ESPN: Cedeno & Olson Traded for Heilman (P. 4)

[cubbinalltheway]

You gave me bad proof. The ability to put up a 5.00 ERA (even given that you cherrypicked your endpoint on the stats) in the parks Marquis has pitched in is roughly equivalent to the ability to put up a 4.60 ERA in Dodger Stadium and Petco.

cherrypicked the endpoint? umm, if you want to include a 4th year, wolf is still better.

 

and how is it roughly equivalent? because you say so? like you said that relievers ERA's are usually a lot lower than starters (they're not)? sorry, but you're going to have to give me something better than that before i'm convinced.

 

Okay.

 

So you want me to prove to you that parks effect ERA?

no, i'm not an idiot of course they effect ERA. you cant just arbitrarily make up how much of an effect each park has.

[fromthestretch]

There was a time when Randy Wolf was definitely a better pitcher than Marquis. But, that was before he got hurt. Now? It's too difficult to say.

it's really not though, that's the thing. all you have to do is look at their statistics to see who the better pitcher is/has been. who will be better in '09? no one knows, obviously. but based on past performance, wolf is the better bet.

 

While Wolf is slightly better, he's not "far better" as you originally claimed.

 

The past two seasons:

 

Randy Wolf

293 IP, 4.45 ERA ER, 7.86 K/9, 3.38 BB/9, 9.25 H/9, 0.95 HR/9

 

Jason Marquis

358.7 IP, 4.57 ERA, 5.02 K/9, 3.66 BB/9, 9.08 H/9, 0.93 HR/9

 

Wolf is a better strikeout pitcher, while Marquis is more durable. Add in the fact that Wolf has pitched in a much more pitcher friendly environment the past couple seasons, and it's a lot closer than you think.

[CubColtPacer]

You gave me bad proof. The ability to put up a 5.00 ERA (even given that you cherrypicked your endpoint on the stats) in the parks Marquis has pitched in is roughly equivalent to the ability to put up a 4.60 ERA in Dodger Stadium and Petco.

cherrypicked the endpoint? umm, if you want to include a 4th year, wolf is still better.

 

and how is it roughly equivalent? because you say so? like you said that relievers ERA's are usually a lot lower than starters (they're not)? sorry, but you're going to have to give me something better than that before i'm convinced.

 

ERA+ says so (which is normalized for parks), which is why Marquis has the slightly better ERA+ over the last 3 seasons (or 1, or 2, or 4, or 5 seasons if you want to change the endpoint).

 

That doesn't mean that ERA+ is the end all be all of even past pitching stats. There are definitely a lot of other factors. But it's hard to say Wolf is a clearly superior pitcher when he has put up a worse ERA+ number in 4 of the last 5 years. Then you add in the durability and that's just the icing on the cake.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You gave me bad proof. The ability to put up a 5.00 ERA (even given that you cherrypicked your endpoint on the stats) in the parks Marquis has pitched in is roughly equivalent to the ability to put up a 4.60 ERA in Dodger Stadium and Petco.

cherrypicked the endpoint? umm, if you want to include a 4th year, wolf is still better.

 

and how is it roughly equivalent? because you say so? like you said that relievers ERA's are usually a lot lower than starters (they're not)? sorry, but you're going to have to give me something better than that before i'm convinced.

 

Okay.

 

So you want me to prove to you that parks effect ERA?

no, i'm not an idiot of course they effect ERA. you cant just arbitrarily make up how much of an effect each park has.

 

*sigh* I'm not.

 

San Diego's pitching park effect for the last three years was 89. That means it deflates ERA by roughly 11%.

Wrigley's pitching park effect has been 104, which means it inflates ERA by roughly 4%.

 

Guess which parks the two pitchers we are talking about spent a plurality of their innings in the last three years?

[fromthestretch]

You gave me bad proof. The ability to put up a 5.00 ERA (even given that you cherrypicked your endpoint on the stats) in the parks Marquis has pitched in is roughly equivalent to the ability to put up a 4.60 ERA in Dodger Stadium and Petco.

cherrypicked the endpoint? umm, if you want to include a 4th year, wolf is still better.

 

and how is it roughly equivalent? because you say so? like you said that relievers ERA's are usually a lot lower than starters (they're not)? sorry, but you're going to have to give me something better than that before i'm convinced.

 

Okay.

 

So you want me to prove to you that parks effect ERA?

no, i'm not an idiot of course they effect ERA. you cant just arbitrarily make up how much of an effect each park has.

 

No need to arbitrarily make them up when there are sites out there that actually calculate it.

 

Randy Wolf's ERA+ the past two seasons:

2007: 97

2008: 93

 

Jason Marquis' ERA+ the past two seasons:

2007: 101

2008: 99

[jersey cubs fan]

Aaron Heilman is going to be the 5th starter. I don't see what guys like Randy Wolf have to do with anything. All the quotes coming from the Cubs camp sound pretty set on Heilman competing with what is already there for the spot. And given Hendry's longterm love for Heilman, combined with all the discussion of preferring to keep Marshall as the swingman, I'm guessing he's going to be given the first shot, more or less.

 

There might be a slim chance they will trade for Peavy, but at this point, the most likely scenario is that the position filled by Jason Marquis last year, is going to be filled by Heilman.

 

Zambrano, Lilly, Harden, Dempster and Heilman

Marshall will take spot starts, potentially piggy back on Harden starts if he only goes 5

Gaudin, Vicaino, Wuertz, Cotts, Gregg and Marmol are the likely remainder of the bullpen.

 

Soto, Bako are the catchers.

Lee, Fontenot, Theriot, Ramirez startings infielders.

Miles backing them up.

Soriano, Fukudome, Bradley makes the the bulk of the outfield.

Gathwright and Johnson backing all of them up.

 

There's one spot available on the bench, almost certainly somebody that can backup on the infield.

 

The bench is going to suck. The rotation is a big question, with multiple guys who are going to have a tough time making 30 starts. The one significant addition to the team, Bradley, offsets the biggest loss from last year's team, in Edmonds. But increased PA from Fontenot and Miles is going to have a tough time replacing what the Cubs got from DeRosa and Fontenot last year.

 

They are still probably the best team in their division, although I think they've taken a step back, so far, and haven't positioned themselves any better for the future. If anything, they've limited their longterm options.

[BigbadB]

Aaron Heilman is going to be the 5th starter. I don't see what guys like Randy Wolf have to do with anything. All the quotes coming from the Cubs camp sound pretty set on Heilman competing with what is already there for the spot. And given Hendry's longterm love for Heilman, combined with all the discussion of preferring to keep Marshall as the swingman, I'm guessing he's going to be given the first shot, more or less.

 

There might be a slim chance they will trade for Peavy, but at this point, the most likely scenario is that the position filled by Jason Marquis last year, is going to be filled by Heilman.

 

Zambrano, Lilly, Harden, Dempster and Heilman

Marshall will take spot starts, potentially piggy back on Harden starts if he only goes 5

Gaudin, Vicaino, Wuertz, Cotts, Gregg and Marmol are the likely remainder of the bullpen.

 

Soto, Bako are the catchers.

Lee, Fontenot, Theriot, Ramirez startings infielders.

Miles backing them up.

Soriano, Fukudome, Bradley makes the the bulk of the outfield.

Gathwright and Johnson backing all of them up.

 

There's one spot available on the bench, almost certainly somebody that can backup on the infield.

 

The bench is going to suck. The rotation is a big question, with multiple guys who are going to have a tough time making 30 starts. The one significant addition to the team, Bradley, offsets the biggest loss from last year's team, in Edmonds. But increased PA from Fontenot and Miles is going to have a tough time replacing what the Cubs got from DeRosa and Fontenot last year.

 

They are still probably the best team in their division, although I think they've taken a step back, so far, and haven't positioned themselves any better for the future. If anything, they've limited their longterm options.

 

Agreed. A whole lot of offseason maneuvering to be worse than they were last year. Way to work them phones, Jim!

[CUBZ99]

You gave me bad proof. The ability to put up a 5.00 ERA (even given that you cherrypicked your endpoint on the stats) in the parks Marquis has pitched in is roughly equivalent to the ability to put up a 4.60 ERA in Dodger Stadium and Petco.

cherrypicked the endpoint? umm, if you want to include a 4th year, wolf is still better.

 

and how is it roughly equivalent? because you say so? like you said that relievers ERA's are usually a lot lower than starters (they're not)? sorry, but you're going to have to give me something better than that before i'm convinced.

 

Okay.

 

So you want me to prove to you that parks effect ERA?

no, i'm not an idiot of course they effect ERA. you cant just arbitrarily make up how much of an effect each park has.

 

*sigh* I'm not.

 

San Diego's pitching park effect for the last three years was 89. That means it deflates ERA by roughly 11%.

Wrigley's pitching park effect has been 104, which means it inflates ERA by roughly 4%.

 

Guess which parks the two pitchers we are talking about spent a plurality of their innings in the last three years?

 

Wolf last year had a 2.78 ERA at home and a 5.76 ERA on the road. Overall, nearly every stat was significantly better at home. Unfortunately for your argument, his home park was Minute Maid Park, not necessarily a pitching friendly place.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You gave me bad proof. The ability to put up a 5.00 ERA (even given that you cherrypicked your endpoint on the stats) in the parks Marquis has pitched in is roughly equivalent to the ability to put up a 4.60 ERA in Dodger Stadium and Petco.

cherrypicked the endpoint? umm, if you want to include a 4th year, wolf is still better.

 

and how is it roughly equivalent? because you say so? like you said that relievers ERA's are usually a lot lower than starters (they're not)? sorry, but you're going to have to give me something better than that before i'm convinced.

 

Okay.

 

So you want me to prove to you that parks effect ERA?

no, i'm not an idiot of course they effect ERA. you cant just arbitrarily make up how much of an effect each park has.

 

*sigh* I'm not.

 

San Diego's pitching park effect for the last three years was 89. That means it deflates ERA by roughly 11%.

Wrigley's pitching park effect has been 104, which means it inflates ERA by roughly 4%.

 

Guess which parks the two pitchers we are talking about spent a plurality of their innings in the last three years?

 

Wolf last year had a 2.78 ERA at home and a 5.76 ERA on the road. Overall, nearly every stat was significantly better at home. Unfortunately for your argument, his home park was Minute Maid Park, not necessarily a pitching friendly place.

 

Look again.

[fromthestretch]

You gave me bad proof. The ability to put up a 5.00 ERA (even given that you cherrypicked your endpoint on the stats) in the parks Marquis has pitched in is roughly equivalent to the ability to put up a 4.60 ERA in Dodger Stadium and Petco.

cherrypicked the endpoint? umm, if you want to include a 4th year, wolf is still better.

 

and how is it roughly equivalent? because you say so? like you said that relievers ERA's are usually a lot lower than starters (they're not)? sorry, but you're going to have to give me something better than that before i'm convinced.

 

Okay.

 

So you want me to prove to you that parks effect ERA?

no, i'm not an idiot of course they effect ERA. you cant just arbitrarily make up how much of an effect each park has.

 

*sigh* I'm not.

 

San Diego's pitching park effect for the last three years was 89. That means it deflates ERA by roughly 11%.

Wrigley's pitching park effect has been 104, which means it inflates ERA by roughly 4%.

 

Guess which parks the two pitchers we are talking about spent a plurality of their innings in the last three years?

 

Wolf last year had a 2.78 ERA at home and a 5.76 ERA on the road. Overall, nearly every stat was significantly better at home. Unfortunately for your argument, his home park was Minute Maid Park, not necessarily a pitching friendly place.

 

That was only his home park from July 22 on. He made 11 starts in San Diego and five in Houston. The rest were road games for him. While he did pitch very well in the five starts in MMP, there's not much to indicate that he'd be able to keep up that level of performance. He's not as bad as he pitched on the road last year, and he's not as good as he pitched at home.

[jersey cubs fan]

Wolf last year had a 2.78 ERA at home and a 5.76 ERA on the road. Overall, nearly every stat was significantly better at home. Unfortunately for your argument, his home park was Minute Maid Park, not necessarily a pitching friendly place.

 

He only threw 31 innings in MMP. He threw 65 in Petco.

[CUBZ99]

Wolf last year had a 2.78 ERA at home and a 5.76 ERA on the road. Overall, nearly every stat was significantly better at home. Unfortunately for your argument, his home park was Minute Maid Park, not necessarily a pitching friendly place.

 

He only threw 31 innings in MMP. He threw 65 in Petco.

 

I see that now. :oops:

[Wheelimus]

Personally, I'm through with making bold predictions about young players. I was damn sure that Ryan Theriot was going to put up a historically bad season and then he winds up hitting .300 with a .380+ OBP. I know nothing it appears.

 

It's all a crapshoot. Olson was, so was Cedeno, and now so is Heilman. Just cross your fingers we win this round of prospect roulette.

[tfarks]

I don't know if anyone has covered this, but the people here are way better at projections than me. What can we expect out of Heilman as a starter?

[jersey cubs fan]

Personally, I'm through with making bold predictions about young players. I was damn sure that Ryan Theriot was going to put up a historically bad season and then he winds up hitting .300 with a .380+ OBP. I know nothing it appears.

 

It's all a crapshoot. Olson was, so was Cedeno, and now so is Heilman. Just cross your fingers we win this round of prospect roulette.

 

Heilman isn't a young player, nor is he an unpredictable prospect. He's been in the league for several years and has shown what he's capable of.

[CubinNY]

Personally, I'm through with making bold predictions about young players. I was damn sure that Ryan Theriot was going to put up a historically bad season and then he winds up hitting .300 with a .380+ OBP. I know nothing it appears.

 

It's all a crapshoot. Olson was, so was Cedeno, and now so is Heilman. Just cross your fingers we win this round of prospect roulette.

Ryan Theriot is not young in baseball age, neither is Heilman.

 

We do have to hope that one of our prospects steps up to the plate (or mound). I want to be the #1 Shark fan this year. If he can do well in Iowa for a month or two as a starter I think he will be huge for the Cubs b/c I don't see this rotation doing well with injuries and inept performance.

[Wrigley Rat]

As much as I think Hendry is making Heilman feel like he has a shot at the 5th starter job, I really think he's in the second tier of guys vying for it. Heilman fills the void in the bullpen between Gregg and Gaudin/Cotts/Wuertz, etc. Heilman is a 7th inning setup guy - it's what he does best and what we need. Marshall could be that guy, but he is so much more valuable as a long reliever/spot starter/lefty reliever.

 

I think the Cubs realize that you need to put players into roles that they are best suited for, not necessarily the roles that they wish they could have. Heilman is a reliever. Marshall looks like he could develop into a starter and may get a chance this year, but should not be handed the #5 job without having to win it. Samardzija needs a year at AAA to start if he ever hopes to be a starting pitcher. Gaudin looks to be a perennial long reliever/spot starter.

 

I picture the year starting with a rotation of: Zambrano, Dempster, Lilly, Harden, and Marshall (Marshall had a 3.24 ERA in spring training last year). The bullpen should look like this: Marmol, Gregg, Heilman, Wuertz, Cotts, Gaudin, and Vizcaino. David Patton would make the team if there is an injury, and there is always room for a surprise candidate like a Mitch Atkins (I don't think so though).

 

My best guess is Wuertz gets traded towards the end of spring training (he was amazing in ST last year, but is unliked by Piniella). Patton gets returned to his old team. And Guzman or a dark horse candidate makes the team.

[Elrhino]

What was the consensus forecast on Dempster last year?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What was the consensus forecast on Dempster last year?

 

That it was disgusting that guys like him and Theriot are guaranteed spots while Cedeno and Marshall languished.

[treebird]

Aaron Heilman is going to be the 5th starter. I don't see what guys like Randy Wolf have to do with anything. All the quotes coming from the Cubs camp sound pretty set on Heilman competing with what is already there for the spot. And given Hendry's longterm love for Heilman, combined with all the discussion of preferring to keep Marshall as the swingman, I'm guessing he's going to be given the first shot, more or less.

 

There might be a slim chance they will trade for Peavy, but at this point, the most likely scenario is that the position filled by Jason Marquis last year, is going to be filled by Heilman.

 

Zambrano, Lilly, Harden, Dempster and Heilman

Marshall will take spot starts, potentially piggy back on Harden starts if he only goes 5

Gaudin, Vicaino, Wuertz, Cotts, Gregg and Marmol are the likely remainder of the bullpen.

 

Soto, Bako are the catchers.

Lee, Fontenot, Theriot, Ramirez startings infielders.

Miles backing them up.

Soriano, Fukudome, Bradley makes the the bulk of the outfield.

Gathwright and Johnson backing all of them up.

 

There's one spot available on the bench, almost certainly somebody that can backup on the infield.

 

The bench is going to suck. The rotation is a big question, with multiple guys who are going to have a tough time making 30 starts. The one significant addition to the team, Bradley, offsets the biggest loss from last year's team, in Edmonds. But increased PA from Fontenot and Miles is going to have a tough time replacing what the Cubs got from DeRosa and Fontenot last year.

 

They are still probably the best team in their division, although I think they've taken a step back, so far, and haven't positioned themselves any better for the future. If anything, they've limited their longterm options.

 

i think that's a fantastic summation of the offseason and the team as it stands.

[TheDude]

Heilman is a gamble at 5th starter, but several guys similar to his career progression have made the transition. There are a lot of guys with good stuff that struggle as starters in their mid-20s, have decent to excellent success in relief, and convert back to effective starters after a few years of maturity with pitching.

 

Heilman is either going to be Marquis redux, or hopefully more like Dempster, Looper, Wellemeyer, Duchscherer, etc.

 

I do think he is a better bet in '09 to be successful than Olson would have been.

[cubsfan26]

Heilman's rubber arm has seldom been in question. He's been healthy and has a strong fastball-curveball combination. Knee pain likely played a role in his 2008 demise, but we also should consider he's been asking for a change of roles for years. The Mets didn't listen. Heilman last started games in 2005, and it didn't go well: His ERA was 4.71 in seven outings, but a far-more-valuable 2.18 when he relieved. In 25 career starts, Heilman's ERA as a starter is 5.93. In the bullpen, it's 3.52. I think the guy really needed a change -- maybe two! -- of scenery.

 

Of course, the heart wants what the heart wants, and it's presumptive to assume Heilman will fail as a starter just because of previous numbers. But this will be his big opportunity. I remember thinking Braden Looper, Todd Wellemeyer, Derek Lowe and Justin Duchscherer were big risks when they moved to the rotation, but all worked out better than expected. I would draft Heilman as a starting pitcher and figure he'll make 25 starts if/when he wins the job, and he'll keep his ERA in the respectable 4.00 range with a decent strikeout rate. There is upside here if you wait long enough in a draft to seek it out. I like this move for the Cubs

 

 

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3866896&name=fantasy_baseball

 

 

If Heilman actually does have a era around 4.00 in 25 plus starts next year, this will be one of those trades that will work out very well for us. Even if he struggles as a starter in spring training, I still expect him to be a very good 7th or 8th inning reliever.

[cubsfan26]

Aaron Heilman is going to be the 5th starter. I don't see what guys like Randy Wolf have to do with anything. All the quotes coming from the Cubs camp sound pretty set on Heilman competing with what is already there for the spot. And given Hendry's longterm love for Heilman, combined with all the discussion of preferring to keep Marshall as the swingman, I'm guessing he's going to be given the first shot, more or less.

 

There might be a slim chance they will trade for Peavy, but at this point, the most likely scenario is that the position filled by Jason Marquis last year, is going to be filled by Heilman.

 

Zambrano, Lilly, Harden, Dempster and Heilman

Marshall will take spot starts, potentially piggy back on Harden starts if he only goes 5

Gaudin, Vicaino, Wuertz, Cotts, Gregg and Marmol are the likely remainder of the bullpen.

 

Soto, Bako are the catchers.

Lee, Fontenot, Theriot, Ramirez startings infielders.

Miles backing them up.

Soriano, Fukudome, Bradley makes the the bulk of the outfield.

Gathwright and Johnson backing all of them up.

 

There's one spot available on the bench, almost certainly somebody that can backup on the infield.

 

The bench is going to suck. The rotation is a big question, with multiple guys who are going to have a tough time making 30 starts. The one significant addition to the team, Bradley, offsets the biggest loss from last year's team, in Edmonds. But increased PA from Fontenot and Miles is going to have a tough time replacing what the Cubs got from DeRosa and Fontenot last year.

 

They are still probably the best team in their division, although I think they've taken a step back, so far, and haven't positioned themselves any better for the future. If anything, they've limited their longterm options.

 

Agreed. A whole lot of offseason maneuvering to be worse than they were last year. Way to work them phones, Jim!

 

 

I find it funny that people are agreeing with that. I guess if you think negative stuff first, it does seem not as good. I could easily say the bench can be just as good as last year, with adding another bench player. The rotation had even more question marks a year ago, and almost every teams rotation has question marks. Plus you only factor in, possible regression, without considering possible improvement. Having Soriano for another 30-40 plus games also offsets alot of the extra AB's Fontenot got last year. But hey if it makes people feel better thinking things are more likely to go wrong then work out. I'm sure last season people were saying even worse things about the team, and most were dead wrong. Odds are the Cubs will have at least 3 starters who make 30 plus starts, and even if some guys regress, other guys will have better years then last season. When you have a team as talented as this team, things tend to even out. Rarely do good teams have everything just go wrong due to injuries and major player regession.

 

 

 

This team has four good starters, with good depth, that most teams would love to have. Alot of teams would be happy with Gaudin/Heilman or Marshall as their number 5, and would be fine with one of those other guys filling in. It also has 7 hitters who could have 350 plus OBP guys, and 5 hitters who could be 850-900 plus OPS guys, and a bunch of very talented hard throwers in the bullpen. How many teams have what we have? Especially in the NL, so we can try to compare the current roster to last year, and whatever but it doesn't really work out that way. If people would just stop comparing to last year or whatever and just look at the roster, it's pretty damn good.

[jersey cubs fan]

Aaron Heilman is going to be the 5th starter. I don't see what guys like Randy Wolf have to do with anything. All the quotes coming from the Cubs camp sound pretty set on Heilman competing with what is already there for the spot. And given Hendry's longterm love for Heilman, combined with all the discussion of preferring to keep Marshall as the swingman, I'm guessing he's going to be given the first shot, more or less.

 

There might be a slim chance they will trade for Peavy, but at this point, the most likely scenario is that the position filled by Jason Marquis last year, is going to be filled by Heilman.

 

Zambrano, Lilly, Harden, Dempster and Heilman

Marshall will take spot starts, potentially piggy back on Harden starts if he only goes 5

Gaudin, Vicaino, Wuertz, Cotts, Gregg and Marmol are the likely remainder of the bullpen.

 

Soto, Bako are the catchers.

Lee, Fontenot, Theriot, Ramirez startings infielders.

Miles backing them up.

Soriano, Fukudome, Bradley makes the the bulk of the outfield.

Gathwright and Johnson backing all of them up.

 

There's one spot available on the bench, almost certainly somebody that can backup on the infield.

 

The bench is going to suck. The rotation is a big question, with multiple guys who are going to have a tough time making 30 starts. The one significant addition to the team, Bradley, offsets the biggest loss from last year's team, in Edmonds. But increased PA from Fontenot and Miles is going to have a tough time replacing what the Cubs got from DeRosa and Fontenot last year.

 

They are still probably the best team in their division, although I think they've taken a step back, so far, and haven't positioned themselves any better for the future. If anything, they've limited their longterm options.

 

Agreed. A whole lot of offseason maneuvering to be worse than they were last year. Way to work them phones, Jim!

 

 

I find it funny that people are agreeing with that. I guess if you think negative stuff first, it does seem not as good. I could easily say the bench can be just as good as last year, with adding another bench player. The rotation had even more question marks a year ago, and almost every teams rotation has question marks. Plus you only factor in, possible regression, without considering possible improvement. Having Soriano for another 30-40 plus games also offsets alot of the extra AB's Fontenot got last year. But hey if it makes people feel better thinking things are more likely to go wrong then work out. I'm sure last season people were saying even worse things about the team, and most were dead wrong. Odds are the Cubs will have at least 3 starters who make 30 plus starts, and even if some guys regress, other guys will have better years then last season. When you have a team as talented as this team, things tend to even out. Rarely do good teams have everything just go wrong due to injuries and major player regession.

 

 

 

This team has four good starters, with good depth, that most teams would love to have. Alot of teams would be happy with Gaudin/Heilman or Marshall as their number 5, and would be fine with one of those other guys filling in. It also has 7 hitters who could have 350 plus OBP guys, and 5 hitters who could be 850-900 plus OPS guys, and a bunch of very talented hard throwers in the bullpen. How many teams have what we have? Especially in the NL, so we can try to compare the current roster to last year, and whatever but it doesn't really work out that way. If people would just stop comparing to last year or whatever and just look at the roster, it's pretty damn good.

 

Seriously, can you read? How is summing them up as probably the best team in the division a whole bunch of negative stuff?

 

The Cubs had a hell of a lot of things go their way last year. There's not a lot of room for improvement from within, so I was hoping they'd use this offseason, and offseason when they appear to be one of very few teams actually increasing payroll, to improve the team. To me, it doesn't look like they've improved the team, instead, I think they are a little worse than they were last year. I still expect them to win the division, maybe even more easily than last year.

 

And since it doesn't make any sense to me to just assume they are going to add better players from what they got, I'm basing this off of what they look like right now.

[Gingerballs Lives]

Aaron Heilman is going to be the 5th starter. I don't see what guys like Randy Wolf have to do with anything. All the quotes coming from the Cubs camp sound pretty set on Heilman competing with what is already there for the spot. And given Hendry's longterm love for Heilman, combined with all the discussion of preferring to keep Marshall as the swingman, I'm guessing he's going to be given the first shot, more or less.

 

There might be a slim chance they will trade for Peavy, but at this point, the most likely scenario is that the position filled by Jason Marquis last year, is going to be filled by Heilman.

 

Zambrano, Lilly, Harden, Dempster and Heilman

Marshall will take spot starts, potentially piggy back on Harden starts if he only goes 5

Gaudin, Vicaino, Wuertz, Cotts, Gregg and Marmol are the likely remainder of the bullpen.

 

Soto, Bako are the catchers.

Lee, Fontenot, Theriot, Ramirez startings infielders.

Miles backing them up.

Soriano, Fukudome, Bradley makes the the bulk of the outfield.

Gathwright and Johnson backing all of them up.

 

There's one spot available on the bench, almost certainly somebody that can backup on the infield.

 

The bench is going to suck. The rotation is a big question, with multiple guys who are going to have a tough time making 30 starts. The one significant addition to the team, Bradley, offsets the biggest loss from last year's team, in Edmonds. But increased PA from Fontenot and Miles is going to have a tough time replacing what the Cubs got from DeRosa and Fontenot last year.

 

They are still probably the best team in their division, although I think they've taken a step back, so far, and haven't positioned themselves any better for the future. If anything, they've limited their longterm options.

 

Agreed. A whole lot of offseason maneuvering to be worse than they were last year. Way to work them phones, Jim!

 

 

I find it funny that people are agreeing with that. I guess if you think negative stuff first, it does seem not as good. I could easily say the bench can be just as good as last year, with adding another bench player. The rotation had even more question marks a year ago, and almost every teams rotation has question marks. Plus you only factor in, possible regression, without considering possible improvement. Having Soriano for another 30-40 plus games also offsets alot of the extra AB's Fontenot got last year. But hey if it makes people feel better thinking things are more likely to go wrong then work out. I'm sure last season people were saying even worse things about the team, and most were dead wrong. Odds are the Cubs will have at least 3 starters who make 30 plus starts, and even if some guys regress, other guys will have better years then last season. When you have a team as talented as this team, things tend to even out. Rarely do good teams have everything just go wrong due to injuries and major player regession.

 

 

 

This team has four good starters, with good depth, that most teams would love to have. Alot of teams would be happy with Gaudin/Heilman or Marshall as their number 5, and would be fine with one of those other guys filling in. It also has 7 hitters who could have 350 plus OBP guys, and 5 hitters who could be 850-900 plus OPS guys, and a bunch of very talented hard throwers in the bullpen. How many teams have what we have? Especially in the NL, so we can try to compare the current roster to last year, and whatever but it doesn't really work out that way. If people would just stop comparing to last year or whatever and just look at the roster, it's pretty damn good.

 

I just think people feel like better opportunities have been squandered.

 

This team has a ton of fragile guys and considerable less depth than last year. I expect Bradley, Soriano and Ramirez to each miss chunks of time. Who's going to fill in? Our bench looks positively dreadful.

 

DeRosa was an incredibly valuable player and was traded for peanuts. Aaron Miles is a huge downgrade from him. Edmonds produced like a madman for 2 months (for free!) and is gone. Kfuk was a bust but will still be counted on to contribute.