It's time for change.

[Keener98]

Of course winning 83 and winning the WS is preferable to winning 120 and not making it out of the first round. Hell, if there was a way to win 60 games and win the WS, that'd be preferable to winning 120 and not making it out of the first round of the playoffs.

 

However, this is more about building a team that is most likely to win a WS. Given the choice between 120 wins, 83 wins, and 60 wins, which of those teams do you think would be more likely to make it to the WS and win it?

This is so flawed an argument everyone is having. Only the Cardinals can win 83 games and win a World Series. We aren't, nor have we ever been that kind of lucky.

 

It has very little to do with luck, and much more to do with the playoffs being a crap shoot. You also don't have Carpenter or Pujols or Wainwright or Rolen.

 

Part of the reason playoffs are a crapshoot is because of luck. Also, we have guys comparable or better than every person you listed but Pujols. While we dont have a Pujols, we have better 1-8 than that Cards team did when completely healthy, and hitting like they have throughout their career.

[Cubfanintheknow]

I'd guess most Cardinal fans forgot about a lot of the frustration they felt in winning just 83 games when that team hoisted the Commissioner's Trophy in a champagne-soaked locker room.

 

Just as a lot of Cub fans--myself included--forgot about a lot of the joy the 2008 Cubs team brought when they got swept out of the playoffs for the second straight year.

[RedVerbs]

As a Cardinal fan I can tell you

 

Winning 83 and a World series in 2006

 

Easily trumps winning 100 games in 2004, and a 105 in 2005 and getting exited out of the playoffs with nothing to show for it.

 

When you win 100 games, usually by early August, your team has won enough games you see the writing on the wall that they're winning the division, so regular season wins stop becoming fun around then. By then, it's just watching and hoping nobody gets hurt before October.

 

The discussion is concerning the most likely way to win a World Series.

 

One group is saying that putting together a team that wins 90+ games in the regular season should be the goal because it gives you the best shot in the postseason. Another group is saying there's a different route and regular season success is meaningless.

 

Ahh, gotcha. If that's the case then it depends. In most cases, obviously the team with 100 wins are usually well put together. However, there are cases were 100 win teams are more offense orientated then pitching orientated. If the 83 win team had a weaker offense but some front of the line rotation pitchers, than I might favor them over a 100 win team that doesn't have as good a pitching staff.

[RedVerbs]

Of course winning 83 and winning the WS is preferable to winning 120 and not making it out of the first round. Hell, if there was a way to win 60 games and win the WS, that'd be preferable to winning 120 and not making it out of the first round of the playoffs.

 

However, this is more about building a team that is most likely to win a WS. Given the choice between 120 wins, 83 wins, and 60 wins, which of those teams do you think would be more likely to make it to the WS and win it?

This is so flawed an argument everyone is having. Only the Cardinals can win 83 games and win a World Series. We aren't, nor have we ever been that kind of lucky.

 

It has very little to do with luck, and much more to do with the playoffs being a crap shoot. You also don't have Carpenter or Pujols or Wainwright or Rolen.

 

Part of the reason playoffs are a crapshoot is because of luck. Also, we have guys comparable or better than every person you listed but Pujols. While we dont have a Pujols, we have better 1-8 than that Cards team did when completely healthy, and hitting like they have throughout their career.

 

You don't have a pitcher as good as Carpenter. No, Harden is not. And Zambrano isn't close (right now).

 

And your 1-8 is barely better, if they are at all.

[A-Cal]

i think everyone is missing the big point here, talking about win totals

 

it is not about win totals, at least in so much as you have a good enough squad to crack postseason play, it is about putting together a collective group of athletes that maximize their output as well as their teammates output

 

looking back at previous WS winners, for the most part, those teams were constructed to do just that...

 

this team, while fielding good players, isn't put together quite right...

 

it has shown in 07, in 08, and then hendry really garbled it up and we are currently seeing those results right now

 

sure, hendry has done an okay job of constructing a good/competitive squad, but not a championship caliber team IMO

 

that is why i cringed when he got his extension and why i will cringe again this offseason when he isn't released

 

but, hey, i am just one man, with my one little ole opinion

[Keener98]

Of course winning 83 and winning the WS is preferable to winning 120 and not making it out of the first round. Hell, if there was a way to win 60 games and win the WS, that'd be preferable to winning 120 and not making it out of the first round of the playoffs.

 

However, this is more about building a team that is most likely to win a WS. Given the choice between 120 wins, 83 wins, and 60 wins, which of those teams do you think would be more likely to make it to the WS and win it?

This is so flawed an argument everyone is having. Only the Cardinals can win 83 games and win a World Series. We aren't, nor have we ever been that kind of lucky.

 

It has very little to do with luck, and much more to do with the playoffs being a crap shoot. You also don't have Carpenter or Pujols or Wainwright or Rolen.

 

Part of the reason playoffs are a crapshoot is because of luck. Also, we have guys comparable or better than every person you listed but Pujols. While we dont have a Pujols, we have better 1-8 than that Cards team did when completely healthy, and hitting like they have throughout their career.

 

You don't have a pitcher as good as Carpenter. No, Harden is not. And Zambrano isn't close (right now).

 

And your 1-8 is barely better, if they are at all.

 

You really need to look at Carlos Zambranos stats and put them up against Chris Carpenters best year and tell me hes not close.

[TruffleShuffle]

You don't have a pitcher as good as Carpenter. No, Harden is not. And Zambrano isn't close (right now).

 

that's nice. two of your best pitchers in the playoffs were jeff suppan and jeff weaver, and last time i checked, everyone pitching for the cubs is better than those two clowns.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm on page 3 right now, and this is just incredible.

[RedVerbs]

You really need to look at Carlos Zambranos stats and put them up against Chris Carpenters best year and tell me hes not close.

 

Even when Zambrano was good, he wasn't nearly as good as Carpenter has been as a Cardinal. He walked waaaaaaaaaaaay too many batters. Not saying he wasn't a very good pitcher, but when you're walking anywhere from 80-120 batters a season, you can only be but so dependable.

 

As a Cardinals

 

From 2004-2009

Carpenter has a 3.03 ERA, adjusted ERA of 144, and a WHIP of 1.0

Zambrano has an 3.50 ERA, adjusted ERA 126 with a WHIP of 1.3

 

Not really all that close. Not that, that even matters, considering he said RIGHT NOW, and Zambrano RIGHT NOW, is not even close to 2006 Carpenter. [expletive], Zambrano right now isn't as good as 2001 Carpenter.

[SouthSideRyan]

Oh and for people hammering Perry for the offense. The Cubs have a higher IsoDiscipline this year(.080) than they did last year (.078) It's batting average that's been the problem, not the Cubs' patience.

[RedVerbs]

You don't have a pitcher as good as Carpenter. No, Harden is not. And Zambrano isn't close (right now).

 

that's nice. two of your best pitchers in the playoffs were jeff suppan and jeff weaver, and last time i checked, everyone pitching for the cubs is better than those two clowns.

 

I'll give you that one. That was not expected lol.

[dew1679666265]

it is not about win totals, at least in so much as you have a good enough squad to crack postseason play, it is about putting together a collective group of athletes that maximize their output as well as their teammates output

 

If a team wins 90+ games in a season, they've pretty well maximized their output. Unless the team is a literal All-Star team then it's incredibly difficult to get together enough talent that 90+ wins is not maximizing talent.

 

The Cubs pretty much maximized their talent output last year when they won 97 games. They didn't maximize that talent in the postseason, but it's not because there wasn't enough talent or it was poorly put together. If either of those were the case, they would not have nearly reached 100 wins.

[dew1679666265]

Ahh, gotcha. If that's the case then it depends. In most cases, obviously the team with 100 wins are usually well put together. However, there are cases were 100 win teams are more offense orientated then pitching orientated. If the 83 win team had a weaker offense but some front of the line rotation pitchers, than I might favor them over a 100 win team that doesn't have as good a pitching staff.

 

I see what you're getting at, but it'd be very tough to win 100 games without very good pitching. That'd be one heck of an offense.

 

For instance, the 2001 Mariners had Freddy Garcia (136 ERA+) and Jamie Moyer (121 ERA+) as their top two starters. Aaron Sele also had a 116 ERA+ that year. Not necessarily dominant, but still very good starting pitchers.

 

The pen was also terrific with Kaz Sasaki closing, Arthur Rhodes having a fantastic year and Norm Charlton and Jeff Nelson having great years.

[17 Seconds]

I can agree with the people that say it's not a good idea to make a change just to make a change, but I don't see how this current team/mix is winning anything, let alone a world series.

[YearofDaCubs]

Hendry is awesome. The first move tonight should be to release Cotts. He's horrible.

[dew1679666265]

I can agree with the people that say it's not a good idea to make a change just to make a change, but I don't see how this current team/mix is winning anything, let alone a world series.

 

Give it the season and then evaluate at that point.

[17 Seconds]

I can agree with the people that say it's not a good idea to make a change just to make a change, but I don't see how this current team/mix is winning anything, let alone a world series.

 

Give it the season and then evaluate at that point.

 

I've given this group 2 full seasons and 6 postseason games

Edited May 26, 2009 by 17 Seconds

[cubswin2009]

8 game losing streak and counting.

 

ITS TIME FOR CHANGE.

[Hawk4Hall]

Hendry is awesome. The first move tonight should be to release Cotts. He's horrible.

+1

[dew1679666265]

I can agree with the people that say it's not a good idea to make a change just to make a change, but I don't see how this current team/mix is winning anything, let alone a world series.

 

Give it the season and then evaluate at that point.

 

I've given this group 2 full seasons and 6 postseason games

 

And they've won 182 games in that time. To this point they've done little to prove they're not a talented group. For all we know, they could turn it on, win 85-90 games and win the World Series. Or they could flop and barely reach 70 wins.

 

We don't know how this season will turn out right now. But after 182 wins in two years Hendry deserves more time than 43 games this year.

[cubswin2009]

I can agree with the people that say it's not a good idea to make a change just to make a change, but I don't see how this current team/mix is winning anything, let alone a world series.

 

Give it the season and then evaluate at that point.

 

I've given this group 2 full seasons and 6 postseason games

 

And they've won 182 games in that time. To this point they've done little to prove they're not a talented group. For all we know, they could turn it on, win 85-90 games and win the World Series. Or they could flop and barely reach 70 wins.

 

We don't know how this season will turn out right now. But after 182 wins in two years Hendry deserves more time than 43 games this year.

182 wins and 0 in the postseason!

[Arnold Layne]

1. The team is saddled with no trade clasues.

2. Dempster was given $14 million when an impact player like Dunn was out there.

3. Aaron Miles was given $5 million.

 

That, and that alone should eloquently show that our GM is not thinking in a clear fashion.

 

The change I would like to see is a new GM. Hendry has had his run. He's had a top 5 NL payroll his entire career as Cub's GM and is floating by a fraction above .500.

[17 Seconds]

I can agree with the people that say it's not a good idea to make a change just to make a change, but I don't see how this current team/mix is winning anything, let alone a world series.

 

Give it the season and then evaluate at that point.

 

I've given this group 2 full seasons and 6 postseason games

 

And they've won 182 games in that time. To this point they've done little to prove they're not a talented group. For all we know, they could turn it on, win 85-90 games and win the World Series. Or they could flop and barely reach 70 wins.

 

We don't know how this season will turn out right now. But after 182 wins in two years Hendry deserves more time than 43 games this year.

 

I know, I'm just saying that I don't see this mix winning a championship, and now I'm wondering if they'll even be able to overcome this season to make the playoffs. I thought before the season even started though that we weren't winning a title with this core. It's going to have to be a bunch of guys like when the Red Sox won in 2004. Yeah of course they were stacked as hell and had a monster team, but to be able to handle the pressure of what the Cubs face every season and what the Red Sox faced at the time, you needed a special type of team. I don't see it from this team. I think these guys are chokers. You can say "oh it's a small sample size blah blah they won 97 games", and that's true, but you can't tell me that they didn't choke in the playoffs the last 2 years. From the first pitch in each series they looked scared. They couldn't handle the moment. I hope that maybe if they win one playoff game and break the ice they could turn it around, but I don't know. Most of the core guys seem like chokers to me.

[cubswin2009]

1. The team is saddled with no trade clasues.

2. Dempster was given $14 million when an impact player like Dunn was out there.

3. Aaron Miles was given $5 million.

Don't forget about Milton Bradley who had a nice night tonight but has been worthless all season.

[17 Seconds]

1. The team is saddled with no trade clasues.

2. Dempster was given $14 million when an impact player like Dunn was out there.

3. Aaron Miles was given $5 million.

 

That, and that alone should eloquently show that our GM is not thinking in a clear fashion.

 

The change I would like to see is a new GM. Hendry has had his run. He's had a top 5 NL payroll his entire career as Cub's GM and is floating by a fraction above .500.

 

Dempster- 4/52

Bradley- 3/30

Gregg- 1/4.2

Miles- 2/5

 

Dunn- 2/20

 

Unreal