the NLDS exclusively. We lost because we didn't hit.

 

If you get the opportunity to add another quality starter, sure, go for it. But the first, second and third thing they do is improve the offense. It is, by far, the most glaring need. If they have money to spend, and spend it on pitching, they would not be doing a good job.

I'm all for getting the best players they can relative to the current makeup of the team, whether it is pitching or hitting. That's likely to be on offense for the simple fact that it has bigger holes. But if it came in the form of a pitcher, I wouldn't complain.

 

If it came in the form of a pitcher in lieu of improving the offense, I'll certainly complain (and I'll go out on a limb and say if we don't improve the offense, again struggle to score the 8th most runs, and don't make and go deep into the playoffs, you might complain).

 

That said, if we do nothing but start Soto, Murton, Pie and Cedeno, and they are all better than the production of those positions this year, that might be enough of an improvement. I'd prefer more than that, but I'm not convinced we will add the players we need, rather than more Floyd's, Jones', and Kendall's.

[Backtobanks]

From all of the posts that I've read on this topic, I think everyone can agree on these points:

1. If the Cubs can improve at SS in a trade, they definitely should explore this option.

2. Neither Cedeno or Theriot has shown enough at the major league level to be declared the obvious starter. Without a trade, SS should be open competition.

3. The Cubs will definitely need to have upgraded production from RF (Murton/Trade) and C (Soto) to balance out the expected offensive struggles with Pie and Cedeno/Theriot in the lineup.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

Wait, so you think we need to improve our starting pitching because of the NLDS? Only 3 starters started games in the NLDS. Which of Z, Lilly, and Hill is it that we should rush to replace? And who, pray tell, in the world are we going to acquire that's an improvement on those 3 this season? Seriously. I thought you were arguing that we replace Marquis with someone less likely to suck. But it seems like you're arguing that Z, Lilly and/or Hill should be shown the door. In which case, I'm not sure we have the assets to even begin to fix our problems.

 

You don't think we could use another quality starter? I didn't say anything about getting rid of anyone, and I don't base that on the NLDS exclusively. We lost because we didn't hit.

 

If you get the opportunity to add another quality starter, sure, go for it. But the first, second and third thing they do is improve the offense. It is, by far, the most glaring need. If they have money to spend, and spend it on pitching, they would not be doing a good job.

I'm all for getting the best players they can relative to the current makeup of the team, whether it is pitching or hitting. That's likely to be on offense for the simple fact that it has bigger holes. But if it came in the form of a pitcher, I wouldn't complain.

 

I won't complain if they improve the team by getting Johan Santana. But at this point, there's no way the team will get better if all they do is find slight improvement in the starting rotation and ignore the offense. If they get pitching and hitting, great. But first and foremost, they need more hitting.

[Guest]

I'm all for getting the best players they can relative to the current makeup of the team, whether it is pitching or hitting. That's likely to be on offense for the simple fact that it has bigger holes. But if it came in the form of a pitcher, I wouldn't complain.

 

If it came in the form of a pitcher in lieu of improving the offense, I'll certainly complain (and I'll go out on a limb and say if we don't improve the offense, again struggle to score the 8th most runs, and don't make and go deep into the playoffs, you might complain).

 

That said, if we do nothing but start Soto, Murton, Pie and Cedeno, and they are all better than the production of those positions this year, that might be enough of an improvement. I'd prefer more than that, but I'm not convinced we will add the players we need, rather than more Floyd's, Jones', and Kendall's.

Please note that I said I'm all for getting the best players they can relative to the current makeup of the team. If the best pitching change option they have can reduce opponents runs scored by 30 while the best offensive upgrade would improve runs scored by 20 - and the cost is the same - I'm all for adding the pitcher.

 

Please note that I also said that given the current makeup of the team, the above scenario is unlikely to play out.

[Guest]

 

Wait, so you think we need to improve our starting pitching because of the NLDS? Only 3 starters started games in the NLDS. Which of Z, Lilly, and Hill is it that we should rush to replace? And who, pray tell, in the world are we going to acquire that's an improvement on those 3 this season? Seriously. I thought you were arguing that we replace Marquis with someone less likely to suck. But it seems like you're arguing that Z, Lilly and/or Hill should be shown the door. In which case, I'm not sure we have the assets to even begin to fix our problems.

 

You don't think we could use another quality starter? I didn't say anything about getting rid of anyone, and I don't base that on the NLDS exclusively. We lost because we didn't hit.

 

If you get the opportunity to add another quality starter, sure, go for it. But the first, second and third thing they do is improve the offense. It is, by far, the most glaring need. If they have money to spend, and spend it on pitching, they would not be doing a good job.

I'm all for getting the best players they can relative to the current makeup of the team, whether it is pitching or hitting. That's likely to be on offense for the simple fact that it has bigger holes. But if it came in the form of a pitcher, I wouldn't complain.

 

I won't complain if they improve the team by getting Johan Santana. But at this point, there's no way the team will get better if all they do is find slight improvement in the starting rotation and ignore the offense. If they get pitching and hitting, great. But first and foremost, they need more hitting.

I'm just for adding the maximum incremental value at the lowest possible cost. I agree that what you are saying is the most likely option available to meet this criteria.

[Abe Frohman]

 

You're not serious, are you? You realize that the posts you wrote, like a page ago, are still visible to others, right?

 

Yeah, I am pretty accustomed to the way this board works. You do realize that you really don't have to take this quite so personally, right?

 

What's quite clear from your below statement is that you think, based on the NLDS, that we need to improve our starting pitching. In baseball, to "improve" a position in the off season almost exclusively means to replace that player(s) with another, different player. If you meant that our starters needed to pitch better, that might have been something, but that's not what you said. And if that decision is based at all on the NLDS, the only starters that started in those 3 games were Z, Lilly, and Hill. So yes, by clear implication, you argued that at least 1 of those 3 needed to be "improved" (i.e., replaced).

 

I'm sure that once I pointed out the consequence of your suggestion, you realized it was a bad idea. But that is, in fact, what you said.

 

Fine, whatever. Let me set the record straight so no one gets injured: I believe the Cubs need to tweak the team a little. Yes - we can agree that the offense needs some improving - SS could be better, 2B could be better, and there are unsettled positions in CF and RF that could be improved. We have guys in house who have had "off" years, but it would be nice to be rid of a couple and get a big bat (preferrably LH with power).

 

Pitching can be improved also (I believe it is more important to find another starter of quality than it is to find another SS - Cedeno and Theriot could work).

 

I base all these opinions on the 2007 season. Including the post-season, in which our best three starters were mostly good, but Rich Hill failed. Zambrano and Lilly pitched good enough to win.

 

I am one of those guys who thinks that pitching and defense are the more important parts of the "baseball trinity," but still pretty close to equal.

 

The implication from the bolded section is obvious - you nearly explicitly stated that due to what you saw in the NLDS, we need to improve our starting pitching. I'm not sure how you could possibly interpret that to mean anything else. And it certainly cannot be interpreted to mean that we lost the NLDS because of our hitting (which is in fact true, but not at all what you said before).

 

Forgive me for not being clear. I shouldn't try to post while I'm working.

 

I really have no idea what you're arguing now - we should improve our starting pitching by replacing Marquis? If so, I agree. But that's not what you said before and I'm not entirely sure that's what you're arguing now. You really haven't been very clear on exactly what you're arguing now.

 

I'll bet you are going to be OK, I think you'll make it. This whole thread is kinda all over the place, from Theriot, to Theriot-vs-Cedeno, to Theriot-Murton, etc....

 

To answer your question - I'm not sure we do. I'm ok with Z, Lilly, Hill, Marshall and X (if X isn't Traschel or Marquis - I'm thinking Gallagher, Prior, etc). If we want to add another SP by a relatively minor trade, whatever (again, assuming that isn't an acquisition of a Traschel type). But I certainly don't think we should spend a significant amount of time worrying about improving our starters. Z, Lilly, Hill and Marshall were quite good. And Marquis was much less sucky than I expected (but I wouldn't bank on that continuing). I'd certainly like a little better pitching from Z, but I'm hoping this year was a fluke and he'll be back to the 3.00 - 3.40 ERA and 1.20 - 1.25 WHIP soon.

 

Personally, I think this team really needs a solid LH bat - and the main player I think fits is Bobby Abreu. How much money are the Cubs going to spend? Are they as serious about winning it all as McDonough says? If so, trade Murton and Pie for another Ace and acquire Abreu and Rowand and hope for the best.

[rocket]

I base all these opinions on the 2007 season. Including the post-season, in which our best three starters were mostly good, but Rich Hill failed. Zambrano and Lilly pitched good enough to win.

say what?

 

3.1 IP 7 hits 4 walks 16.20 ERA

3.0 IP 6 hits 2 walks 9.00 ERA

 

which one pitched good enough to win and which one failed?

[Rob]

I base all these opinions on the 2007 season. Including the post-season, in which our best three starters were mostly good, but Rich Hill failed. Zambrano and Lilly pitched good enough to win.

say what?

 

3.1 IP 7 hits 4 walks 16.20 ERA

3.0 IP 6 hits 2 walks 9.00 ERA

 

which one pitched good enough to win and which one failed?

 

Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

[Guest]

btw - I think if we've learned anything about Lou, if Theriot & Cedeno are both on the team next year and Cedeno outplays Theriot he'll get the bulk of the time on the field.

 

And Lou was really talking up Cedeno in March because of the adustments Lou had asked him to make (which, it seemed like Cedeno had made in September). I no outside SS improvement is brought in and Ronny gets a fair shot, I think he'll win the job and not give it up.

[Guest]

Why don't we all watch what we're posting. There are a few posters who are flirting with (if not actually) violating board rules.

 

No, you shut up.

 

Fair enough, you make a compelling argument.

[Abe Frohman]

I base all these opinions on the 2007 season. Including the post-season, in which our best three starters were mostly good, but Rich Hill failed. Zambrano and Lilly pitched good enough to win.

say what?

 

3.1 IP 7 hits 4 walks 16.20 ERA

3.0 IP 6 hits 2 walks 9.00 ERA

 

which one pitched good enough to win and which one failed?

 

It's too bad I already used up my mulligans.

[Guest]

I base all these opinions on the 2007 season. Including the post-season, in which our best three starters were mostly good, but Rich Hill failed. Zambrano and Lilly pitched good enough to win.

say what?

 

3.1 IP 7 hits 4 walks 16.20 ERA

3.0 IP 6 hits 2 walks 9.00 ERA

 

which one pitched good enough to win and which one failed?

 

It's too bad I already used up my mulligans.

 

 

:D

[Guest]

I base all these opinions on the 2007 season. Including the post-season, in which our best three starters were mostly good, but Rich Hill failed. Zambrano and Lilly pitched good enough to win.

say what?

 

3.1 IP 7 hits 4 walks 16.20 ERA

3.0 IP 6 hits 2 walks 9.00 ERA

 

which one pitched good enough to win and which one failed?

 

It's too bad I already used up my mulligans.

 

Heh, you weren't kidding about the being drunk during the NLDS (might have been more bearable to watch games 2 and 3 that way). :)

[SouthSideRyan]

btw - I think if we've learned anything about Lou, if Theriot & Cedeno are both on the team next year and Cedeno outplays Theriot he'll get the bulk of the time on the field.

 

I have to disagree. While Lou is light years better than Dusty at actually playing guys who deserve it, he's still prone to his favorites and I fear we'll be stuck with Theriot starting at SS and Fontenot on our bench because of it.

[CubmanPi]

btw - I think if we've learned anything about Lou, if Theriot & Cedeno are both on the team next year and Cedeno outplays Theriot he'll get the bulk of the time on the field.

 

I have to disagree. While Lou is light years better than Dusty at actually playing guys who deserve it, he's still prone to his favorites and I fear we'll be stuck with Theriot starting at SS and Fontenot on our bench because of it.

 

Nah, I'm with Tim here. He was definitely unreasonably favorable toward Riot, but it was because of performance. Riot's hot streak was a little later in the summer than Fontenot's, and he was also able to sprinkle in an occasional dosage of the mystical clutch factor, which earned him just enough staying power to outlast Cedeno. However, based not just on performance but also on players' comments about his (lack of) clubhouse presence, I think it's pretty reasonable to hope that whoever gets the playing time next season will earn it through performance.

[biittner77]

Suppose the Cubs had a 4th starter that was more reliable- reliable enough to go with a 4 man rotation in the playoffs. Potentially, that means that Zambrano stays in game 1 and the Cubs *could* have gone on to win. This probably changes the team's mindset going into game 2 and maybe they don't press as much against the steaming pile that is Doug Davis.

 

How many of you can honestly say you liked the Cubs chances in the playoffs based on their pitching?

 

The offense is certainly a priority unless you're confident that Soto and Pie can provide better production from their respective positions.

 

Getting back to the original topic, The Cubs are going to have to get cheap production from somewhere. It therefore makes sense that they upgrade RF and SS and go with Pie and Soto knowing that at least their defense will be a plus even if they don't hit much.

[Guest]

the cubs were terrible all year against pitchers like davis, why would anyone have believed they wouldn't be terrible in game two?

[Abe Frohman]

Heh, you weren't kidding about the being drunk during the NLDS (might have been more bearable to watch games 2 and 3 that way). :)

 

For game three, I must have made that tub girl at Hi-tops reload 2 or 3 times. Don't ever underestimate the healing powers of Jaegerbombs and beer.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Heh, you weren't kidding about the being drunk during the NLDS (might have been more bearable to watch games 2 and 3 that way). :)

 

For game three, I must have made that tub girl at Hi-tops reload 2 or 3 times. Don't ever underestimate the healing powers of Jaegerbombs and beer.

 

 

You met tubgirl at hitops??? That had to have been a mess.

[Abe Frohman]

Heh, you weren't kidding about the being drunk during the NLDS (might have been more bearable to watch games 2 and 3 that way). :)

 

For game three, I must have made that tub girl at Hi-tops reload 2 or 3 times. Don't ever underestimate the healing powers of Jaegerbombs and beer.

 

 

You met tubgirl at hitops??? That had to have been a mess.

 

That website has been trumped by 2girlsonecup. Don't do it.

[Flames24Rulz]

Pitching wasn't the Cubs problem. Offense was the main problem for the Cubs this year, besides that week and a half stretch they had in September.

 

Theriot would make for a decent bench player. He's not a starting caliber SS for a team that actually wants to contend. It may be true that he didn't make a lot of errors, but he also has no range at all--something a good SS needs to be, well, good at fielding. There's my contribution to this amazing thread.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Heh, you weren't kidding about the being drunk during the NLDS (might have been more bearable to watch games 2 and 3 that way). :)

 

For game three, I must have made that tub girl at Hi-tops reload 2 or 3 times. Don't ever underestimate the healing powers of Jaegerbombs and beer.

 

 

You met tubgirl at hitops??? That had to have been a mess.

 

That website has been trumped by 2girlsonecup. Don't do it.

 

 

Why did I do that?

[imb]

Heh, you weren't kidding about the being drunk during the NLDS (might have been more bearable to watch games 2 and 3 that way). :)

 

For game three, I must have made that tub girl at Hi-tops reload 2 or 3 times. Don't ever underestimate the healing powers of Jaegerbombs and beer.

 

 

You met tubgirl at hitops??? That had to have been a mess.

 

That website has been trumped by 2girlsonecup. Don't do it.

 

He's not joking