Piecing together the 25 Man Roster

[haubrich91]

We won 71 games last year with horrible starting pitching, and IMO we improved it this Off-Season. Our offense took a step back from last year, but I think we'll win anywhere from 70 to 80 games.

[XZero771679666304]

I think the range is probably something like 65-75 with low 70s being the most likely outcome. 65 would mean absolutely everything went wrong and 75 would mean we really exceeded expectations.

 

I'm more optimistic on Soriano than most and I feel like Soto can rebound pretty well, but even considering that, this offense is just absolutely putrid. The bench is especially horrific. I actually think the rotation looks pretty decent at worst and the bullpen could be pretty good, but the pen could easily tank as well.

 

I'm not convinced the offense is putrid. It's not very good, but it could be decent with a moderate amount of luck. I have Soto and Castro pegged for big years. This isn't exactly going out on a limb, but the offense really hinges on Stewart and LaHair, the former moreso because I don't see LaHair holding out beyond July. If Stewart could manage an .800 OPS (unlikely, but not out of the question), the offense could be passable. If Sori has any kind of renaissance, it could be decent.

 

Of course I'm counting on DeJesus to be what he has been throughout his career outside of 2011. The bench is pretty bad, but Clevenger is a step up from Hill, at least. If (when) Mather falls on his face Sappelt can be recalled.

 

But what will make the 2012 Cubs as good or better than the 2011 team is the rotation. It's hard to overstate just how bad the back half was for most of 2011, a situation that would require an absolute catastrophe to be repeated.

 

I think the Cubs start out slow, but rebound in the second half in part because of the schedule and in part because of BJax and Rizzo. I'll guess 73-78 wins.

 

If the biggest variables all break right (Stewart, LaHair and Soriano all OPS over .800 and Marmol returns to form), this team is capable of winning 80-85 games. But the odds of that happening are pretty long.

[Backtobanks]

Let's not forget some of the starting pitchers we were trotting out there last season. 60 wins is extremely harsh.

 

This season we actually have depth. Aside from Castro and Garza, every backup isn't much, if any worse than the guy starting in front of him.

 

Just picking a random comment to respond to.

 

As noted, I did say 60 was the low end. But for all this talk about depth, there's also the possibility that (not that I am expecting this, but why I have 60 as the low end)

 

- The lineup ... sucks for much of the year. The youngsters go through ... youngster struggles when they get called up. Soto hits more like he did last year. While I tend to be somewhat optimistic that Ian Stewart can be passable/decent at 3rd (offensively and defensively), it's possible the loop in his swing is something that he can't adjust/fix. It's not hard to imagine LaHair plateauing as a decent bench option. It's also not that hard to imagine DeJesus' struggling (although I think he'll be alright). Our great bench doesn't mean that any of those guys are decent starters. I do tend to think Castro will take a step forward, though.

 

- The bullpen ... sucks for much of the year. Whatever is ailing Marmol this spring isn't resolved. That leaves a pen with very few guys with swing and miss secondary pitches. I mean, it isn't that hard to imagine a crappy bullpen.

 

- The rotation isn't as good as we hoped for (now, I tend to think the rotation will be fairly solid, just speaking on a negative end possibility). Garza regresses a bit (not hard to imagine). Father Time catches up with Dempster (not hard to imagine). Volstad (who I like) and Maholm show more as end of the rotation starters than borderline 3's (also not hard to imagine). Samardzija struggles with his consistency and his slider is never consistently solid enough, and shows more as an end of the rotation arm. Wood struggles if he gets the opportunity (not that hard to imagine coming off his 2011 and his spring), and Wells (who, personally, I think could bounce back to two year's ago form) shows more as an end of the rotation innings eater when called up. I mean, much as I have championed Dempster as a decent 2 still, it's not hard imagine this rotation as a decent 2 (Garza if he regresses) and a bunch of 4's and 5's.

 

I'm not saying any of this will happen, and if you said to me, 60-72 is too wide a range, what's a specific number I'd go for, I'd say 68. But for all the talk about the depth of this squad, it's still more hope that the depth will develop than anything positive that we can feel comfortable about. So ... I really don't think it's that hard to imagine this team bottoming out as a 60 win team. I think they'll be a tad better, but I don't think it's as unrealistic as some are making it out to be. But that's me.

 

Good analysis and one that I agree with. Another important point is that the improvement in the rotation may not translate into more wins because of the offense. Even Garza and Dempster may have trouble getting wins if they face the #1 and #2 pichers on the other staff. Instead of losing 9-4 with our BOR guys, we might lose 4-2. That's an improvement in the rotation, but it's still a loss. As most everyone has posted, the unknowns (Stewart, Lahair, Soto, Dejesus, etc.) are the key.

[Derwood]

Well every team is going to win 60 and lose 60, so.....

[Backtobanks]

Well every team is going to win 60 and lose 60, so.....

 

It's the other 42 games that will make the difference between contenders and pretenders.

[Guest]

 

Good analysis and one that I agree with. Another important point is that the improvement in the rotation may not translate into more wins because of the offense. Even Garza and Dempster may have trouble getting wins if they face the #1 and #2 pichers on the other staff. Instead of losing 9-4 with our BOR guys, we might lose 4-2. That's an improvement in the rotation, but it's still a loss. As most everyone has posted, the unknowns (Stewart, Lahair, Soto, Dejesus, etc.) are the key.

 

That's an important point?

 

Do you think people would be predicting mid and low 70's win totals with this rotation if they didn't realize the offense wasn't all that great?

[Little Slide Rooter]

Well every team is going to win 60 and lose 60, so.....

 

I wouldnt be surprised if the Astros take a hot, steaming dump all over that cliche. I cant remember the last time I saw a team look that bad on paper.

[Derwood]

Well every team is going to win 60 and lose 60, so.....

 

I wouldnt be surprised if the Astros take a hot, steaming dump all over that cliche. I cant remember the last time I saw a team look that bad on paper.

 

The NL Central will miss them deeply

[dew1679666265]

I'm not convinced the offense is putrid. It's not very good, but it could be decent with a moderate amount of luck. I have Soto and Castro pegged for big years. This isn't exactly going out on a limb, but the offense really hinges on Stewart and LaHair, the former moreso because I don't see LaHair holding out beyond July. If Stewart could manage an .800 OPS (unlikely, but not out of the question), the offense could be passable. If Sori has any kind of renaissance, it could be decent.

 

Of course I'm counting on DeJesus to be what he has been throughout his career outside of 2011. The bench is pretty bad, but Clevenger is a step up from Hill, at least. If (when) Mather falls on his face Sappelt can be recalled.

 

But what will make the 2012 Cubs as good or better than the 2011 team is the rotation. It's hard to overstate just how bad the back half was for most of 2011, a situation that would require an absolute catastrophe to be repeated.

 

I think the Cubs start out slow, but rebound in the second half in part because of the schedule and in part because of BJax and Rizzo. I'll guess 73-78 wins.

 

If the biggest variables all break right (Stewart, LaHair and Soriano all OPS over .800 and Marmol returns to form), this team is capable of winning 80-85 games. But the odds of that happening are pretty long.

 

Soto and Castro are pretty much musts to have big years, and I expect both to produce very well. I do agree that outside of those two, the offense has the potential to be decent if everything breaks right. The problem is, if everybody hits right around their most likely level of production, this offense probably is going to be putrid.

 

I'm more optimistic than most on Soriano, but he's still in his mid 30s and the biggest reason I think he'll show some signs of life this year is because I think the new regime will give him extra time off. The problem there, however, is that will drag down our overall numbers because Joe Mather will get more PT in his place. Outside of that, Byrd should rebound so long as he doesn't get hit in the face again but he's getting old, Stewart's best ML year was an .804 OPS and that was in half a season, Barney is really good defensively but was pretty bad offensively last year and LaHair is likely to be horrid. Our most likely third best bat, DeJesus, is 32 and posted a .698 OPS last year. I think he'll rebound, but that's 5 positions where we're hoping for a rebound (LF/CF/RF/3B/C), 2 where terrible offensive production is almost assured (2B/1B), and 1 position that we can take for granted that we'll get top end production.

 

The offense definitely could be better than putrid, but we're fighting an uphill battle to get there and need a lot to go right to simply get into the ballpark of average.

[jersey cubs fan]

The offense definitely could be better than putrid, but we're fighting an uphill battle to get there and need a lot to go right to simply get into the ballpark of average.

 

For a comparison, Soto had a damn good 2010 season, the entire OF was solid, Colvin came out of nowhere with great numbers, Castro had a solid debut, Theriot did everything Darwin Barney can do and the team still finished 10th in the NL in runs scored and OPS. The rotation was fairly stable and relatively deep (the highest ERA among starters was 4.26 and 3 guys were sub 4.00) and Marmol and Marshall were great yet they still only won 75 games.

 

I think a lot of people are putting a lot of faith in the notion that they won't be as horrible as they were last year in some spots. But you actually have to have some good players to be a good team. The Cubs don't have nearly enough good players.

[Sammy Sofa]

The offense definitely could be better than putrid, but we're fighting an uphill battle to get there and need a lot to go right to simply get into the ballpark of average.

 

For a comparison, Soto had a damn good 2010 season, the entire OF was solid, Colvin came out of nowhere with great numbers, Castro had a solid debut, Theriot did everything Darwin Barney can do and the team still finished 10th in the NL in runs scored and OPS. The rotation was fairly stable and relatively deep (the highest ERA among starters was 4.26 and 3 guys were sub 4.00) and Marmol and Marshall were great yet they still only won 75 games.

 

I think a lot of people are putting a lot of faith in the notion that they won't be as horrible as they were last year in some spots. But you actually have to have some good players to be a good team. The Cubs don't have nearly enough good players.

 

This.

[Guest]

Because lots of people are pegging them for way more than 75 wins?

[jersey cubs fan]

Because lots of people are pegging them for way more than 75 wins?

No, some people just seem to be trying to back into convincing themselves that there's something more here than what is here. It is going to take a hell of a lot more than luck to make this offense something other than bad, like another round of roster overhaul.

[Backtobanks]

 

Good analysis and one that I agree with. Another important point is that the improvement in the rotation may not translate into more wins because of the offense. Even Garza and Dempster may have trouble getting wins if they face the #1 and #2 pichers on the other staff. Instead of losing 9-4 with our BOR guys, we might lose 4-2. That's an improvement in the rotation, but it's still a loss. As most everyone has posted, the unknowns (Stewart, Lahair, Soto, Dejesus, etc.) are the key.

 

That's an important point?

 

Do you think people would be predicting mid and low 70's win totals with this rotation if they didn't realize the offense wasn't all that great?

 

The rotation isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Garza would probably be no better than a #2 on a good team while Dempster would probably be a #3 or #4. Maholm is a #5 and Shark & Volsted are unknowns. The depth of the rotation is better than last year, but this is nowhere near a starting rotation for a good team. That being said, it's the most solid part of the 2012 Cubs.

[Guest]

 

Good analysis and one that I agree with. Another important point is that the improvement in the rotation may not translate into more wins because of the offense. Even Garza and Dempster may have trouble getting wins if they face the #1 and #2 pichers on the other staff. Instead of losing 9-4 with our BOR guys, we might lose 4-2. That's an improvement in the rotation, but it's still a loss. As most everyone has posted, the unknowns (Stewart, Lahair, Soto, Dejesus, etc.) are the key.

 

That's an important point?

 

Do you think people would be predicting mid and low 70's win totals with this rotation if they didn't realize the offense wasn't all that great?

 

The rotation isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Garza would probably be no better than a #2 on a good team while Dempster would probably be a #3 or #4. Maholm is a #5 and Shark & Volsted are unknowns. The depth of the rotation is better than last year, but this is nowhere near a starting rotation for a good team. That being said, it's the most solid part of the 2012 Cubs.

 

lol

 

 

also, i didn't realize that suggesting it wouldn't be the rotation of a 75 win team if it had a decent offense meant it was being cracked up to be a whole lot.

Edited March 30, 2012 by David

[jersey cubs fan]

Garza would probably be no better than a #2 on a good team

 

He would be no better than a #2 on PHI, NYY, DET, LAD, probably LAA and maybe SFG. But there are good or potentially good teams where he could start opening day. TEX, BOS, STL, MIL, ATL, AZ maybe TB.

 

There's no point in throwing in the qualifications, Garza isn't an elite pitcher, but he's a #1 capable guy.

[mookie]

Truly making him a number two.

[Guest]

Garza would probably be no better than a #2 on a good team

 

He would be no better than a #2 on PHI, NYY, DET, LAD, probably LAA and maybe SFG. But there are good or potentially good teams where he could start opening day. TEX, BOS, STL, MIL, ATL, AZ maybe TB.

 

There's no point in throwing in the qualifications, Garza isn't an elite pitcher, but he's a #1 capable guy.

 

 

I agree with your post. Just want to point out that he kinda was last year. But that was last year and only one year, so it remains to be seen if a - he can keep it up (which is possible since it seems to be the result of a changed approach) and b - he can manage to stay healthy with that newer approach.

[Guest]

Truly making him a number two.

 

These labels are the dumbest [expletive] thing ever.

[jersey cubs fan]

Garza would probably be no better than a #2 on a good team

 

He would be no better than a #2 on PHI, NYY, DET, LAD, probably LAA and maybe SFG. But there are good or potentially good teams where he could start opening day. TEX, BOS, STL, MIL, ATL, AZ maybe TB.

 

There's no point in throwing in the qualifications, Garza isn't an elite pitcher, but he's a #1 capable guy.

 

 

I agree with your post. Just want to point out that he kinda was last year. But that was last year and only one year, so it remains to be seen if a - he can keep it up (which is possible since it seems to be the result of a changed approach) and b - he can manage to stay healthy with that newer approach.

 

I mean strictly in the sense that there are a handful of guys who are clearly better. Halladay, Lee, Sabathia, Verlander. He's not as good as those guys, but there aren't a lot of guys he fails to match up with.

[mookie]

Truly making him a number two.

 

These labels are the dumbest [expletive] thing ever.

 

Not necessarily, Ace, Two, and Three holds some water.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

He's a number 1.83

[El Duderino]

Well every team is going to win 60 and lose 60, so.....

 

except the astros

 

edit: late to the party

Edited March 30, 2012 by El Duderino

[Guest]

Garza would probably be no better than a #2 on a good team

 

He would be no better than a #2 on PHI, NYY, DET, LAD, probably LAA and maybe SFG. But there are good or potentially good teams where he could start opening day. TEX, BOS, STL, MIL, ATL, AZ maybe TB.

 

There's no point in throwing in the qualifications, Garza isn't an elite pitcher, but he's a #1 capable guy.

 

 

I agree with your post. Just want to point out that he kinda was last year. But that was last year and only one year, so it remains to be seen if a - he can keep it up (which is possible since it seems to be the result of a changed approach) and b - he can manage to stay healthy with that newer approach.

 

I mean strictly in the sense that there are a handful of guys who are clearly better. Halladay, Lee, Sabathia, Verlander. He's not as good as those guys, but there aren't a lot of guys he fails to match up with.

 

Agreed.

[Guest]

Truly making him a number two.

 

These labels are the dumbest [expletive] thing ever.

 

Not necessarily, Ace, Two, and Three holds some water.

 

Not when they lead to making dumb generalizations like "Garza is a 2 on a good team."