Chicago Cubs vs. St. Louis Cardinals?

[Guest]

What I would like to know is why the St. Louis Cardinals for the last two years are now considered such a great team(well they are good but let me finish my point) but just two years ago the Cubs took the division and were three games ahead of the Cardinals.

 

But ever since then, the Cardinals are considered WS contenders and the Cubs a complete joke. I simply don't understand why.

 

If you look at the Cardinals roster now and in 2003, they have a lot of the key players still on their team as well as players who were good.

 

Jason Isringhausen, Matt Morris, Edgar Renteria, Scott Rolen, Albert Pujols. And then you throw in Kiko Calero, Danny Haren, Steve Kline, Garrett Stephenson, Brett Tomko, Woody Williams, Mike Matheny, Fernando Vina, and JD Drew.

 

A lot of these players they replace with some pretty good ones like Chris Carpenter(lucky find or great scouting?), Ray King, Jason Marquis, Mark Mulder, David Eckstein, Mark Grudzielanek, Reggie Sanders, Larry Walker.

 

But really, how much of the difference does that make? or am I missing something??

 

After wrighting this I think I might be but it still does not make a whole lot of since that the Cardinals are WS contenders every year now and the Cubs, even with the dream that their pitching stays healthy, would be lucky to win the WC.

[TheDude]

There are numerous things to consider here, but I'll try and highlight some reasons off the top of my head:

 

-The 2003 Cubs weren't that good. Don't let the playoff success and closeness to the World Series skew your thinking. The 2004 team was probably better.

 

-Today's Cubs have next to nothing in common with the 2003 team, save for the big 3 in pitching and Ramirez, and are in the midst or rebuilding (as much as a big market team rebuilds anyway). The Cardinals have held together far more of the core of their team.

 

-The Cardinals have been successful with their role player acquisitions: Eckstein improved drastically over his 2004 numbers, Grudz was solid, and Reggie Sanders seems to have found a home after years of roaming.

 

-The Cubs were not successful with role player acquisitions. We don't need to detail the painful memories again.

 

-The Cardinals field a balanced team capable of playing the game in whatever way is needed to win at that moment. The Cubs don't.

[UMFan83]

There are numerous things to consider here, but I'll try and highlight some reasons off the top of my head:

 

-The 2003 Cubs weren't that good. Don't let the playoff success and closeness to the World Series skew your thinking. The 2004 team was probably better.

 

-Today's Cubs have next to nothing in common with the 2003 team, save for the big 3 in pitching and Ramirez, and are in the midst or rebuilding (as much as a big market team rebuilds anyway). The Cardinals have held together far more of the core of their team.

 

-The Cardinals have been successful with their role player acquisitions: Eckstein improved drastically over his 2004 numbers, Grudz was solid, and Reggie Sanders seems to have found a home after years of roaming.

 

-The Cubs were not successful with role player acquisitions. We don't need to detail the painful memories again.

 

-The Cardinals field a balanced team capable of playing the game in whatever way is needed to win at that moment. The Cubs don't.

 

Also the pitching was solid 1-4 in 2003. In 2005, Prior is not the same, Woody was hurt, Maddux was worse then Clement in 03, Zambrano about the same, maybe a little better.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

One other thing, in 03 the Cards had horrible relief pitching, in 04 it was great.

[DougDascenzo]

the cards are world series contenders because they went there last year and returned much of the same team. They are also world series contenders because of their record. When the cubs wen to the playoffs in 2003 their record was really not that great. The cards' has been 2 years in a row now.

 

Seems obvious to me...

[vaball]

The Cards have also been in the playoffs 5 times in the last 6 years, 4 of those times as division winners.

 

They folded down the stretch in 2003 because of awful pitching. In 2004 they got the pitching to complement the offense. They made that pitching even better for 2005.

 

They also have a history as one of the NL's winningest teams. The Cubs, well, you know . . .

[UK1679666180]

They also have a history as one of the NL's winningest teams. The Cubs, well, you know . . .

 

History of winning? How is that applicable here? That's about as bad as thinking curses exist.

 

Better manager, health of pitching, and improvement of talent are the reasons why one team has progressed and one has regressed, not history.

 

No, 1908 (not the admin here) and the Cards winning 9 WS have nothing to do with it, since there's no one in either organization that remains from 1908 or 1982 (maybe one area scout roaming North Dakota might remain, but he likely got replaced by a computer in a cubicle in the Cards front office).

[SouthSideRyan]

They also have a history as one of the NL's winningest teams. The Cubs, well, you know . . .

 

History of winning? How is that applicable here? That's about as bad as thinking curses exist.

 

Better manager, health of pitching, and improvement of talent are the reasons why one team has progressed and one has regressed, not history.

 

No, 1908 (not the admin here) and the Cards winning 9 WS have nothing to do with it, since there's no one in either organization that remains from 1908 or 1982 (maybe one area scout roaming North Dakota might remain, but he likely got replaced by a computer in a cubicle in the Cards front office).

 

I gotta say I like the Giants and Dodgers chances for the WS next year.

[UMFan83]

the cards are world series contenders because they went there last year and returned much of the same team. They are also world series contenders because of their record. When the cubs wen to the playoffs in 2003 their record was really not that great. The cards' has been 2 years in a row now.

 

Seems obvious to me...

 

No its not because the Cubs effectively upgraded their team before the 2004 season, choosing to build around the cornerstones of the team and what they thought was the reason we went to the playoffs in 03, Prior, Wood and Zambrano.

 

They added a 30 HR gold glove first baseman, a lights out setup man and were counting on full season contributions from Corey Patterson and Aramis Ramirez. Obviously most of that didn't work out, although they were 1 game improved over the year before, the rest of the Central got better. I don't see how anyone before 2004 didn't think the Cubs weren't the best team in the division, just like how its obvious now that they are not.

[UK1679666180]

They also have a history as one of the NL's winningest teams. The Cubs, well, you know . . .

 

History of winning? How is that applicable here? That's about as bad as thinking curses exist.

 

Better manager, health of pitching, and improvement of talent are the reasons why one team has progressed and one has regressed, not history.

 

No, 1908 (not the admin here) and the Cards winning 9 WS have nothing to do with it, since there's no one in either organization that remains from 1908 or 1982 (maybe one area scout roaming North Dakota might remain, but he likely got replaced by a computer in a cubicle in the Cards front office).

 

I gotta say I like the Giants and Dodgers chances for the WS next year.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how the Baltimore Orioles dominated MLB for about 15 years, after all they were the St. Louis Browns. :|

[AR-Baseball-Fan]

One of the biggest differences between the Cards and Cubs is at the top: Manager. The teams would have been much closer this year if the Cubs had at least an adequate manager.

[Jimy is a misspell]

And yet the astros have made the playoffs 6 out of the last 9 years.

[UK1679666180]

And yet the astros have made the playoffs 6 out of the last 9 years.

 

Dierker can reverse any negative trend a franchise can have. :)

[Jimy is a misspell]

Dierk's the man! :D

[EricG]

injuries and Dusty's ignorance to replace them with veteran bench players instead of young players with more potential.

[wolf stansson]

They also have a history as one of the NL's winningest teams. The Cubs, well, you know . . .

 

History of winning? How is that applicable here? That's about as bad as thinking curses exist.

 

Better manager, health of pitching, and improvement of talent are the reasons why one team has progressed and one has regressed, not history.

 

No, 1908 (not the admin here) and the Cards winning 9 WS have nothing to do with it, since there's no one in either organization that remains from 1908 or 1982 (maybe one area scout roaming North Dakota might remain, but he likely got replaced by a computer in a cubicle in the Cards front office).

Not to mention the Reds as well.

 

I gotta say I like the Giants and Dodgers chances for the WS next year.

[Chief_Cardinal]

The Cards have also been in the playoffs 5 times in the last 6 years, 4 of those times as division winners.

 

Actually they were division winners all 5 times.

 

The thing about the 03 Cards is that they led the majors in blown saves. We didn't have our closer till June with most of those blown saves coming before then. This played a major role in the Cards not winning the division that year (even though they were in 1st place on the first of September of that year....picking up those wins early on would of made a huge difference.)

[treebird]

The Cards have also been in the playoffs 5 times in the last 6 years, 4 of those times as division winners.

 

Actually they were division winners all 5 times.

 

The thing about the 03 Cards is that they led the majors in blown saves. We didn't have our closer till June with most of those blown saves coming before then. This played a major role in the Cards not winning the division that year (even though they were in 1st place on the first of September of that year....picking up those wins early on would of made a huge difference.)

 

the thing about the 05 cubs was that they didnt have good enough players or coaches. picking up more wins based on my fanciful idea of magically adding players to the roster who weren't available would've made a huge difference.

[wekse]

The Cards have also been in the playoffs 5 times in the last 6 years, 4 of those times as division winners.

 

Actually they were division winners all 5 times.

 

The thing about the 03 Cards is that they led the majors in blown saves. We didn't have our closer till June with most of those blown saves coming before then. This played a major role in the Cards not winning the division that year (even though they were in 1st place on the first of September of that year....picking up those wins early on would of made a huge difference.)

 

 

haha, i'm sorry but did you even think before you posted this? with that logic the cubs have never lost the division, and all this time i thought i was watching a losing team.

[UK1679666180]

haha, i'm sorry but did you even think before you posted this? with that logic the cubs have never lost the division, and all this time i thought i was watching a losing team.

 

Don't you remember? The Cubs had perfect health in '03 and everyone over achieved. The Cards would've won the division, if the Cubs weren't so damn lucky in '03, nevermind the injuries to Sosa, Choi, Patterson, Prior, Grudzielanek, etc. Oh yeah, Houston had a better record as well.

[Chief_Cardinal]

Don't you remember? The Cubs had perfect health in '03 and everyone over achieved.

 

yep just like the Cards in 00, 01, 02, 04, and 05 :roll:

[K-Town]

haha, i'm sorry but did you even think before you posted this? with that logic the cubs have never lost the division, and all this time i thought i was watching a losing team.

 

Don't you remember? The Cubs had perfect health in '03 and everyone over achieved. The Cards would've won the division, if the Cubs weren't so damn lucky in '03, nevermind the injuries to Sosa, Choi, Patterson, Prior, Grudzielanek, etc. Oh yeah, Houston had a better record as well.

 

I think that the last 2 years have given a little credence to that theory, actually.

[wekse]

that may be true, but it doesn't take away the ignorance from chief cardinals post earlier in the thread

[K-Town]

that may be true, but it doesn't take away the ignorance from chief cardinals post earlier in the thread

 

I agree.

 

I don't buy the excuses.

[Chief_Cardinal]

ignorance

 

There was nothing ingorant about it...you may not agree thats fine...but it wasn't a case of ignorance