2011 Preseason "Expert" evaluation thread

[Guest]

I don't think things look bleak by any stretch moving forward. We've got plenty of money coming off the books starting next year and quite a bit of it is from useless players that are easy as hell to replace for alot cheaper than what we're paying them. We've got a solid group of youngsters that are going to be cheap for a while and we should be able to make trades or sign big name guys starting next year. Add in the fact that if things go right this year, we could win the division, I'm OK with our situation honestly. It's not perfect and we're paying for some past sins, but we're definitely not in the mess that the Mets or Dodgers are either.

 

IF, we are to assume that Ricketts will be interested in putting the freed up money back into the team. We don't know if he will do that quite yet.

[Sammy Sofa]

The Cubs had some pretty significant under-performance in some critical areas, plus I disagree with the idea that they're headed in "opposite directions."

 

take a look at how much of the reds' WAR last year came from players under 30. 4/5 of their rotation was 24 or under and that's not including volquez, who's 26 and didn't pitch for most of the year.

 

Nobody's denying that the Reds have a good, young team. "Opposite directions," however, implies that the Cubs are moving to become cellar-dwellers like the Pirates for the foreseeable future. They're not. We're going to see a lot of turnover in the very near future of the Cubs getting better and younger.

 

the comment about them going in opposite directions was made last offseason. i don't see how you can say it wasn't true when the cubs looked old and lousy last year while the reds got a huge amount of production out of young players.

 

I'm saying it's an inaccurate statement. One year of diverging fortunes isn't "going in opposite directions." I guarantee that the person you're talking about was likely making it clear that he thought the Cubs were headed into the toilet for the foreseeable future and that's why people responded as they did.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't think things look bleak by any stretch moving forward. We've got plenty of money coming off the books starting next year and quite a bit of it is from useless players that are easy as hell to replace for alot cheaper than what we're paying them. We've got a solid group of youngsters that are going to be cheap for a while and we should be able to make trades or sign big name guys starting next year. Add in the fact that if things go right this year, we could win the division, I'm OK with our situation honestly. It's not perfect and we're paying for some past sins, but we're definitely not in the mess that the Mets or Dodgers are either.

 

IF, we are to assume that Ricketts will be interested in putting the freed up money back into the team. We don't know if he will do that quite yet.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would think they wouldn't be putting any of the money back into the team. Really, think about for just a second. If you're saying that payroll could be locked in place or reduced, OK, but you seem to be saying that there's doubt that the Ricketts will spend any of the money coming off the books in the next two seasons.

[Guest]

I don't think things look bleak by any stretch moving forward. We've got plenty of money coming off the books starting next year and quite a bit of it is from useless players that are easy as hell to replace for alot cheaper than what we're paying them. We've got a solid group of youngsters that are going to be cheap for a while and we should be able to make trades or sign big name guys starting next year. Add in the fact that if things go right this year, we could win the division, I'm OK with our situation honestly. It's not perfect and we're paying for some past sins, but we're definitely not in the mess that the Mets or Dodgers are either.

 

IF, we are to assume that Ricketts will be interested in putting the freed up money back into the team. We don't know if he will do that quite yet.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would think they wouldn't be putting any of the money back into the team. Really, think about for just a second. If you're saying that payroll could be locked in place or reduced, OK, but you seem to be saying that there's doubt that the Ricketts will spend any of the money coming off the books in the next two seasons.

They will spend a large portion of it servicing their debt. Then they have to pay for fixing up Wrigley if they can't get the city and state to pay for it. I think they will try to do whatever it takes to build a winner. They may have to take some heat to stay on track.

[TruffleShuffle]

I'm saying it's an inaccurate statement. One year of diverging fortunes isn't "going in opposite directions." I guarantee that the person you're talking about was likely making it clear that he thought the Cubs were headed into the toilet for the foreseeable future and that's why people responded as they did.

 

i'm too lazy to look it up, but i'm pretty sure that person wasn't saying that. very few people think that the cubs will be bad for several years simply because of the payroll resources they have.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm saying it's an inaccurate statement. One year of diverging fortunes isn't "going in opposite directions." I guarantee that the person you're talking about was likely making it clear that he thought the Cubs were headed into the toilet for the foreseeable future and that's why people responded as they did.

 

i'm too lazy to look it up, but i'm pretty sure that person wasn't saying that. very few people think that the cubs will be bad for several years simply because of the payroll resources they have.

 

Then who cares what some nobody said.

[Banedon]

I'm saying it's an inaccurate statement. One year of diverging fortunes isn't "going in opposite directions." I guarantee that the person you're talking about was likely making it clear that he thought the Cubs were headed into the toilet for the foreseeable future and that's why people responded as they did.

 

i'm too lazy to look it up, but i'm pretty sure that person wasn't saying that. very few people think that the cubs will be bad for several years simply because of the payroll resources they have.

 

Then who cares what some nobody said.

 

Yeah....this thread is for "experts"!

[Northside Blues]

Preliminary Pecota standings had the Cubs at 70 wins. Am I wrong to believe there is little likelihood the Cubs will be worse than last year?

 

I don't even think BP thinks the Cubs will be that poor. PECOTA's broke and they have no idea how to fix it. The Cubs are probably in the 80-85 win range, outside shot at 90 wins, outside shot at 75 wins too I guess. I am guessing that PECOTA's ridiculous pitching projections are the reason for such a poor win total. The offense by PECOTA should be fairly average. We pretty much don't have a league average starter by PECOTA.

[LeftCoastCubFan]

I don't think things look bleak by any stretch moving forward. We've got plenty of money coming off the books starting next year and quite a bit of it is from useless players that are easy as hell to replace for alot cheaper than what we're paying them. We've got a solid group of youngsters that are going to be cheap for a while and we should be able to make trades or sign big name guys starting next year. Add in the fact that if things go right this year, we could win the division, I'm OK with our situation honestly. It's not perfect and we're paying for some past sins, but we're definitely not in the mess that the Mets or Dodgers are either.

 

IF, we are to assume that Ricketts will be interested in putting the freed up money back into the team. We don't know if he will do that quite yet.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would think they wouldn't be putting any of the money back into the team. Really, think about for just a second. If you're saying that payroll could be locked in place or reduced, OK, but you seem to be saying that there's doubt that the Ricketts will spend any of the money coming off the books in the next two seasons.

They will spend a large portion of it servicing their debt. Then they have to pay for fixing up Wrigley if they can't get the city and state to pay for it. I think they will try to do whatever it takes to build a winner. They may have to take some heat to stay on track.

There debt servicing is 3% on the 700 mil they borrowed from themselves. It's not a big issue. Wrigley will get more and more costly, but will likely be offset by increased and new revenue sources. Where the payroll will be in the future is an unknown, but if they stop spending attendance will drop.

[Guest]

I don't think things look bleak by any stretch moving forward. We've got plenty of money coming off the books starting next year and quite a bit of it is from useless players that are easy as hell to replace for alot cheaper than what we're paying them. We've got a solid group of youngsters that are going to be cheap for a while and we should be able to make trades or sign big name guys starting next year. Add in the fact that if things go right this year, we could win the division, I'm OK with our situation honestly. It's not perfect and we're paying for some past sins, but we're definitely not in the mess that the Mets or Dodgers are either.

 

IF, we are to assume that Ricketts will be interested in putting the freed up money back into the team. We don't know if he will do that quite yet.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would think they wouldn't be putting any of the money back into the team. Really, think about for just a second. If you're saying that payroll could be locked in place or reduced, OK, but you seem to be saying that there's doubt that the Ricketts will spend any of the money coming off the books in the next two seasons.

 

The question is how much he will put back into the team. What will be his target payroll for this ballclub? 130m? 110m? He took over the team when payroll was at an all time high, a payroll that a corporation can bury some of the costs from other revenue streams and this year we are already seeing a bit of a drop. Will he continue letting it drop or will he spend big?

 

I hope he spends and spends wisely, but it still seems like a bit of an unknown at this point. He did spend some this offseason, which is definitely a good sign, but it's still down from the previous year. Based on Cots payroll calculation for 2010, the Cubs were at 145m and it looks like they are currently about 125m this year, and it was made pretty well known that the budget was very restricted this offseason.

[Sammy Sofa]

The question is how much he will put back into the team. What will be his target payroll for this ballclub? 130m? 110m? He took over the team when payroll was at an all time high, a payroll that a corporation can bury some of the costs from other revenue streams and this year we are already seeing a bit of a drop. Will he continue letting it drop or will he spend big?

 

He can let it drop and sill spend big. It's not an either-or proposition.

[davell]

Actually, what he said was overall baseball payroll would be the same basically, but that more money would be allotted towards player develoment and scouting. And so far this year, the Cubs have spent 1.7 million on a pair of Cuban players, 1.4 million to keep Matt Szczur from playing football and are talking about buying land in Central America to build the nicest facilities in baseball to help with things down there.

 

I've been one of the biggest questioners' of Ricketts motives around, but even I'll give credit where it's due and so far this offseason, they've lived up to exactly what they've said. If they spend more on the draft and INT FA in July, then I'll be on board with what they're doing.

[Guest]

Actually, what he said was overall baseball payroll would be the same basically, but that more money would be allotted towards player develoment and scouting. And so far this year, the Cubs have spent 1.7 million on a pair of Cuban players, 1.4 million to keep Matt Szczur from playing football and are talking about buying land in Central America to build the nicest facilities in baseball to help with things down there.

 

I've been one of the biggest questioners' of Ricketts motives around, but even I'll give credit where it's due and so far this offseason, they've lived up to exactly what they've said. If they spend more on the draft and INT FA in July, then I'll be on board with what they're doing.

 

I have definitely liked the moves this offseason, especially considering the current payroll restrictions. I missed that they got Szczur signed. Great news.

[erik316wttn]

So you think Pittsburgh and/or Houston are going to finish ahead of the Cubs?

 

I don't think they will but I certainly don't think a person is immediately dumb if they think so. At least until further questioning.

 

 

If they THINK so, they're probably pretty dumb.

 

If it happens, it happens... but to look at the situation now and predict that those teams will finish ahead of a better team is pretty much the opposite of smart.

 

Right. Thinking that could happen is reasonable. Thinking that it will happen or is likely to happen is being erik.

 

Actually I think the Cubs finish ahead of Houston and Pittsburgh this year, but thanks for playing.

[Guest]

Damn, Mojo just got SERVED.

[Guest]

Don't worry, erik will change his prediction when the Cubs fall behind the Pirates 1-0 in the top of the first inning on opening day.

[UMFan83]

Don't worry, erik will change his prediction when the Cubs fall behind the Pirates 1-0 in the top of the first inning on opening day.

 

Incorrect. It will be when their leadoff hitter reaches on a seeing eye single in the top of the first on opening day.

[SCCubbieFAN]

Could it be that the new owner(s) are just better business people, will spend their resourses more wisely, and put together a contender with a lower payroll? It IS possible to put together a winning team and not have one of the highest payrolls in the league.

[erik316wttn]

Don't worry, erik will change his prediction when the Cubs fall behind the Pirates 1-0 in the top of the first inning on opening day.

 

Incorrect. It will be when their leadoff hitter reaches on a seeing eye single in the top of the first on opening day.

 

Yeah. That's exactly what'll happen.

[Banedon]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/preview/2011/news/story?page=11expertpicks

 

LOL @ Steve Berthiume picking the Astros to win the Central.

 

Cubs got a few votes near the end for division champs...nobody picking them as NL champs.

[MWV]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/preview/2011/news/story?page=11expertpicks

 

LOL @ Steve Berthiume picking the Astros to win the Central.

 

Cubs got a few votes near the end for division champs...nobody picking them as NL champs.

Gene Wojciechowski, Jon Sciambi and Mark Simon think the Cubs will win the NL Central, although I think Sciambi's vote must be thrown out. He has the Braves winning both the NL East and the WC, followed by the Phils going to the WS.

 

On the AL MVP ballot, 36 of the 45 projected winners are Red Sox or Yankees.

[SouthSideRyan]

And Sciambi's too smart for ESPN.

[Cubs Fan Dan]

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/14875265

 

Predictions from CBS, one pick for the Cubs.

 

Will there be a predictions thread this year for us to participate?

[UMFan83]

A far cry from 2009 when 17 of the 21 "experts" picked the Cubs to win the Central

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/preview09/news/story?page=09expertpicks

[Derwood]

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/14875265

 

Predictions from CBS, one pick for the Cubs.

 

Will there be a predictions thread this year for us to participate?

 

da bum ran it last year, but was banned before a winner could be announced