Cubs after Anibal Sanchez? (Signs with Tiger 5/$80mil)

[Backtobanks]

So there's no chance of Garza being hurt again? Do you really think Baker/Feldman are going to match Dempster/Maholm for the first half? This team (at this point) is no better overall than last year's team at this point.

You feel this is a 100 loss team at this point?

 

If so, no real point in going further in conversation.

 

Last year's team wasn't a 100 loss team at this point either.

 

We are better now at this point than last season at this point. We have Rizzo now. Baker. Feldman. Our best pitching prospect. A new potential closer. Castro signed long term. Solar.

 

This time last year we did have Dempster and Marshall and Cashner. I'll say we have gotten better at this point than this point last year

 

Rizzo, Baker, and Feldman will probably underproduce LaHair, Dempster, and Maholm for 1st half production. (obviously Rizzo is an upgrade long-term) Castro signed long term is great, but doesn't add or detract from the 2013 Cubs. Our best pitching prospect and Solar are great, but neither will be helping this year's team.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

So there's no chance of Garza being hurt again? Do you really think Baker/Feldman are going to match Dempster/Maholm for the first half? This team (at this point) is no better overall than last year's team at this point.

You feel this is a 100 loss team at this point?

 

If so, no real point in going further in conversation.

 

Last year's team wasn't a 100 loss team at this point either.

 

We are better now at this point than last season at this point. We have Rizzo now. Baker. Feldman. Our best pitching prospect. A new potential closer. Castro signed long term. Solar.

 

This time last year we did have Dempster and Marshall and Cashner. I'll say we have gotten better at this point than this point last year

 

Rizzo, Baker, and Feldman will probably underproduce LaHair, Dempster, and Maholm for 1st half production. (obviously Rizzo is an upgrade long-term) Castro signed long term is great, but doesn't add or detract from the 2013 Cubs. Our best pitching prospect and Solar are great, but neither will be helping this year's team.

 

I will take all the things we have now over last year at this point. And I bet I can find you more than half of non championship teams that can't say the same. What does that prove? Probably nothing. But at least we are taking steps forward and not backward. Another year of this, and we will be looking even more promising

[Guest]

So there's no chance of Garza being hurt again? Do you really think Baker/Feldman are going to match Dempster/Maholm for the first half? This team (at this point) is no better overall than last year's team at this point.

You feel this is a 100 loss team at this point?

 

If so, no real point in going further in conversation.

 

Last year's team wasn't a 100 loss team at this point either.

 

We are better now at this point than last season at this point. We have Rizzo now. Baker. Feldman. Our best pitching prospect. A new potential closer. Castro signed long term. Solar.

 

This time last year we did have Dempster and Marshall and Cashner. I'll say we have gotten better at this point than this point last year

 

Rizzo, Baker, and Feldman will probably underproduce LaHair, Dempster, and Maholm for 1st half production. (obviously Rizzo is an upgrade long-term) Castro signed long term is great, but doesn't add or detract from the 2013 Cubs. Our best pitching prospect and Solar are great, but neither will be helping this year's team.

Here is the 2012 OPS by position:

 

C: .616

1B: .796

2B: .684

3B: .611

SS: .751

LF: .783

CF: .640

RF: .688

 

My assessment by position:

 

C: Castillo/Navarro is extremely likely to outproduce what we got last year. Not giving ab's to Clevenger is important

1B: Are you assuming Rizzo doesn't improve? .800 is a fairly low bar for him to cross to improve what we got last year

2B: call this one a wash

3B: We can easily beat this just by giving the job to Valbuena. But somewhere between him, Stewart, Vitters & Lake we're going to find better than a .611 OPS

SS: Castro damn well better improve on this or he's not the player we thought he was going to be

LF: call this one a wash

CF: DeJesus will beat this easily. Jackson if he gets his head out of this rear

RF: Schierholtz has a better career ops than this and has been much better just against righties. And that's in ATT park. Finding a platoon partner shouldn't be hard, whether that's Sappelt, Vitters, or someone else.

 

So, I'm counting six positions where we have very likely improvement and two that are a wash. How are we not better on offense?

[Guest]

I really think we're on the verge of changing Backtobanks' mind here. Another 12-18 months and we really might turn a corner.

 

The Cubs last year were a ~70 win team who had slight underperformance/bad luck, then sold off talent at the deadline and nose-dived to 61 wins. At about the midway point in the offseason, they're now probably about a 75 win team that looks to be very interested in making a couple moves that will push them near .500. Any conversation framed around "well they're barely better than last year's 100 loss team" is not worth taking seriously.

[USSoccer]

I really think we're on the verge of changing Backtobanks' mind here. Another 12-18 months and we really might turn a corner.

 

The Cubs last year were a ~70 win team who had slight underperformance/bad luck, then sold off talent at the deadline and nosedived to 61 wins. At about the midway point in the offseason, they're now probably about a 75 win team that looks to be very interested in making a couple moves that will push them near .500. Any conversation framed around "well they're barely better than last year's 100 loss team" is not worth taking seriously.

 

Good pair of posts, TT.

[Backtobanks]

I really think we're on the verge of changing Backtobanks' mind here. Another 12-18 months and we really might turn a corner.

 

The Cubs last year were a ~70 win team who had slight underperformance/bad luck, then sold off talent at the deadline and nose-dived to 61 wins. At about the midway point in the offseason, they're now probably about a 75 win team that looks to be very interested in making a couple moves that will push them near .500. Any conversation framed around "well they're barely better than last year's 100 loss team" is not worth taking seriously.

 

I'm ready to have my mind changed, but the discussion was about the 2013 Cubs compared to the 2012 Cubs. I would certainly hope that another 12-18 months will make a difference or else the FO has been really fooling us. Actually, I think most people thought the Cubs were closer to a 75-win team last year. Hopefully they won't underproduce this year, but I would imagine there will be another sell off at the deadline which will bring the win total down again this year.

[Guest]

I really think we're on the verge of changing Backtobanks' mind here. Another 12-18 months and we really might turn a corner.

 

The Cubs last year were a ~70 win team who had slight underperformance/bad luck, then sold off talent at the deadline and nose-dived to 61 wins. At about the midway point in the offseason, they're now probably about a 75 win team that looks to be very interested in making a couple moves that will push them near .500. Any conversation framed around "well they're barely better than last year's 100 loss team" is not worth taking seriously.

 

I'm ready to have my mind changed, but the discussion was about the 2013 Cubs compared to the 2012 Cubs. I would certainly hope that another 12-18 months will make a difference or else the FO has been really fooling us. Actually, I think most people thought the Cubs were closer to a 75-win team last year. Hopefully they won't underproduce this year, but I would imagine there will be another sell off at the deadline which will bring the win total down again this year.

What, don't care to get into the specifics where you're proven totally wrong?

[Guest]

I really think we're on the verge of changing Backtobanks' mind here. Another 12-18 months and we really might turn a corner.

 

The Cubs last year were a ~70 win team who had slight underperformance/bad luck, then sold off talent at the deadline and nose-dived to 61 wins. At about the midway point in the offseason, they're now probably about a 75 win team that looks to be very interested in making a couple moves that will push them near .500. Any conversation framed around "well they're barely better than last year's 100 loss team" is not worth taking seriously.

 

I'm ready to have my mind changed, but the discussion was about the 2013 Cubs compared to the 2012 Cubs. I would certainly hope that another 12-18 months will make a difference or else the FO has been really fooling us. Actually, I think most people thought the Cubs were closer to a 75-win team last year. Hopefully they won't underproduce this year, but I would imagine there will be another sell off at the deadline which will bring the win total down again this year.

 

You can at least be honest with us, you're not ready to have your mind changed.

 

It's fair to point out though that many(myself included had the Cubs around 75 wins last year instead of 70. Overestimating the bullpen and underestimating how much the front office valued the service time of Rizzo and Wood were the two biggest factors there. With Marmol's pitch selection overhaul + the addition of Fujikawa, and there being no potential service time issues on this year's team aside from maybe Vizcaino(who isn't counted on by anyone right now), neither of those would be an issue for this year's squad.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

I really think we're on the verge of changing Backtobanks' mind here. Another 12-18 months and we really might turn a corner.

 

The Cubs last year were a ~70 win team who had slight underperformance/bad luck, then sold off talent at the deadline and nose-dived to 61 wins. At about the midway point in the offseason, they're now probably about a 75 win team that looks to be very interested in making a couple moves that will push them near .500. Any conversation framed around "well they're barely better than last year's 100 loss team" is not worth taking seriously.

 

I'm ready to have my mind changed, but the discussion was about the 2013 Cubs compared to the 2012 Cubs. I would certainly hope that another 12-18 months will make a difference or else the FO has been really fooling us. Actually, I think most people thought the Cubs were closer to a 75-win team last year. Hopefully they won't underproduce this year, but I would imagine there will be another sell off at the deadline which will bring the win total down again this year.

 

Yeah, I guess I just look at everything like Before Theo and After Theo. And I'm not going to be impatient because we haven't won a Series since 1908. Theo had nothing do to with that.

 

So, when he took over I wiped the slate clean. And after one season of Theo and what he wants to do, I see nice progress. Progress which I believe will continue.

 

If after his career in Chicago is done and the Cubs don't have a championship, a World Series trip or are considered one of the top franchises in baseball, than I'll be disappointed.

 

But I don't believe that's going to happen. I'm enjoying the building of a team. That is enjoyable to watch for me. The process. The thinking. The moves and the strategy.

[inari]

I really think we're on the verge of changing Backtobanks' mind here. Another 12-18 months and we really might turn a corner.

 

The Cubs last year were a ~70 win team who had slight underperformance/bad luck, then sold off talent at the deadline and nose-dived to 61 wins. At about the midway point in the offseason, they're now probably about a 75 win team that looks to be very interested in making a couple moves that will push them near .500. Any conversation framed around "well they're barely better than last year's 100 loss team" is not worth taking seriously.

 

I'm ready to have my mind changed, but the discussion was about the 2013 Cubs compared to the 2012 Cubs. I would certainly hope that another 12-18 months will make a difference or else the FO has been really fooling us. Actually, I think most people thought the Cubs were closer to a 75-win team last year. Hopefully they won't underproduce this year, but I would imagine there will be another sell off at the deadline which will bring the win total down again this year.

What, don't care to get into the specifics where you're proven totally wrong?

 

Keeping this at the forefront.

[Magnetic Curses]

I really think we're on the verge of changing Backtobanks' mind here. Another 12-18 months and we really might turn a corner.

 

The Cubs last year were a ~70 win team who had slight underperformance/bad luck, then sold off talent at the deadline and nose-dived to 61 wins. At about the midway point in the offseason, they're now probably about a 75 win team that looks to be very interested in making a couple moves that will push them near .500. Any conversation framed around "well they're barely better than last year's 100 loss team" is not worth taking seriously.

 

i understand what you mean. but it's hard to get my heart behind something like this, i don't see how we're that much better and i definitely don't see how we're getting close to .500. a .500 often generates some buzz, i look at our roster and i see a mess and all of our minor league talent still years away. i'm not trying to go all meatball, but it's going to take a move or two (and not nate [expletive] schierholtz) to steal my attention from the low minors discussions.

[davell]

If we add Edwin Jackson, a solid bullpen arm, and find a legit CF, I could see a .500 team, depending on whether Soriano is dealt and what his replacement is.

[Guest]

I really think we're on the verge of changing Backtobanks' mind here. Another 12-18 months and we really might turn a corner.

 

The Cubs last year were a ~70 win team who had slight underperformance/bad luck, then sold off talent at the deadline and nose-dived to 61 wins. At about the midway point in the offseason, they're now probably about a 75 win team that looks to be very interested in making a couple moves that will push them near .500. Any conversation framed around "well they're barely better than last year's 100 loss team" is not worth taking seriously.

 

i understand what you mean. but it's hard to get my heart behind something like this, i don't see how we're that much better and i definitely don't see how we're getting close to .500. a .500 often generates some buzz, i look at our roster and i see a mess and all of our minor league talent still years away. i'm not trying to go all meatball, but it's going to take a move or two (and not nate [expletive] schierholtz) to steal my attention from the low minors discussions.

 

That's fair. And to your point, while it won't take a flood of moves to push the team to .500, it will take 2-3 moves that are more assertive and meaningful than the mild upgrades we've made thus far with Baker, Feldman, and Schierholtz. But adding at least one from Column A(Edwin Jackson, Bourn) and one from Column B(Lirano, Marcum, trading for someone like Bourjos or Porcello) would put them right there, maybe needing one more minor move to compensate for trading away a current MLB piece.

[jumbo]

I really think we're on the verge of changing Backtobanks' mind here. Another 12-18 months and we really might turn a corner.

 

The Cubs last year were a ~70 win team who had slight underperformance/bad luck, then sold off talent at the deadline and nose-dived to 61 wins. At about the midway point in the offseason, they're now probably about a 75 win team that looks to be very interested in making a couple moves that will push them near .500. Any conversation framed around "well they're barely better than last year's 100 loss team" is not worth taking seriously.

 

i understand what you mean. but it's hard to get my heart behind something like this, i don't see how we're that much better and i definitely don't see how we're getting close to .500. a .500 often generates some buzz, i look at our roster and i see a mess and all of our minor league talent still years away. i'm not trying to go all meatball, but it's going to take a move or two (and not nate [expletive] schierholtz) to steal my attention from the low minors discussions.

 

I got curious about how much worse the team was after the trade deadline. Record by month:

 

April: 8-15 .347%

May: 10-17 .370

June: 10-17 .370

July: 15-10 .600

August: 8-21 .276

Sept/Oct: 10-21 .323

[Backtobanks]

Here is the 2012 OPS by position:

 

C: .616

1B: .796

2B: .684

3B: .611

SS: .751

LF: .783

CF: .640

RF: .688

 

My assessment by position:

 

C: Castillo/Navarro is extremely likely to outproduce what we got last year. Not giving ab's to Clevenger is important

1B: Are you assuming Rizzo doesn't improve? .800 is a fairly low bar for him to cross to improve what we got last year

2B: call this one a wash

3B: We can easily beat this just by giving the job to Valbuena. But somewhere between him, Stewart, Vitters & Lake we're going to find better than a .611 OPS

SS: Castro damn well better improve on this or he's not the player we thought he was going to be

LF: call this one a wash

CF: DeJesus will beat this easily. Jackson if he gets his head out of this rear

RF: Schierholtz has a better career ops than this and has been much better just against righties. And that's in ATT park. Finding a platoon partner shouldn't be hard, whether that's Sappelt, Vitters, or someone else.

 

So, I'm counting six positions where we have very likely improvement and two that are a wash. How are we not better on offense?

 

Tim, the discussion was about comparing the 2012 Cubs and the 2013 Cubs at this point of the offseason. Nobody expected Byrd and Soto to completely fall off the cliff offensively. Byrd was coming off .276/.324/.395/.719 in 2011 and .293/.346/.429/.775 in 2010 while Soto was coming off .228/.310/.411/.721 in 2011 and .280/.393/.497/.890 in 2010. I certainly expect Rizzo to improve, but will he surpass LaHair (1st half)/Rizzo (2nd half) production? So again comparing what we expected from Byrd and Soto to what we should expect from Schierholtz and Castillo doesn't seem too much of an improvement. 3B is still a question mark since all of the candidates are basically the same as last year.

[Backtobanks]

I really think we're on the verge of changing Backtobanks' mind here. Another 12-18 months and we really might turn a corner.

 

The Cubs last year were a ~70 win team who had slight underperformance/bad luck, then sold off talent at the deadline and nose-dived to 61 wins. At about the midway point in the offseason, they're now probably about a 75 win team that looks to be very interested in making a couple moves that will push them near .500. Any conversation framed around "well they're barely better than last year's 100 loss team" is not worth taking seriously.

 

I'm ready to have my mind changed, but the discussion was about the 2013 Cubs compared to the 2012 Cubs. I would certainly hope that another 12-18 months will make a difference or else the FO has been really fooling us. Actually, I think most people thought the Cubs were closer to a 75-win team last year. Hopefully they won't underproduce this year, but I would imagine there will be another sell off at the deadline which will bring the win total down again this year.

 

You can at least be honest with us, you're not ready to have your mind changed.

 

It's fair to point out though that many(myself included had the Cubs around 75 wins last year instead of 70. Overestimating the bullpen and underestimating how much the front office valued the service time of Rizzo and Wood were the two biggest factors there. With Marmol's pitch selection overhaul + the addition of Fujikawa, and there being no potential service time issues on this year's team aside from maybe Vizcaino(who isn't counted on by anyone right now), neither of those would be an issue for this year's squad.

 

I am being honest. Right now I don't see this team very much improved over the preseason 2012 team. The rotation is slightly weaker, the bullpen is stronger, and the offense is basically the same as the 2012 team at this point last year. Again things can (and probably will) change in the next 3-4 months which would affect my opinion.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Here's why we were bad:

 

CF: Byrd: Even in 2011, Byrd was good for a .275/.719 line. Granted, he'd been on a steady decline over the prior 3 years, but we didn't expect the bottom to drop out. Then again, we didn't expect him to be on PEDs. Once he was gone, I don't even remember what the center field situation was up until the Jackson experiment.

 

C: Soto: We were hoping that Soto's even year trend would continue. Didn't happen. Even in his previous odd years, he'd been good for a low .700s OPS. Didn't happen either. He teamed up with Hill and Clevenger to form a 3 headed monster until Castillo came and offered some semblance of production.

 

3B: Stewart: we hoped for league average offense. Instead, we got a daily debate anout luck until he hit the DL. Later ended up with Valbuena and eventually Vitters giving us nothing.

 

Bullpen: Wood/Marmol could have been a very dominant back end of the pen, with Camp and Russell offering stability in the middle. Wood mercifully retired and Marmol was injured, leaving us with a "closer by comitee mess." the result was that our once quality middle relief became the back end and we were stuck with a revolving door of awful comprising the rest of the pen.

 

Back of the Rotation: Garza/Demp/Shark was as good as any 1-3 in baseball. Sadly, most of their efforts were wasted between the lack of runs by our offense and abundance of runs by our bullpen. The back was a different story. Maholm was awful at first before settling into the guy that landed us our top pitching prospect. The 5 spot was different. Whether it was Volstad's "inning of doom" or the junk that replaced him, we were pretty much screwed every 5th day; even more so than every 1st through 4th day. By the time we settled on Wood, guys started getting hurt, thrusting Wood, a decent enough 4-5 most of the time into a 3-4, depending on who was injured at the time.

 

Here's why we lost 100 games;

After Dempster and Maholm were traded, and Garza shut down, we had two big league starters. Shark a quality front end, and Wood back end. Once Shark was shut down, Wood, the once solid enough 4-5 was our default #1. The rest is history.

 

Post July Offense: We had Castro, Rizzo, Soriano, DeJesus, Barney, and Castillo. The rest of the roster resembed one which you would expect to see in early April, not that the Pre-August roster looked much better.

 

Here's why we didn't end up with the top pick in the 2013 Draft:

 

Alfonso Soriano

LaHair in April

Rizzo in July/August

Dempster, Garza, Shark, and later Maholm not having their efforts squandered.

The Astros exist

[Magnetic Curses]

I really think we're on the verge of changing Backtobanks' mind here. Another 12-18 months and we really might turn a corner.

 

The Cubs last year were a ~70 win team who had slight underperformance/bad luck, then sold off talent at the deadline and nose-dived to 61 wins. At about the midway point in the offseason, they're now probably about a 75 win team that looks to be very interested in making a couple moves that will push them near .500. Any conversation framed around "well they're barely better than last year's 100 loss team" is not worth taking seriously.

 

I'm ready to have my mind changed, but the discussion was about the 2013 Cubs compared to the 2012 Cubs. I would certainly hope that another 12-18 months will make a difference or else the FO has been really fooling us. Actually, I think most people thought the Cubs were closer to a 75-win team last year. Hopefully they won't underproduce this year, but I would imagine there will be another sell off at the deadline which will bring the win total down again this year.

 

You can at least be honest with us, you're not ready to have your mind changed.

 

It's fair to point out though that many(myself included had the Cubs around 75 wins last year instead of 70. Overestimating the bullpen and underestimating how much the front office valued the service time of Rizzo and Wood were the two biggest factors there. With Marmol's pitch selection overhaul + the addition of Fujikawa, and there being no potential service time issues on this year's team aside from maybe Vizcaino(who isn't counted on by anyone right now), neither of those would be an issue for this year's squad.

 

I am being honest. Right now I don't see this team very much improved over the preseason 2012 team. The rotation is slightly weaker, the bullpen is stronger, and the offense is basically the same as the 2012 team at this point last year. Again things can (and probably will) change in the next 3-4 months which would affect my opinion.

 

i think this is a fair opinion.

[Sammy Sofa]

I really think we're on the verge of changing Backtobanks' mind here. Another 12-18 months and we really might turn a corner.

 

The Cubs last year were a ~70 win team who had slight underperformance/bad luck, then sold off talent at the deadline and nose-dived to 61 wins. At about the midway point in the offseason, they're now probably about a 75 win team that looks to be very interested in making a couple moves that will push them near .500. Any conversation framed around "well they're barely better than last year's 100 loss team" is not worth taking seriously.

 

I'm ready to have my mind changed, but the discussion was about the 2013 Cubs compared to the 2012 Cubs. I would certainly hope that another 12-18 months will make a difference or else the FO has been really fooling us. Actually, I think most people thought the Cubs were closer to a 75-win team last year. Hopefully they won't underproduce this year, but I would imagine there will be another sell off at the deadline which will bring the win total down again this year.

 

You can at least be honest with us, you're not ready to have your mind changed.

 

It's fair to point out though that many(myself included had the Cubs around 75 wins last year instead of 70. Overestimating the bullpen and underestimating how much the front office valued the service time of Rizzo and Wood were the two biggest factors there. With Marmol's pitch selection overhaul + the addition of Fujikawa, and there being no potential service time issues on this year's team aside from maybe Vizcaino(who isn't counted on by anyone right now), neither of those would be an issue for this year's squad.

 

I am being honest. Right now I don't see this team very much improved over the preseason 2012 team. The rotation is slightly weaker, the bullpen is stronger, and the offense is basically the same as the 2012 team at this point last year. Again things can (and probably will) change in the next 3-4 months which would affect my opinion.

 

i think this is a fair opinion.

 

Same here. That scares me.

[Guest]

Tim, the discussion was about comparing the 2012 Cubs and the 2013 Cubs at this point of the offseason. Nobody expected Byrd and Soto to completely fall off the cliff offensively. Byrd was coming off .276/.324/.395/.719 in 2011 and .293/.346/.429/.775 in 2010 while Soto was coming off .228/.310/.411/.721 in 2011 and .280/.393/.497/.890 in 2010. I certainly expect Rizzo to improve, but will he surpass LaHair (1st half)/Rizzo (2nd half) production? So again comparing what we expected from Byrd and Soto to what we should expect from Schierholtz and Castillo doesn't seem too much of an improvement. 3B is still a question mark since all of the candidates are basically the same as last year.

You're being inconsistent in your own argument. You look at what Byrd and Soto did in 2011 and talk about this being about expectations on 12/16 last year. But then you talk about Rizzo having to beat LaHair's first half (btw - 1st base as a whole had a .796 OPS last year, Rizzo will beat that easily). You also talk about the actual performance of the pitching staff instead of what was expected of them going into last year.

 

Let's make this about expectations then. But we need to compare expectations at the same point in the offseason to be fair.

 

- Byrd did perform much worse than expected going into last year. But he had been declining. He's being replaced this year by a Schierholtz/Sappelt platoon that should out perform Byrd's 2011 .719 OPS easily

- Soriano was hurt and pretty bad in 2011

- Most of us had very low expectations for LaHair

- Samardzija was a big unknown heading into the rotation

- We didn't even have Rizzo yet

- We didn't sign Maholm for another month

- Dempster was coming off a 4.80 ERA season and looked to many to be declining quickly

- Zambrano was still in the rotation and sucked hard

- We hadn't yet traded for Travis Wood

 

So, fundamentally, our rotation was Garza, a lousy in 2011 Dempster, a lousy in 2011 Zambrano and an unproven Shark. We didn't even have a fifth starter at this point last year.

 

On offense, expectations are much higher for Soriano than they were last year. We have much, much higher expectations for Rizzo than we did for LaHair. DeJesus is constant, but I expect more out of a Schierholtz + Sappelt platoon than I did from a declining Byrd. The only spot where expectations are lower is catcher.

 

I'm not sure how you can honestly say expectations are similar to last offseason at this same point. The projections on offense are somewhat better and at this point last year the rotation was in shambles.

[Guest]

I am being honest. Right now I don't see this team very much improved over the preseason 2012 team. The rotation is slightly weaker, the bullpen is stronger, and the offense is basically the same as the 2012 team at this point last year. Again things can (and probably will) change in the next 3-4 months which would affect my opinion.

 

i think this is a fair opinion.

 

Same here. That scares me.

I hope my post helps you both feel better.

[Sammy Sofa]

I am being honest. Right now I don't see this team very much improved over the preseason 2012 team. The rotation is slightly weaker, the bullpen is stronger, and the offense is basically the same as the 2012 team at this point last year. Again things can (and probably will) change in the next 3-4 months which would affect my opinion.

 

i think this is a fair opinion.

 

Same here. That scares me.

I hope my post helps you both feel better.

 

Not really. It's feels like kind of a juggling the deck chairs on the Titanic-type scenario right now. A baseball team has so many working parts it's pretty easy to shuffle around arguments based on expectations whether you're arguing that the team is going to be bad or good. Last year's team wasn't actually as bad as they ended up being going into the season, but they really weren't any good, either, and this one one seems very similar. The individual expectations and questions marks obviously change, but it doesn't really add up to having an actual good baseball team. Better than last year? Sure, OK, I'm on board with that; but that's not saying much when last year's team was "ideally" about a 70 win-team and this one looks to be cruising for the 70-75 range.

[Guest]

I am being honest. Right now I don't see this team very much improved over the preseason 2012 team. The rotation is slightly weaker, the bullpen is stronger, and the offense is basically the same as the 2012 team at this point last year. Again things can (and probably will) change in the next 3-4 months which would affect my opinion.

 

i think this is a fair opinion.

 

Same here. That scares me.

I hope my post helps you both feel better.

 

Not really. It's feels like kind of a juggling the deck chairs on the Titanic-type scenario right now. A baseball team has so many working parts it's pretty easy to shuffle around arguments based on expectations whether you're arguing that the team is going to be bad or good. Last year's team wasn't actually as bad as they ended up being going into the season, but they really weren't any good, either, and this one one seems very similar. The individual expectations and questions marks obviously change, but it doesn't really add up to having an actual good baseball team. Better than last year? Sure, OK, I'm on board with that; but that's not saying much when last year's team was "ideally" about a 70 win-team and this one looks to be cruising for the 70-75 range.

Again, you have to keep in mind that we're only on 12/16 here. At this point last offseason our rotation was Garza, a lousy in 2011 Dempster and a huge question mark in Zamrano coming off the suspension at the end of 2011. We still didn't have Rizzo yet. We didn't have Travis Wood yet. You can say we're just shuffling deck chairs, but we are WAY ahead of where we were on 12/16/11.

 

I also feel like we have more long-term pieces in place at this point. First off, we have a middle of the order bat in Rizzo that wasn't in place last year at this time. That's a huge step forward. The Shark to the rotation experiment worked as well as it possibly could have. Another huge step forward. We've taken several smaller steps forward, as well.

 

And there's still time this offseason. We added Rizzo, Maholm, Wood, Volstad and more after this date last year. Let's see where we are at Jan 31st before getting too gloomy.

[Sammy Sofa]

Again, you have to keep in mind that we're only on 12/16 here. At this point last offseason our rotation was Garza, a lousy in 2011 Dempster and a huge question mark in Zamrano coming off the suspension at the end of 2011. We still didn't have Rizzo yet. We didn't have Travis Wood yet.

 

You can say we're just shuffling deck chairs, but we are WAY ahead of where we were on 12/16/11.

 

Well, I'M comparing the team for 2013 on 12/16 vs. one they started the season with last year, though even saying we're "WAY ahead" of the 12/16/2011 is hardly a ringing endorsement. You're right, I'm sure hoping there's more moves of actually significance to come, but I'm not terribly optimistic that there's another Rizzo deal that's going to happen between now and ST nor am I all that optimistic that they're going to sign someone like Jackson.

[davell]

18-42 record, post-deadline. 43-59 prior to it. A 70+ win team would have happened last year and could have been slightly better than that, with a few breaks. The way to probably look at this isn't a full seasons worth of stats, but comparing stats accumulated prior to the deadline versus expectations currently.