Jason McLeod Coming to Chicago

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't get the love for 03 over 08, but then again, I have a different view on the playoffs than most.

Maybe you didn't follow the Cubs as closely in the early part of the decade. 2003 was the year that the was supposed to be the beginning of dominance for a decade. The 2008 team was the end of any relevance.

 

but in terms of which team was better, it's not even close. the 2008 team was completely stacked.

 

That 2008 team was not stacked by any stretch of the imagination. They didn't have any holes, but they were basically just good everywhere instead of having any real greatness. 2003 had a HOF RF and what should have been 2 HOF starting pitchers at the beginning of their careers.

 

2003 had the feeling of a team on the verge of continued dominance and 2008 had the feel of a complete one-off opportunity.

 

Not to mention 2003 did something no other Cubs team had ever done, win a playoff series, while 2008 ended in completely bombed. Say what you will about playoffs being a crap shoot, but let's not pretend they don't matter or shouldn't influence your opinion of a team.

[CubColtPacer]

I don't get the love for 03 over 08, but then again, I have a different view on the playoffs than most.

Maybe you didn't follow the Cubs as closely in the early part of the decade. 2003 was the year that the was supposed to be the beginning of dominance for a decade. The 2008 team was the end of any relevance.

 

but in terms of which team was better, it's not even close. the 2008 team was completely stacked.

 

That 2008 team was not stacked by any stretch of the imagination. They didn't have any holes, but they were basically just good everywhere instead of having any real greatness. 2003 had a HOF RF and what should have been 2 HOF starting pitchers at the beginning of their careers.

 

2003 had the feeling of a team on the verge of continued dominance and 2008 had the feel of a complete one-off opportunity.

 

I agree 2003 had that feeling, but it really shouldn't have. By the end of the year, here were the offensive players on the roster under age 33: Alex Gonzalez, Ramirez, Patterson (with a torn ACL), Choi, Ramon Martinez, and Simon. That's it. The starting pitching was really exciting, but the offense needed to be completely rebuilt and the bullpen didn't have any young stars either. It was a good start to a great team, but it still had a lot of holes.

 

2008 was dominant only because a bunch of players had career years. It was a very good team that overachieved all season long.

[Guest]

 

I agree 2003 had that feeling, but it really shouldn't have. By the end of the year, here were the offensive players on the roster under age 33: Alex Gonzalez, Ramirez, Patterson (with a torn ACL), Choi, Ramon Martinez, and Simon. That's it. The starting pitching was really exciting, but the offense needed to be completely rebuilt and the bullpen didn't have any young stars either. It was a good start to a great team, but it still had a lot of holes.

 

2008 was dominant only because a bunch of players had career years. It was a very good team that overachieved all season long.

 

 

Who?

 

Edmonds definitely overachieved, given his age...and Dempster definitely did have his best year (although he has continued to be pretty good since). DeRosa probably had his best year. Can you really say that anybody else significantly overachieved? Lee underachieved pretty significantly. I expected more out of Kosuke. Soriano's year wasn't anywhere near a career year (although it was probably his best year as a Cub and probably the most you could reasonably expect out of him).

[davearm2]

I think we can all agree, Hendry did an amazing job constructing both of those teams.

[CubColtPacer]

 

I agree 2003 had that feeling, but it really shouldn't have. By the end of the year, here were the offensive players on the roster under age 33: Alex Gonzalez, Ramirez, Patterson (with a torn ACL), Choi, Ramon Martinez, and Simon. That's it. The starting pitching was really exciting, but the offense needed to be completely rebuilt and the bullpen didn't have any young stars either. It was a good start to a great team, but it still had a lot of holes.

 

2008 was dominant only because a bunch of players had career years. It was a very good team that overachieved all season long.

 

 

Who?

 

Edmonds definitely overachieved, given his age...and Dempster definitely did have his best year (although he has continued to be pretty good since). DeRosa probably had his best year. Can you really say that anybody else significantly overachieved? Lee underachieved pretty significantly. I expected more out of Kosuke. Soriano's year wasn't anywhere near a career year (although it was probably his best year as a Cub and probably the most you could reasonably expect out of him).

 

Their bench really overachieved that year. Hoffpauir with 73 AB's and a .934 OPS. Fontenot with 243 and a .909. Johnson with 333 and a .778. Blanco and Cedeno were also better than most of their careers. Only Ward was worse. Zambrano also had his best year hitting of his career. Each of them separately weren't that important (except maybe Fontenot being 150 points better than expected) but together they really overachieved.

 

Then as you said Edmonds did much better than could be possibly expected, Dempster's ERA was a lot better than even his peripherals would have said it should have been, DeRosa had a career year, Theriot had his best year, Soto and Soriano had their second best years. Harden's ERA was ridiculous, Samardzija somehow kept getting out of jams, and everyone else on the pitching staff was about as expected.

 

Howry, Lee, Fukudome, and a couple of minor pitchers were the only ones who were worse than expected.

 

It was no shock that the next year a large percentage of the same team came out and won 83 games. They were probably a 90 win team that overachieved greatly, lost a little in the offseason, and then underacheived a little the next year.

[Guest]

Forgot about Fontenot's absurd year. :blush:

[17 Seconds]

yea, what cubcoltpacer said

[17 Seconds]

I don't get the love for 03 over 08, but then again, I have a different view on the playoffs than most.

Maybe you didn't follow the Cubs as closely in the early part of the decade. 2003 was the year that the was supposed to be the beginning of dominance for a decade. The 2008 team was the end of any relevance.

 

but in terms of which team was better, it's not even close. the 2008 team was completely stacked.

 

That 2008 team was not stacked by any stretch of the imagination. They didn't have any holes, but they were basically just good everywhere instead of having any real greatness. 2003 had a HOF RF and what should have been 2 HOF starting pitchers at the beginning of

 

so your argument is based on 3 players?

 

the 2008 team scored 131 more runs than the 03 team and allowed 12 fewer.

 

the 2008 cubs had a great rotation, an amazing offense that had consistent OBP guys from top to bottom, and then had 2 shutdown strikeout guys at the end of the bullpen. they had the most runs scored in the league, and the second fewest given up. they also had the best record.

 

how is that not stacked?

[jersey cubs fan]

yea, what cubcoltpacer said

 

how the hell can you say that and then follow it with your other reponse.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

I don't get the love for 03 over 08, but then again, I have a different view on the playoffs than most.

Maybe you didn't follow the Cubs as closely in the early part of the decade. 2003 was the year that the was supposed to be the beginning of dominance for a decade. The 2008 team was the end of any relevance.

 

but in terms of which team was better, it's not even close. the 2008 team was completely stacked.

 

That 2008 team was not stacked by any stretch of the imagination. They didn't have any holes, but they were basically just good everywhere instead of having any real greatness. 2003 had a HOF RF and what should have been 2 HOF starting pitchers at the beginning of their careers.

 

2003 had the feeling of a team on the verge of continued dominance and 2008 had the feel of a complete one-off opportunity.

 

Not to mention 2003 did something no other Cubs team had ever done, win a playoff series, while 2008 ended in completely bombed. Say what you will about playoffs being a crap shoot, but let's not pretend they don't matter or shouldn't influence your opinion of a team.

 

Completely agree with this. It's all in the pitching talent for me and 2003's SP staff would eat 2008's for breakfast. The guy who was the 3rd best pitcher on the '03 staff was the ace of the '08 staff, and it wasn't because he became a significantly better pitcher from '03 to '08.

 

I think the Prior situation is the only thing that makes me a "real' Cubs fan. That whole thing STILL stings.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

so your argument is based on 3 players?

 

the 2008 team scored 131 more runs than the 03 team and allowed 12 fewer.

 

the 2008 cubs had a great rotation, an amazing offense that had consistent OBP guys from top to bottom, and then had 2 shutdown strikeout guys at the end of the bullpen. they had the most runs scored in the league, and the second fewest given up. they also had the best record.

 

how is that not stacked?

 

Stacked typically refers to a superstar filled roster...elite players...guys can have elite YEARS but not be elite players (Derrek Lee 2009 comes to mind instantly...a case of a very good MLB regular having a superstar/elite season)...The 2008 team was well designed, but there isn't a single truly elite MLB player on the roster except for the then 38 year old Jim Edmonds. Lets face it...it was also a HUGE deviation from what the Cubs hoped and dreamed of when they opened the decade with the most exciting young rotation in baseball. 2008 coulda/woulda/shoulda had a 27 year old Mark Prior anchoring the rotation and yadda yadda yadda.