2012 Cubs Win Total

[Sammys Boombox]

Cubs finished 2011 71-91. Some "experts" seem to be placing the Cubs at the bottom of the league, hinting that they may lose 100 games this year. I think this is ridiculous but would like to see where NSBB thinks they'll fall and why. If anybody can make a good WAR argument that would be great.

 

Make whatever assumptions you want while choosing. i.e. "I think the Cubs will trade Garza before the season starts for prospects that will not make any impact on the club this season. Therefore, I am going to say they will win X number of games." In other words, this is not necessarily a "as it stands now" poll.

 

I don't intend for this to replace any yearly competitions that NSBB puts on, but just want to start a discussion on how bad/good you think the Cubs will be this year.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

21

[Hairyducked Idiot]

77-85

[Sammy Sofa]

So you think it's ridiculous that a team that's a mess like this could lose 10 more games than they did last year?

 

I don't think that'll be happening, but your scoffing like the Cubs are some kind of sleeper pick to ideally do more than just win a few more games than last year at best seems a bit forced.

[BeerHere]

62-64 tops and that's a good thing.

[Sammy Sofa]

62-64 tops and that's a good thing.

 

No, it's really not.

[Sammys Boombox]

So you think it's ridiculous that a team that's a mess like this could lose 10 more games than they did last year?

 

I don't think that'll be happening, but your scoffing like the Cubs are some kind of sleeper pick to ideally do more than just win a few more games than last year at best seems a bit forced.

 

Uh, what? Where did you get that?

[Sammy Sofa]

Where you derisively talked about "experts" and said it was ridiculous to think they could lose 100 games next year. Why do you think that's such a ridiculous guess?

[SouthSideRyan]

62-64 tops

 

No it's really not.

[Guest]

They will surpass their win total from last year, but that's not much of a feat. Edited February 8, 2012 by CubinNY

[mookie]

60-72. These guys are scrubtastic. I am excited, but it isn't an excitement for winning.

[Sammys Boombox]

Where you derisively talked about "experts" and said it was ridiculous to think they could lose 100 games next year. Why do you think that's such a ridiculous guess?

 

That's not the part of your post that I highlighted.

 

but your scoffing like the Cubs are some kind of sleeper pick to ideally do more than just win a few more games than last year at best seems a bit forced.

 

I have no idea where that came from, other than you putting words in my mouth.

 

I genuinely want to know where you all think they will land. That's why I asked.

 

Why do I think it's ridiculous to say they will lose 100 games? I don't think the MLB roster is a whole lot worse than last year, and the rest of the division has gotten worse (besides Cincy).

[Sammy Sofa]

I voted for just above last year, more because that's what I'm hoping for than what I expect, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were worse. They'd only have to lose 9 more games than they did last year to lose 100 next season, hence why I was "putting words in your mouth" because apparently you think such a possibility is "ridiculous." Sniping at people making picks where they lose 100 games as being "experts" and saying it's ridiculous just smacks of protesting way too much over a crappy team.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I just don't see much 100-loss downside of this team. If nothing else, they've got a nice amount of depth.

 

I mean, what sort of downside is there, really? Garza traded and Castro hurt? Otherwise, it's just a mass of above-replacement, under-average fungible players.

[Sammy Sofa]

Sweet, it's totally as easy to rebuild from being a 60-win team as it is being a, say, 77-win team.

[seanimal]

i think we'll finish with an identical record

[Guest]

72 on the low end, 80 on the high end. And they aren't going to lose 100 games next year unless Castro gets thrown in jail and Garza and Dempster each require TJS after a tragic high-fiving accident.

[Butterscup1679666578]

73

[C.C.]

25%

[UMFan83]

I keep looking at the projected lineup and wonder where the heck the power is going to come from. We finished 15th in baseball in SLG and 20th in HRs last year, and lost our 2 best power hitters and replaced them with Ian Stewart and Brian LaHair.

 

SLG% and HRs last year

 

DeJesus - .376, 10

Byrd - .395, 9

Soriano - .469, 26

Stewart - .221, 0 (ok .441, 18 his last full season)

Castro - .432, 10

Barney - .353, 2

Soto - .411, 17

 

Then you have LaHair. Probably not as bad as the Astros or Padres but not exactly a dangerous offense.

 

I do like the pitching depth so that will keep us in games more often than not, and the defense has to be better than last year. I'd guess a win total around 70-75, more because of improvements in run prevention than improvements in offense.

[Bull]

someone make him stop, plz.

 

also, 82 wins. above .500.

[davell]

76-86. Garza, Soto, and Byrd traded during season. Soriano DFA'd in June. Brett, Rizzo, Cespedes, and Turner(Garza deal) all come up and show serious potential during the 2nd half. LaHair and Stewart both hit 20+ homers. Castro puts up an .825 OPS. Dempster sucks and no one trades for him. Volstad and Wells both pitch themselves into the bullpen. Travis Wood pitches very well, but struggles down stretch. Shark gets shot at starting and shows serious potential for breakout in 2013. Maholm pitches well enough to pick his option up. DeJesus becomes the new "likability" guy(DeRosa). Back end of bullpen is a mess, as Marmol struggles, Wood does as well, and the youngsters take their lumps. Because of showings by Brett, Rizzo, Cespedes, Turner, Shark, Travis Wood, and Castro tons of optimism heading into 2013.

[Rob]

72 on the low end, 80 on the high end. And they aren't going to lose 100 games next year unless Castro gets thrown in jail and Garza and Dempster each require TJS after a tragic high-fiving accident.

 

I'm thinking you're a touch high, unless you're assuming we don't end up trading a couple of Garza/Dempster/Byrd/Soto

[CubmanPi]

This 65-97 team will be WAY better than the 2006 team.

[Sammys Boombox]

I voted for just above last year, more because that's what I'm hoping for than what I expect, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were worse. They'd only have to lose 9 more games than they did last year to lose 100 next season, hence why I was "putting words in your mouth" because apparently you think such a possibility is "ridiculous." Sniping at people making picks where they lose 100 games as being "experts" and saying it's ridiculous just smacks of protesting way too much over a crappy team.

 

There are plenty of dumb remarks that you can attack without assuming you know what somebody is thinking. So just stop. That highlighted quote was nowhere near what I was thinking. If you need to add words to somebody's post to make it easier to trash their post, then maybe you should step back and make sure the post is worth trashing.

 

I am a pessimist when it comes to the Cubs. I'm excited about this year purely for the moves and the chance to see young guys develop. Nothing more. I always use quotes when talking about media "experts." I would post the same way if we were the favorite to win the division and they said we will win the division. Maybe I should have used the word "surprised" instead of "ridiculous." My bad. So, hopefully you can see that you read way too much into one sentence.