Random Cubs Musings

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The Cubs flipped: Maholm, Feldman, Hairston. That's it.

 

They've spent a ton of money outside of Jackson and those three guys.

 

Well, maybe not a "ton." But a lot more than the Astros.

[jersey cubs fan]

The Cubs flipped: Maholm, Feldman, Hairston. That's it.

 

They've spent a ton of money outside of Jackson and those three guys.

 

Well, maybe not a "ton." But a lot more than the Astros.

 

They probably tried to flip others.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The Cubs flipped: Maholm, Feldman, Hairston. That's it.

 

They've spent a ton of money outside of Jackson and those three guys.

 

Well, maybe not a "ton." But a lot more than the Astros.

 

They probably tried to flip others.

 

I'm sure they did. Throw it on the pile of failures.

[Lenny]

"shown flashes" is just code for "sucked"

 

No, I don't care how they've gotten to their stat lines yet. Lake and Olt with .700+ OPS's is fine with me. I see Lake with little shot at starting but I'm not going to give up on Olt. Castillo is fine. Kalish is a backup.

 

They may be individually "fine" but those OBPs (much more important than SLG) they will drag down the offense, and if you just field a team of guys who are "fine" you will suck. This is a team of guys who are "fine" and that is why they are losing so much.

 

Thank you. WTF does "fine" mean? In what context? Who's the arbiter? I remember back in '04 everyone saying "this team will be fine", "Rose's knee will be fine", "Grossman will be fine".

 

F fine. Let it join "classy" and "fair" on the list of overused buzzwords which have lost all meaning.

[Guest]

The Cubs flipped: Maholm, Feldman, Hairston. That's it.

 

They've spent a ton of money outside of Jackson and those three guys.

 

Well, maybe not a "ton." But a lot more than the Astros.

 

They probably tried to flip others.

 

Yeah, they couldn't get anything for David DeJesus, Scott Baker was a bust and we've heard rumblings that they tried trading Nate Schierholtz, Dioner Navarro and Kevin Gregg last year. We hate the reduced budget but the Astros have an even smaller budget. The Cubs just haven't used thet higher budget to sign any FAs to a long term contract besides Edwin Jackson.

[Lenny]

Would things have been better had Ricketts fired Hendry the moment he took control? Assuming he could find a comparable (or better) FO staff right away? It bothers me that they didn't recognize Jackson's weaknesses and attempt to trade him ASAP when he actually had some value.

[sneakypower]

yes, without question

[Sammy Sofa]

Would things have been better had Ricketts fired Hendry the moment he took control?

 

That the Ricketts didn't fire Hendry and co. right away might be their biggest mistake.

[RynoRules]

There is some major intellectual dishonesty in this thread, probably driven by understandable frustration.

 

The fact that this team has been unlucky is not the same thing as saying they should be good. They should probably be middling. That is what the pythag record indicates, and it makes sense when you consider that we have three regulars with OPS+'s over 100, several other position players with OPS+'s in the mid 90's, decent overall starting pitching, and one starter who is dominant.

 

Pythag is a good tool for measuring the luck factor. The fact that the Cubs have a six game delta between their pythag wins and actual wins after only 39 games tells me they've had some bad luck. It does not, however, tell me they are a good team.

 

Quick, someone guess the team that fields the following OPS+'s in their lineup each day (don't cheat by looking it up):

 

145

129

106

97

95

76

73

66

26

 

And this one as well:

 

113

111

106

103

96

87

73

62

55

 

EDIT:

 

Here are the Cubs':

 

138

118

108

96

93

93

90

38 (WTF, Nate?!)

[jersey cubs fan]

There is some major intellectual dishonesty in this thread, probably driven by understandable frustration.

 

Here are the Cubs':

 

138

118

108

96

93

93

90

38 (WTF, Nate?!)

Good job leaving off the 34, and continuing to ignore the two huge outlier games.

 

The Cubs suck. They are unlucky to have an ownership/front office that has chosen to field such an awful team.

[RynoRules]

There is some major intellectual dishonesty in this thread, probably driven by understandable frustration.

 

Here are the Cubs':

 

138

118

108

96

93

93

90

38 (WTF, Nate?!)

Good job leaving off the 34, and continuing to ignore the two huge outlier games.

 

The Cubs suck. They are unlucky to have an ownership/front office that has chosen to field such an awful team.

 

Seriously goony, you must have misplaced the logic center of your brain, which you normally use quite well. I used the 8 position players with the most PA's for the Cubs and the two mystery teams (EDIT: 9 for two mystery teams b/c they are both in the AL). Look it up.

 

If you want to include Barney's 70 AB's have at it. Changes nothing relative to my point, which is that the Cubs are at best a middling team that has been unlucky so far this season.

Edited May 16, 2014 by RynoRules

[Guest]

There is some major intellectual dishonesty in this thread, probably driven by understandable frustration.

 

Here are the Cubs':

 

138

118

108

96

93

93

90

38 (WTF, Nate?!)

Good job leaving off the 34, and continuing to ignore the two huge outlier games.

 

The Cubs suck. They are unlucky to have an ownership/front office that has chosen to field such an awful team.

You seem to be implying that few or no other teams have built their run differential on a few great games combined with a few bad games combined with a bunch of meh.

 

I'd guess it is more typical than that.

 

The differential is the differential. You can play all sorts of games if you start eliminating things for different reasons. If we cut out the games where the Cubs start Jackson, our run differential gets really good.

[Guest]

Actually, it is much easier to improve a team when there are dead weights dragging it down like that.

[SouthSideRyan]

There is some major intellectual dishonesty in this thread, probably driven by understandable frustration.

 

Here are the Cubs':

 

138

118

108

96

93

93

90

38 (WTF, Nate?!)

Good job leaving off the 34, and continuing to ignore the two huge outlier games.

 

The Cubs suck. They are unlucky to have an ownership/front office that has chosen to field such an awful team.

You seem to be implying that few or no other teams have built their run differential on a few great games combined with a few bad games combined with a bunch of meh.

 

I'd guess it is more typical than that.

 

The differential is the differential. You can play all sorts of games if you start eliminating things for different reasons. If we cut out the games where the Cubs start Jackson, our run differential gets really good.

 

There are going to be a lot more Edwin Jackson starts the rest of the way than there will be 12 run victories.

[SouthSideRyan]

Would you set the over under for wins through game 78 at 32?

[davell]

What moves did Hendry make in 2010 and 2011?

 

The trade for Garza, signed Byrd. Traded DeRosa. Signed Pena. Extended Marmol. Signed Grabow. Traded Bradley. One draft of Simpson, one of Javy.

 

We could certainly have a different look. But with a payroll being lowered yearly, I doubt we'd be contending. But we'd be further along, unless whoever took over tried piecing things together, as Hendry did during that time.

[RynoRules]

No one seems to want to play, so I will reveal:

 

The first team is the O's, who are 21-18 (pythag of 19-20). The second is the Royals, who are 20-20 (pythag is same).

Edited May 16, 2014 by RynoRules

[Sammy Sofa]

What moves did Hendry make in 2010 and 2011?

 

The trade for Garza, signed Byrd. Traded DeRosa. Signed Pena. Extended Marmol. Signed Grabow. Traded Bradley. One draft of Simpson, one of Javy.

 

We could certainly have a different look. But with a payroll being lowered yearly, I doubt we'd be contending. But we'd be further along, unless whoever took over tried piecing things together, as Hendry did during that time.

 

The Ricketts seem to have dragged their feet in regards to pretty much every aspect of the rebuild/renovation. It's unfortunate that there didn't seem to be more urgency on their part.

[Guest]

Would you set the over under for wins through game 78 at 32?

Well, if I were setting an over/under I would use the current record to justify setting a much lower value to make it more likely I'd win since I'd be betting the over.

 

That doesn't really answer your question, though.

 

I think they could easily be a .500 team over their next 39 games. Schierholtz won't continue to suck that bad. They have a better handle on the bullpen roles than early in the year. The performances will even out a bit and they'll manage to win some close games for a change.

 

The rational expectation is that their true talent level is somewhere between their actual record and their pythag record. So I wouldn't go as high as 32 games after 78, but I certainly wouldn't set it at 26, either. I'd put it around 30: so 17-22 over their next 39.

 

Would you take the over or under on that number?

[SouthSideRyan]

What moves did Hendry make in 2010 and 2011?

 

The trade for Garza, signed Byrd. Traded DeRosa. Signed Pena. Extended Marmol. Signed Grabow. Traded Bradley. One draft of Simpson, one of Javy.

 

We could certainly have a different look. But with a payroll being lowered yearly, I doubt we'd be contending. But we'd be further along, unless whoever took over tried piecing things together, as Hendry did during that time.

 

DeRosa trade was in '09.

[davell]

What moves did Hendry make in 2010 and 2011?

 

The trade for Garza, signed Byrd. Traded DeRosa. Signed Pena. Extended Marmol. Signed Grabow. Traded Bradley. One draft of Simpson, one of Javy.

 

We could certainly have a different look. But with a payroll being lowered yearly, I doubt we'd be contending. But we'd be further along, unless whoever took over tried piecing things together, as Hendry did during that time.

 

DeRosa trade was in '09.

 

That'd be a positive then. As Archer would have been here for the new guys.

[Guest]

Actually, it is much easier to improve a team when there are dead weights dragging it down like that.

 

That's kind of how I see things with our OF in terms of improving the team for next year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Would you take the over or under on that number?

 

I'll take a slight over.

[davell]

What moves did Hendry make in 2010 and 2011?

 

The trade for Garza, signed Byrd. Traded DeRosa. Signed Pena. Extended Marmol. Signed Grabow. Traded Bradley. One draft of Simpson, one of Javy.

 

We could certainly have a different look. But with a payroll being lowered yearly, I doubt we'd be contending. But we'd be further along, unless whoever took over tried piecing things together, as Hendry did during that time.

 

The Ricketts seem to have dragged their feet in regards to pretty much every aspect of the rebuild/renovation. It's unfortunate that there didn't seem to be more urgency on their part.

 

They were green.(still are) Have yet to show they're capable owners. My honest thinking is Tom sold Dad on the fact that even if they lose, it's a cash cow. And thought that the renovations would be an easy money grab. Same with getting money from the city. They thought taking a year or two to "get healthy" would be fine, because once the renovations started, they'd start spending. Since it still hasn't, Dad obviously isn't coming off any funds and the debt structure got out ahead of us. And without extra funds, it stays there.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'd put it around 30: so 17-22 over their next 39.

 

Would you take the over or under on that number?

 

That's what I'd set it at too. If forced to bet, I guess I'd take the under. I had them as a 69 win team preseason, and haven't seen anything to make me think they're better than I thought. 16-23 puts them at a 68 win pace.