Sullivan: Cubs won't pursue A-Rod

[CuseCubFan69]

Boras and Rodriguez have to realize that ARod is facing a big PR problem.

 

I would be less shocked if he took a fairly low (for him) contract to prove his critics wrong.

 

Didn't ARod have the same PR problems when he was a Free Agent the first time? I remember some really weird clauses in his contract that made him look kind of foolish when he signed with Texas.

 

I'd think it's worse, now, don't you think?

 

Yes, by far. I am curious on how much of this is a NY Press thing. They could over blow grass growing.

 

Eh. I think it's definetly stemmed from NY, but it's becoming more of a national thing. Especially the $350m thing. It was obvious to me that Boras did that because ARod wanted out, but people are spinning that as "ARod is greedy and selfish".

 

I agree. ARod is like any person or team that is one of the best at what they do, they have a lightning rod attached to them and people will always like to see them fall, and fall hard if possible.

[David]

No I didn't forget, they weren't serious contenders in any of those years.

 

But I guess, it's don't worry be happy!

 

 

The 2004 team was a serious contender. Should've won near 95 games and would've been a very scary playoff team. They just blew it at the end. That was by far our best shot. Injuries and a late season collapse took it away from us.

[UMFan83]

From Jon Heyman at SI.com:

 

And one team that appears to have moved down:

 

1. Cubs. A-Rod's mentor and friend Lou Piniella was quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times saying, "His name hasn't ever come up. I don't think there's anything there.'' I never bought them as a realistic choice, anyway, considering they already have a young star at third base in Aramis Ramirez -- not to mention an unsettled ownership situation.

[jersey cubs fan]

No I didn't forget, they weren't serious contenders in any of those years.

 

But I guess, it's don't worry be happy!

 

 

The 2004 team was a serious contender. Should've won near 95 games and would've been a very scary playoff team. They just blew it at the end. That was by far our best shot. Injuries and a late season collapse took it away from us.

 

Should have? There was nothing serious about the 2004 team. They were a blip above average.

[UMFan83]

No I didn't forget, they weren't serious contenders in any of those years.

 

But I guess, it's don't worry be happy!

 

 

The 2004 team was a serious contender. Should've won near 95 games and would've been a very scary playoff team. They just blew it at the end. That was by far our best shot. Injuries and a late season collapse took it away from us.

 

Should have? There was nothing serious about the 2004 team. They were a blip above average.

 

Really? I thought they were an good to very good team on paper.

 

Prior just came off a season which he had a 2.43 ERA and a 1.10 WHIP and was 23 years old

Wood had a very nice season as well

Zambrano was probably the best #3 in baseball in 2003 and like 21 years old

Maddux was a slightly above average pitcher

Clement was also solid

 

That starting pitching alone is borderline spectacular, with 3 Cy Young Caliber pitchers, another one (Clement) that would be a #2 or #3 at worse in almost every rotation, and a solid HOF pitcher at the backend of his rotation who had the brains to compensate for his eroding skills.

 

The Bullpen was not very good, but the Lineup had by the end of the season, all starting position players capable of hitting double digits in HR, while 5 of them (Nomar, Sosa, Alou, Lee, Ramirez) had the ability to hit 30 or more HRs with 3-4 of them the ability to hit 40 or more. Sure the OBP was a huge issue, but that lineup was built to hit for power and average, and they did for the most part.

 

What killed the Cubs was their bad bullpen, their lack of OBP, and the unexpected decline of Sammy Sosa. That team had to be a 92-95 win team on paper, it had to.

[jersey cubs fan]

very good pitching and mediocre hitting. Aside from the names and that fact that they could hit HR, they weren't that good. They were not serious contenders. 92-95 wins may have seemed possible to some, but it didn't happen and it wasn't all that big of a surprise. They finished 3rd in their division and 5 NL teams had a better record. They just weren't that good. Part of the problem was a manager who was all too willing to risk the health of the young pitchers. The manager is part of the team and his decisions contributed to the losses that season. Regardless of talent and name recognition, they could not get on base, didn't score many runs, and destroyed their young arms.

[UMFan83]

very good pitching and mediocre hitting. Aside from the names and that fact that they could hit HR, they weren't that good. They were not serious contenders. 92-95 wins may have seemed possible to some, but it didn't happen and it wasn't all that big of a surprise. They finished 3rd in their division and 5 NL teams had a better record. They just weren't that good. Part of the problem was a manager who was all too willing to risk the health of the young pitchers. The manager is part of the team and his decisions contributed to the losses that season. Regardless of talent and name recognition, they could not get on base, didn't score many runs, and destroyed their young arms.

 

But the numbers show that it was a shock that they finished with 89 wins. Their pythag shows that they should have won 94 games that year. Who knows how differently it would have been if they didn't go 1-5 in their last 6 games. Not to say that you can't count that, but if someone had told you after game 156 that the Cubs wouldnt win 90 games with 6 more against the bad Reds and the already clinched Braves, you would believe them? I think it was very surprising that they didnt win 93-94 wins. Obviously they had some major fundamental problems, but I don't think many expected them to win under 90 games after getting Lee, Walker, Maddux, and later Nomar and Dempster to add to a team that won 88 games the year before.

[jersey cubs fan]

very good pitching and mediocre hitting. Aside from the names and that fact that they could hit HR, they weren't that good. They were not serious contenders. 92-95 wins may have seemed possible to some, but it didn't happen and it wasn't all that big of a surprise. They finished 3rd in their division and 5 NL teams had a better record. They just weren't that good. Part of the problem was a manager who was all too willing to risk the health of the young pitchers. The manager is part of the team and his decisions contributed to the losses that season. Regardless of talent and name recognition, they could not get on base, didn't score many runs, and destroyed their young arms.

 

But the numbers show that it was a shock that they finished with 89 wins. Their pythag shows that they should have won 94 games that year. Who knows how differently it would have been if they didn't go 1-5 in their last 6 games. Not to say that you can't count that, but if someone had told you after game 156 that the Cubs wouldnt win 90 games with 6 more against the bad Reds and the already clinched Braves, you would believe them? I think it was very surprising that they didnt win 93-94 wins. Obviously they had some major fundamental problems, but I don't think many expected them to win under 90 games after getting Lee, Walker, Maddux, and later Nomar and Dempster to add to a team that won 88 games the year before.

 

And then again, some people weren't surprised that a Dusty Baker managed team fell short thanks to a mediocre offense that couldn't get on base and pitchers coming up lame.

 

They added names, but the names were bigger than the production.

[CubinNY]

very good pitching and mediocre hitting. Aside from the names and that fact that they could hit HR, they weren't that good. They were not serious contenders. 92-95 wins may have seemed possible to some, but it didn't happen and it wasn't all that big of a surprise. They finished 3rd in their division and 5 NL teams had a better record. They just weren't that good. Part of the problem was a manager who was all too willing to risk the health of the young pitchers. The manager is part of the team and his decisions contributed to the losses that season. Regardless of talent and name recognition, they could not get on base, didn't score many runs, and destroyed their young arms.

 

But the numbers show that it was a shock that they finished with 89 wins. Their pythag shows that they should have won 94 games that year. Who knows how differently it would have been if they didn't go 1-5 in their last 6 games. Not to say that you can't count that, but if someone had told you after game 156 that the Cubs wouldnt win 90 games with 6 more against the bad Reds and the already clinched Braves, you would believe them? I think it was very surprising that they didnt win 93-94 wins. Obviously they had some major fundamental problems, but I don't think many expected them to win under 90 games after getting Lee, Walker, Maddux, and later Nomar and Dempster to add to a team that won 88 games the year before.

 

It doesn't matter what people expected to happen, or what their pyth. record was. They finished 3rd.

 

Winning is what matters. The only constant besides a handful of players is Jim Hendry. And he is the very definition of mediocre, as are the Cubs.

 

But if it makes you happy to believe that the Cubs were victims of bad luck or what have you, go right ahead. I will say this, no amount of luck explains why the Cubs haven't fielded one or two championship calibur teams in most of our lifetimes.

[UMFan83]

very good pitching and mediocre hitting. Aside from the names and that fact that they could hit HR, they weren't that good. They were not serious contenders. 92-95 wins may have seemed possible to some, but it didn't happen and it wasn't all that big of a surprise. They finished 3rd in their division and 5 NL teams had a better record. They just weren't that good. Part of the problem was a manager who was all too willing to risk the health of the young pitchers. The manager is part of the team and his decisions contributed to the losses that season. Regardless of talent and name recognition, they could not get on base, didn't score many runs, and destroyed their young arms.

 

But the numbers show that it was a shock that they finished with 89 wins. Their pythag shows that they should have won 94 games that year. Who knows how differently it would have been if they didn't go 1-5 in their last 6 games. Not to say that you can't count that, but if someone had told you after game 156 that the Cubs wouldnt win 90 games with 6 more against the bad Reds and the already clinched Braves, you would believe them? I think it was very surprising that they didnt win 93-94 wins. Obviously they had some major fundamental problems, but I don't think many expected them to win under 90 games after getting Lee, Walker, Maddux, and later Nomar and Dempster to add to a team that won 88 games the year before.

 

It doesn't matter what people expected to happen, or what their pyth. record was. They finished 3rd.

 

Winning is what matters. The only constant besides a handful of players is Jim Hendry. And he is the very definition of mediocre, as are the Cubs.

 

But if it makes you happy to believe that the Cubs were victims of bad luck or what have you, go right ahead. I will say this, no amount of luck explains why the Cubs haven't fielded one or two championship calibur teams in most of our lifetimes.

 

But thats what my whole argument was, that the Cubs on paper were a championship caliber club. The pitching alone should have allowed us to contend if they all played up to their expected level. Add the fact that we did have an offense of sorts, however lacking it was it was not the worst in the league (in terms of runs scored it was 7th in the league), and we should have won 92-95 games and contended for the World Series. I agree there were major issues that many homeristic Cubs fans didn't foresee (bad bullpen, OBP, management issues, injuries), but the fact is the Cubs had the talent, it just didnt translate into wins.

[David]

 

It doesn't matter what people expected to happen, or what their pyth. record was. They finished 3rd.

 

Winning is what matters. The only constant besides a handful of players is Jim Hendry. And he is the very definition of mediocre, as are the Cubs.

 

But if it makes you happy to believe that the Cubs were victims of bad luck or what have you, go right ahead. I will say this, no amount of luck explains why the Cubs haven't fielded one or two championship calibur teams in most of our lifetimes.

 

 

This is ridiculous. You can't make these determinations in hindsight. Even if you want to go the hindsight route, then how was the 2003 (mediocre as it was) team not a contender? It was 5 freaking outs from the big dance. You can't have it both ways.

 

Personally, I look at the 2003 team as a non-serious contender that got lucky. The 2004 team was a serious contender that was unlucky with injuries and poorly managed.

 

Oh, as for the bolded, it DOES matter. Winning is the result of scoring more runs than the opposition. You build a team to essentially do two things: score runs and prevent runs. Your ability to do these things is what ultimately determines how many wins you wind up with. That 2004 team did a pretty good job of scoring and preventing runs. It didn't add up to as many wins as it should have. That's bad luck. Were the 2007 D'Backs a better team than the 2004 Cubs?

 

If, in hindsight, a worse team somehow managed to win more games than a better team, the worse team wouldn't be better than the better team just by virtue of having won more games. The standings may work this way, but it means little in predictive terms, which is what you should always be thinking about when putting a team together.

[BigbadB]

Some of those "injuries" weren't just "unlucky". They were predicted. You can't just send a youngster out to the mound and repeatedly abuse him without repercussions later.

[David]

Some of those "injuries" weren't just "unlucky". They were predicted. You can't just send a youngster out to the mound and repeatedly abuse him without repercussions later.

 

 

Well, yes. The poor management and injuries were definitely tied into eachother. And Hendry is definitely responsible for hiring Dusty and for putting together all of these crap teams. I'm not trying to defend him at all. I'm just saying that it's ridiculous to say that none of these recent (last 5 seasons) Cubs teams were legit contenders.

[CubinNY]

 

It doesn't matter what people expected to happen, or what their pyth. record was. They finished 3rd.

 

Winning is what matters. The only constant besides a handful of players is Jim Hendry. And he is the very definition of mediocre, as are the Cubs.

 

But if it makes you happy to believe that the Cubs were victims of bad luck or what have you, go right ahead. I will say this, no amount of luck explains why the Cubs haven't fielded one or two championship calibur teams in most of our lifetimes.

 

 

This is ridiculous. You can't make these determinations in hindsight. Even if you want to go the hindsight route, then how was the 2003 (mediocre as it was) team not a contender? It was 5 freaking outs from the big dance. You can't have it both ways.

 

Personally, I look at the 2003 team as a non-serious contender that got lucky. The 2004 team was a serious contender that was unlucky with injuries and poorly managed.

What is ridiculous is to judge a team by the names on the back of the Jersey and statistics that have little usefulness outside of a theoritical model used to predict wins. I judge a team by their actual wins over the course of a season. Not one of the teams the Cubs have fielded in recent history has won 90 games. None of those teams were in the World Series and only the 2003 teams managed to get past the Wild Card round in a crapshoot playoffs.

[David]

I realize my argument might sound confusing, so I'll try and boil it down to this...

 

Were the 2007 Mets not serious contenders? They weren't even in the playoffs.

 

The funny thing is, even they outperformed their pythag. But that's not the point. If contention is something you determine in hindsight (the very notion of which seems to be completely oxymoronic to me), who the hell are the contenders? The four LCS teams? The two WS teams? Just the winner?

[David]

 

It doesn't matter what people expected to happen, or what their pyth. record was. They finished 3rd.

 

Winning is what matters. The only constant besides a handful of players is Jim Hendry. And he is the very definition of mediocre, as are the Cubs.

 

But if it makes you happy to believe that the Cubs were victims of bad luck or what have you, go right ahead. I will say this, no amount of luck explains why the Cubs haven't fielded one or two championship calibur teams in most of our lifetimes.

 

 

This is ridiculous. You can't make these determinations in hindsight. Even if you want to go the hindsight route, then how was the 2003 (mediocre as it was) team not a contender? It was 5 freaking outs from the big dance. You can't have it both ways.

 

Personally, I look at the 2003 team as a non-serious contender that got lucky. The 2004 team was a serious contender that was unlucky with injuries and poorly managed.

What is ridiculous is to judge a team by the names on the back of the Jersey and statistics that have little usefulness outside of a theoritical model used to predict wins. I judge a team by their actual wins over the course of a season. Not one of the teams the Cubs have fielded in recent history has won 90 games. None of those teams were in the World Series and only the 2003 teams managed to get past the Wild Card round in a crapshoot playoffs.

 

 

Sooooo... at what point is a team deemed a contender?

 

Is a team that has a lead in the 7th inning of game 6 of the league championship series not a contender? You can't have it both ways.

Edited November 5, 2007 by David

[JeffH]

Sooooo... at what point is a team deemed a contender?

 

Conception?

[UMFan83]

 

It doesn't matter what people expected to happen, or what their pyth. record was. They finished 3rd.

 

Winning is what matters. The only constant besides a handful of players is Jim Hendry. And he is the very definition of mediocre, as are the Cubs.

 

But if it makes you happy to believe that the Cubs were victims of bad luck or what have you, go right ahead. I will say this, no amount of luck explains why the Cubs haven't fielded one or two championship calibur teams in most of our lifetimes.

 

 

This is ridiculous. You can't make these determinations in hindsight. Even if you want to go the hindsight route, then how was the 2003 (mediocre as it was) team not a contender? It was 5 freaking outs from the big dance. You can't have it both ways.

 

Personally, I look at the 2003 team as a non-serious contender that got lucky. The 2004 team was a serious contender that was unlucky with injuries and poorly managed.

What is ridiculous is to judge a team by the names on the back of the Jersey and statistics that have little usefulness outside of a theoritical model used to predict wins. I judge a team by their actual wins over the course of a season. Not one of the teams the Cubs have fielded in recent history has won 90 games. None of those teams were in the World Series and only the 2003 teams managed to get past the Wild Card round in a crapshoot playoffs.

 

 

Sooooo... at what point is a team deemed a contender?

 

What are you suggesting we do instead of judging the team by their names?

 

Sure if you are throwing out 25 arbitrary players with unknown abilities and skills, the best way to judge their talent would be wins and losses after a season has been played.

 

But since these players had played in the majors before and had been extensively evaluated on their talents and abilities, you could make several conclusions before 2004. The 2004 Cubs were talented, and they had enough talent to win 92-95 games. Obviously they didn't, so either they were evaluated incorrectly, or other factors came into play during the season. But that doesn't change the fact that with the talent they had, they should have made the playoffs. Not that this furthers my argument at all, I personally think that if they played that season 10 times, they would have made the playoffs in 8 of them.

Edited November 5, 2007 by UMFan83

[David]

UMFan, you didn't mean to reply to me, did you?

[UMFan83]

UMFan, you didn't mean to reply to me, did you?

 

No, it was a reply to the post above, I just took your last comment as well. My bad

[Guest]

I'm with UMFan and davhern here. I think some people might be clouding their thinking on the 03 and 04 team because those teams were flawed and finished poorly. Most playoff teams and even WS champs have some issues in one way or another. Just because a team has a flaw doesn't cancel out its expected 90+ win total. With other strengths, a team could easily mask their deficiencies and win 11 playoff games.

[CubinNY]

I realize my argument might sound confusing, so I'll try and boil it down to this...

 

Were the 2007 Mets not serious contenders? They weren't even in the playoffs.

 

The funny thing is, even they outperformed their pythag. But that's not the point. If contention is something you determine in hindsight (the very notion of which seems to be completely oxymoronic to me), who the hell are the contenders? The four LCS teams? The two WS teams? Just the winner?

 

Here is what I think, the playoffs are a crapshoot. However, a team that wins close to 100 games a year has a better shot at winning the playoffs than a team that wins close to 90 games. I think the statistics bear that out. Sighting Pyth. records in this case is really, really, really, not very smart for the simple fact that to the extent that a team like the D-Backs exceed their pyth. record, the model is not a good predictor. People who don't really know much about science or statistics say that the results are due to luck, but when the model is off by that large of an amount the chances that it was luck are reduced significantly. Remember one fits the model to reality and not the other way around. Reality is never wrong and the usefulness of the model is its convergence wtih what actually happens. For example when a hurricane goes off in a directon that is not predicted by a model, the model is discarded as not usefull. Most of the time the pyth. model is a good predictor, but sometimes it is not.

 

The answer to your question about the Mets is quite obvious, no the Mets weren't becuase they didn't make the playoffs and only won 88 games.

[David]

I judge teams based on how they are built and how they SHOULD do far more so than I do on how they actually ultimately perform. Process is more important than outcome. I'll leave the luck to decide itself.

 

If the Cubs had won 95 games this year and had some success in the playoffs, I wouldn't overlook the flaws in the way they were constructed or changed my overall judgment of them just because they overachieved. Sure, I would've been happy as hell and rooting for them, but wins wouldn't have changed the fact that they were a poorly constructed team. And teams CAN luck into a lot more wins than they should get, believe that.

[CubinNY]

I judge teams based on how they are built and how they SHOULD do far more so than I do on how they actually ultimately perform. Process is more important than outcome.

That is just silly. The proof of the process is in the product. Process is never more important than outcome. Never, not in a million years, and not in any way, shape, or form for any aspect of life.

[David]

I realize my argument might sound confusing, so I'll try and boil it down to this...

 

Were the 2007 Mets not serious contenders? They weren't even in the playoffs.

 

The funny thing is, even they outperformed their pythag. But that's not the point. If contention is something you determine in hindsight (the very notion of which seems to be completely oxymoronic to me), who the hell are the contenders? The four LCS teams? The two WS teams? Just the winner?

 

Here is what I think, the playoffs are a crapshoot. However, a team that wins close to 100 games a year has a better shot at winning the playoffs than a team that wins close to 90 games. I think the statistics bear that out. Sighting Pyth. records in this case is really, really, really, not very smart for the simple fact that to the extent that a team like the D-Backs exceed their pyth. record, the model is not a good predictor. People who don't really know much about science or statistics say that the results are due to luck, but when the model is off by that large of an amount the chances that it was luck are reduced significantly. Remember one fits the model to reality and not the other way around. Reality is never wrong and the usefulness of the model is its convergence wtih what actually happens. For example when a hurricane goes off in a directon that is not predicted by a model, the model is discarded as not usefull. Most of the time the pyth. model is a good predictor, but sometimes it is not.

 

The answer to your question about the Mets is quite obvious, no the Mets weren't becuase they didn't make the playoffs and only won 88 games.

 

Do you realize just how rare of an occurrence it is when a team outperforms their pythag to the extent that the D'Backs did? IIRC, I read that it was only the 2nd or 3rd time in history. That might not be entirely accurate.

 

That aside, the fact that the Mets won only 88 games and didn't make the playoffs is something that wasn't determined until the games were played and the season was over. I'm really curious as to what you feel defines a contender. It seems as it's simply some arbitrary number of wins (90?) and that if a team doesn't make it there in the end (even if they should), they're somehow not contenders. Am I misunderstanding you?

 

Basically it seems like you are saying that a team needs to

 

A - win at least 90 games

 

&

 

B - make the playoffs

 

in order to be a contender. Am I right?

 

Neither one of these things can be determined until the season is played, at which point, there really isn't anymore contention. There are playoff teams and there are teams who are sitting at home.