Brooks Raley has been called up

[Little Slide Rooter]

The fact that when putting together a 5 man rotation from 5 seasons worth of Cubs teams, and that's the best you came up with speaks volumes about the Cubs teams of that era.

 

True. It's still better than the current rotation, though.

 

Currently, but it has 2 rookies, one of whom has yet to throw a big league pitch, 1 guy who's a full time starter for the first time and 2 young pitchers still trying to establish themselves. If this were to be the Cubs rotation for the next 5 years, and I pray to every deity imagineable that it isn't, there's a chance that it could be better.

[dew1679666265]

Currently, but it has 2 rookies, one of whom has yet to throw a big league pitch, 1 guy who's a full time starter for the first time and 2 young pitchers still trying to establish themselves. If this were to be the Cubs rotation for the next 5 years, and I pray to every deity imagineable that it isn't, there's a chance that it could be better.

 

I really doubt that. You could make an argument that Shark/Wood would be better than the duo of Guzman/Tapani, but mainly just because Shark will probably be a decent amount better than Guzman. Wood isn't likely to be better than, or even as good as, Tapani. The bottom of the older rotation (Hibbard/Trachsel/Morgan) is unquestionably better than Germano/Volstad/Raley ever could be.

[Theo]

The fact that when putting together a 5 man rotation from 5 seasons worth of Cubs teams, and that's the best you came up with speaks volumes about the Cubs teams of that era.

 

True. It's still better than the current rotation, though.

 

Currently, but it has 2 rookies, one of whom has yet to throw a big league pitch, 1 guy who's a full time starter for the first time and 2 young pitchers still trying to establish themselves. If this were to be the Cubs rotation for the next 5 years, and I pray to every deity imagineable that it isn't, there's a chance that it could be better.

Are you seriously splitting hairs over some random make believe scenario you thought up?

[Little Slide Rooter]

Currently, but it has 2 rookies, one of whom has yet to throw a big league pitch, 1 guy who's a full time starter for the first time and 2 young pitchers still trying to establish themselves. If this were to be the Cubs rotation for the next 5 years, and I pray to every deity imagineable that it isn't, there's a chance that it could be better.

 

I really doubt that. You could make an argument that Shark/Wood would be better than the duo of Guzman/Tapani, but mainly just because Shark will probably be a decent amount better than Guzman. Wood isn't likely to be better than, or even as good as, Tapani. The bottom of the older rotation (Hibbard/Trachsel/Morgan) is unquestionably better than Germano/Volstad/Raley ever could be.

 

If Volstad ever learns to avoid the inning of doom, he could be a very good 3-4 starter. The thing about every one of the 90's guys is that each gave us a few good seasons, but long term, every one of them was a band-aid. Aside from Shark, and maybe Wood these guys probably are too. Certainly Germano.

[champaignchris]

Shark/Wood/Volstad/Germano/Raley might not be a pretty rotation, but before anyone calls it the worst ever, I challenge them to take every single Cubs starter between Madduxes '92 departure and Wood's '98 debut and put together a rotation that would be much better.

 

Career ERA+:

Shark - 94

Wood - 91

Volstad - 86

Germano - 83

Raley - 3.74 ERA/1.428 WHIP

 

Jose Guzman - 102

Kevin Tapani - 101

Steve Trachsel - 99

Greg Hibbard - 98

Mike Morgan - 97

 

The fact that when putting together a 5 man rotation from 5 seasons worth of Cubs teams, and that's the best you came up with speaks volumes about the Cubs teams of that era.

 

The actions of the Cubs front office from 1987 to 1994 under Frey and Himes were outright criminal. Undid everything Dallas Green built.

[questionmarkgrace]

huh. Maybe I spoke too soon. That was a very Coleman-esque outing.

[imb]

surprisingly, raley's mid-80s fastball just wasnt fooling anyone

[bukie]

surprisingly, raley's mid-80s fastball just wasnt fooling anyone

Let's be fair, it fooled WSR.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Maddux only threw in the mid-70s and he got hitters out. Raley will be fine.

[Vinestal]

Maddux only threw in the mid-70s and he got hitters out. Raley will be fine.

come on now, mid-70s? Even in his final season his fastball was in the 80s. Point taken though about success with lower velocity.

[seanimal]

totally appropriate comparison

[Guest]

Maddux only threw in the mid-70s and he got hitters out. Raley will be fine.

come on now, mid-70s? Even in his final season his fastball was in the 80s. Point taken though about success with lower velocity.

 

Woosh.

[Little Slide Rooter]

You don't have to be Greg Maddux to get by without blazing stuff. This Mike Fiers character in the Brewers seems to top out in the mid-high 80's, but nobody seems to have been able to figure him out. The guys pitched 80 innings with 80 K, 16 BB, 1.80 ERA and 1.013 WHIP with like an 87 MPH fastball.

[Theo]

Jerry Rice ran a 4.9 40.

[Little Slide Rooter]

surprisingly, raley's mid-80s fastball just wasnt fooling anyone

Let's be fair, it fooled WSR.

 

The only thing he's fooled me into thinking is that he deserves a few more starts until we move onto the next option that likely won't be any better. My reasoning for wanting to see him get a chance wasn't that I thought he could be anything special. It was that Casey Coleman's had enough chances. Rodrigo Lopez or Ryan Rowand Smith would be a waste of the opportunity. Raley, Rusin, and Struck will each be rule 5 eligible in the Winter. Can't protect them all, so the time had come to start cycling through these guys rather than try and catch the Brewers for 4th place with some 36 year old they dug out of the frontier league.

[AlwaysaCub]

Remember John Koronka? Yeah, me neither.

[El Duderino]

Remember John Koronka? Yeah, me neither.

 

I remembered him when one of the Cubs draft picks this year was recommended by him.

[Cubswin11]

You don't have to be Greg Maddux to get by without blazing stuff. This Mike Fiers character in the Brewers seems to top out in the mid-high 80's, but nobody seems to have been able to figure him out. The guys pitched 80 innings with 80 K, 16 BB, 1.80 ERA and 1.013 WHIP with like an 87 MPH fastball.

Randy Wells was good once too and had similar results over a little bit more time but roughly has the same stuff as Fiers

[Little Slide Rooter]

You don't have to be Greg Maddux to get by without blazing stuff. This Mike Fiers character in the Brewers seems to top out in the mid-high 80's, but nobody seems to have been able to figure him out. The guys pitched 80 innings with 80 K, 16 BB, 1.80 ERA and 1.013 WHIP with like an 87 MPH fastball.

Randy Wells was good once too

 

In 2009, 2010, and then for 6 innings in 2011, he sure looked like someone who could be an affordable 4-5 starter for several years.

[Guest]

You don't have to be Greg Maddux to get by without blazing stuff. This Mike Fiers character in the Brewers seems to top out in the mid-high 80's, but nobody seems to have been able to figure him out. The guys pitched 80 innings with 80 K, 16 BB, 1.80 ERA and 1.013 WHIP with like an 87 MPH fastball.

Randy Wells was good once too

 

In 2009, 2010, and then for 6 innings in 2011, he sure looked like someone who could be an affordable 4-5 starter for several years.

Should we be upset that he only turned out to be an affordable 4-5 starter for a couple years?

[Little Slide Rooter]

You don't have to be Greg Maddux to get by without blazing stuff. This Mike Fiers character in the Brewers seems to top out in the mid-high 80's, but nobody seems to have been able to figure him out. The guys pitched 80 innings with 80 K, 16 BB, 1.80 ERA and 1.013 WHIP with like an 87 MPH fastball.

Randy Wells was good once too

 

In 2009, 2010, and then for 6 innings in 2011, he sure looked like someone who could be an affordable 4-5 starter for several years.

Should we be upset that he only turned out to be an affordable 4-5 starter for a couple years?

 

It would certainly have been better had he been an affordable 4-5 starter for a couple more years, but we've had far more to be upset about in recent years than a guy who came out of nowhere to give us 2 quality seasons and sunk as quickly as he emerges. I guess we should be thankful that Hendry didn't give him an / extension with a full NTC. Amiright?

[Careless]

Except Wells wasn't anything like a 4-5 starter in his two good years. He was a 2-3 starter in those years.

[illiniguy]

Except Wells wasn't anything like a 4-5 starter in his two good years. He was a 2-3 starter in those years.

Yeah he had a strange career path. For a couple years he was pretty damn good for cheap. Then he got hurt and lost some control.

[jumbo]

Except Wells wasn't anything like a 4-5 starter in his two good years. He was a 2-3 starter in those years.

Yeah he had a strange career path. For a couple years he was pretty damn good for cheap. Then he got hurt and lost some control.

Wells' success is an example of a player getting results over and above their ability. A lot of people predicted that Wells would come down to Earth and that he wouldn't be able to sustain that success. Then it happened.

 

I was initially surprised that a player can have a "lucky season." A lucky week or month, sure, but a lucky season seemed hard for me to fathom. It does happen though, and (without looking up some of his metrics, etc) I'd say that's what happened to Wells.

 

The only other explanation is similar to how I play golf. I'll have it for a round, then I feel like I've never played before. I'd say Wells is a 100 shooting golfer who pulled off a couple mid 80's rounds and can't get it back.

[Exile on Waveland]

Wells was always going to come back to earth. The surprise was that people were surprised when it happened (especially considering he pitched worse each year after his great first season).