Rumoured Cubs- Marlins/Cubs-Dodgers Trades

[Fanzones trumpet]

I'm all for getting better OBP, but I'm having a tough time understanding why that is the biggest problem on the team. The Houston Astros scored 9 fewer runs than the Cubs this year, and the White Sox, when the DH is factored in, were no better offensively than the Cubs.

 

Pitching, pitching, and more pitching.

 

The need to improve their offense as well as their pitching.

 

You got that right; better pitching and better offense but better pitching first (and second).

[Fanzones trumpet]

I think it means "dude, we need more speed at the top of the line up", get Alex Sanchez on the phone.

 

Unfortunately, I'm being serious at this point. It's not the OBP they think they need at the top of the line up, but rather speed.

 

Someone please dig up at least one article that discusses that they know they need a better OBP at the top of the line up setting up the best hitters. I don't think you will find one.

 

I'm all for getting better OBP, but I'm having a tough time understanding why that is the biggest problem on the team. The Houston Astros scored 9 fewer runs than the Cubs this year, and the White Sox, when the DH is factored in, were no better offensively than the Cubs.

 

Yeah, and the Cardinals and Red Sox blew the Cubs away offensively last year. You can find a team to defend your position if you try hard enough. The point is, over time, great OBP gives you a great chance to score more runs, and scoring more runs is good. The Cubs need pitching to, but they can't go out and sign Clemens and Oswalt. And there's no guarantee that the Sox staff will be nearly as good next year. A small step back next season, and that team will suffer big time if that offense stays lackluster.

 

The Cardinals and the Red Sox also had excellent pitching last year. The numbers this year also indicate that the game is moving away from the steroids induced offensive explosion of the late 90s. I'll take my chances with an outstanding pitching staff and an average offense.

[rawaction]

I think it means "dude, we need more speed at the top of the line up", get Alex Sanchez on the phone.

 

Unfortunately, I'm being serious at this point. It's not the OBP they think they need at the top of the line up, but rather speed.

 

Someone please dig up at least one article that discusses that they know they need a better OBP at the top of the line up setting up the best hitters. I don't think you will find one.

 

I'm all for getting better OBP, but I'm having a tough time understanding why that is the biggest problem on the team. The Houston Astros scored 9 fewer runs than the Cubs this year, and the White Sox, when the DH is factored in, were no better offensively than the Cubs.

 

Yeah, and the Cardinals and Red Sox blew the Cubs away offensively last year. You can find a team to defend your position if you try hard enough. The point is, over time, great OBP gives you a great chance to score more runs, and scoring more runs is good. The Cubs need pitching to, but they can't go out and sign Clemens and Oswalt. And there's no guarantee that the Sox staff will be nearly as good next year. A small step back next season, and that team will suffer big time if that offense stays lackluster.

 

The Cardinals and the Red Sox also had excellent pitching last year. The numbers this year also indicate that the game is moving away from the steroids induced offensive explosion of the late 90s. I'll take my chances with an outstanding pitching staff and an average offense.

 

Uh, the Red Sox were 25th in ERA this year. And they had a bottom 2 bullpen.

[CuseCubFan69]

I think it means "dude, we need more speed at the top of the line up", get Alex Sanchez on the phone.

 

Unfortunately, I'm being serious at this point. It's not the OBP they think they need at the top of the line up, but rather speed.

 

Someone please dig up at least one article that discusses that they know they need a better OBP at the top of the line up setting up the best hitters. I don't think you will find one.

 

If all they wanted was speed at the top, they could've stuck with Patterson in the leadoff role.

 

In 2005, Patterson got in 18 games (3rd most on the team) as the #2 hitter .179/.220 and 32 games (2nd most on the team) as the lead off hitter .211/.263.

 

If he hit .275 AVG (not OBP), I'm not so sure he ever would have lost that job. This team doesn't focus on OBP. They focus on speed and contact at the top of the order. Patterson got 441 out of 631 total at bats as the lead off hitter or #2 hitter in 2004. That's more than 2/3 of a season.

 

Bellhorn was one of the best OBP guys to lead off that this team has seen in the 2000's. The day Baker took over, Bellhorn lost that job. He neither had speed or contact. He was all about OBP. Patterson has been in and out of games for the Cubs since 2000. He has a career .293 OBP.

 

I rest my case.

 

Scary stuff isn't there Perry Mason? :P

 

If this stuff continues I'm going to well to do...nothing I suppose since I have no power with this organization but it's just so frustrating to watch. I just hope that Mr. Hendry happens upon a OBP machine that Baker will accidently bat first.

[Fanzones trumpet]

I think it means "dude, we need more speed at the top of the line up", get Alex Sanchez on the phone.

 

Unfortunately, I'm being serious at this point. It's not the OBP they think they need at the top of the line up, but rather speed.

 

Someone please dig up at least one article that discusses that they know they need a better OBP at the top of the line up setting up the best hitters. I don't think you will find one.

 

I'm all for getting better OBP, but I'm having a tough time understanding why that is the biggest problem on the team. The Houston Astros scored 9 fewer runs than the Cubs this year, and the White Sox, when the DH is factored in, were no better offensively than the Cubs.

 

Yeah, and the Cardinals and Red Sox blew the Cubs away offensively last year. You can find a team to defend your position if you try hard enough. The point is, over time, great OBP gives you a great chance to score more runs, and scoring more runs is good. The Cubs need pitching to, but they can't go out and sign Clemens and Oswalt. And there's no guarantee that the Sox staff will be nearly as good next year. A small step back next season, and that team will suffer big time if that offense stays lackluster.

 

The Cardinals and the Red Sox also had excellent pitching last year. The numbers this year also indicate that the game is moving away from the steroids induced offensive explosion of the late 90s. I'll take my chances with an outstanding pitching staff and an average offense.

 

Uh, the Red Sox were 25th in ERA this year. And they had a bottom 2 bullpen.

 

I was talking about last year, which happened to be the one year out of the last 87 that the Red Sox had the pitching.

[XZero771679666304]

I think it means "dude, we need more speed at the top of the line up", get Alex Sanchez on the phone.

 

Unfortunately, I'm being serious at this point. It's not the OBP they think they need at the top of the line up, but rather speed.

 

Someone please dig up at least one article that discusses that they know they need a better OBP at the top of the line up setting up the best hitters. I don't think you will find one.

 

I'm all for getting better OBP, but I'm having a tough time understanding why that is the biggest problem on the team. The Houston Astros scored 9 fewer runs than the Cubs this year, and the White Sox, when the DH is factored in, were no better offensively than the Cubs.

 

Yeah, and the Cardinals and Red Sox blew the Cubs away offensively last year. You can find a team to defend your position if you try hard enough. The point is, over time, great OBP gives you a great chance to score more runs, and scoring more runs is good. The Cubs need pitching to, but they can't go out and sign Clemens and Oswalt. And there's no guarantee that the Sox staff will be nearly as good next year. A small step back next season, and that team will suffer big time if that offense stays lackluster.

 

The Cardinals and the Red Sox also had excellent pitching last year. The numbers this year also indicate that the game is moving away from the steroids induced offensive explosion of the late 90s. I'll take my chances with an outstanding pitching staff and an average offense.

 

The problem is that the Cubs don't have even an average offense, at least in terms of consistency. The pitching needs work, but not as much as the offense.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm all for getting better OBP, but I'm having a tough time understanding why that is the biggest problem on the team. The Houston Astros scored 9 fewer runs than the Cubs this year, and the White Sox, when the DH is factored in, were no better offensively than the Cubs.

 

Pitching, pitching, and more pitching.

 

The need to improve their offense as well as their pitching.

 

You got that right; better pitching and better offense but better pitching first (and second).

 

Both at the same time.

 

How can you really improve this pitching staff this offseason? 4 starting spots are all but locked up. I guess you could overpay AJ and sign Ryan, plus 2 more relievers. That'll give you a very talented, and extremely expensive staff. But Burnett is no more reliable than Wood, you could easily lose both this season, and be stuck with no offense again. For $100 million you better build an all around team. They can be top 5 in Runs scored and top 5 in ERA, without question. The offense has sucked on this team for the last 3 years. The pitching has been good for 2 of the 3. I say it's pretty clear that the lineup needs the most improvement. The pitching can use some reinforcements, but not nearly as much as the lineup needs.

 

Remember, STL had a great staff, and HOU makes people think you can go all pitching at the expense of hitting. But right behind those two were NYM, WAS and MIL in ERA in the NL this year. The Cubs had a worse offense than all but Washington in that group.

 

You have to get more hitting this offseason.

[goonys evil twin]

I'll take my chances with an outstanding pitching staff and an average offense.

 

I think that's a terribly flawed approach.

 

Sure, you can get lucky and squeeze into the playoffs with that theory, see Houston. Or you can have all your pitchers pitch the best they've ever pitched and come out of nowhere with a great year. But you can also struggle to contend if all you do is prevent runs, and don't score enough.

[Fanzones trumpet]

I'm all for getting better OBP, but I'm having a tough time understanding why that is the biggest problem on the team. The Houston Astros scored 9 fewer runs than the Cubs this year, and the White Sox, when the DH is factored in, were no better offensively than the Cubs.

 

Pitching, pitching, and more pitching.

 

The need to improve their offense as well as their pitching.

 

You got that right; better pitching and better offense but better pitching first (and second).

 

Both at the same time.

 

How can you really improve this pitching staff this offseason? 4 starting spots are all but locked up. I guess you could overpay AJ and sign Ryan, plus 2 more relievers. That'll give you a very talented, and extremely expensive staff. But Burnett is no more reliable than Wood, you could easily lose both this season, and be stuck with no offense again. For $100 million you better build an all around team. They can be top 5 in Runs scored and top 5 in ERA, without question. The offense has sucked on this team for the last 3 years. The pitching has been good for 2 of the 3. I say it's pretty clear that the lineup needs the most improvement. The pitching can use some reinforcements, but not nearly as much as the lineup needs.

 

Remember, STL had a great staff, and HOU makes people think you can go all pitching at the expense of hitting. But right behind those two were NYM, WAS and MIL in ERA in the NL this year. The Cubs had a worse offense than all but Washington in that group.

 

You have to get more hitting this offseason.

 

I agree with you 100% on getting more hitting (and a better bench too). But I don't believe that the Cubs are going to win the World Series without substantial improvements in the pitching. Personally, I'd go all out after B.J. Ryan to give me a killer bullpen. I think he might be worth 7-8 wins alone. I also expect improvement from some of the young guys in the pen. As far as SP is concerned, I'd look at acquiring guys with talent in bad situations who are too expensive for their teams. Jason Jennings comes to mind.

[Fanzones trumpet]

I'll take my chances with an outstanding pitching staff and an average offense.

 

I think that's a terribly flawed approach.

 

Sure, you can get lucky and squeeze into the playoffs with that theory, see Houston. Or you can have all your pitchers pitch the best they've ever pitched and come out of nowhere with a great year. But you can also struggle to contend if all you do is prevent runs, and don't score enough.

 

It's not a terribly flawed approach at all if you believe the games is changing (as I do). And even in the steroid era there are plenty of examples of teams making the playoffs with excellent pitching an an average offense.

[goonys evil twin]

I'll take my chances with an outstanding pitching staff and an average offense.

 

I think that's a terribly flawed approach.

 

Sure, you can get lucky and squeeze into the playoffs with that theory, see Houston. Or you can have all your pitchers pitch the best they've ever pitched and come out of nowhere with a great year. But you can also struggle to contend if all you do is prevent runs, and don't score enough.

 

It's not a terribly flawed approach at all if you believe the games is changing (as I do). And even in the steroid era there are plenty of examples of teams making the playoffs with excellent pitching an an average offense.

 

It's terribly flawed because with a top 5 payroll there is no excuse to purposefully go into a season with an average offense. A $60-75m payroll team might be forced to go that route, but a $100m gives you the luxury of great offense and great hitting, and there is absolutely no reason to not go for that approach.

[XZero771679666304]

I'll take my chances with an outstanding pitching staff and an average offense.

 

I think that's a terribly flawed approach.

 

Sure, you can get lucky and squeeze into the playoffs with that theory, see Houston. Or you can have all your pitchers pitch the best they've ever pitched and come out of nowhere with a great year. But you can also struggle to contend if all you do is prevent runs, and don't score enough.

 

It's not a terribly flawed approach at all if you believe the games is changing (as I do). And even in the steroid era there are plenty of examples of teams making the playoffs with excellent pitching an an average offense.

 

The game is reverting a bit, but we're never going to see the kind of smallball we saw prior to the 90's ever again.

 

As far as the Cubs go, I think you have a better chance leaving the pitching alone and ugrading the offense than vice versa. Of course you want and need to upgrade both, but after watching the wildly inconsistent and often pititful Cubs offense, hitting (OBP namely) has to be first up on the to get list.

[Fanzones trumpet]

I'll take my chances with an outstanding pitching staff and an average offense.

 

I think that's a terribly flawed approach.

 

Sure, you can get lucky and squeeze into the playoffs with that theory, see Houston. Or you can have all your pitchers pitch the best they've ever pitched and come out of nowhere with a great year. But you can also struggle to contend if all you do is prevent runs, and don't score enough.

 

It's not a terribly flawed approach at all if you believe the games is changing (as I do). And even in the steroid era there are plenty of examples of teams making the playoffs with excellent pitching an an average offense.

 

It's terribly flawed because with a top 5 payroll there is no excuse to purposefully go into a season with an average offense. A $60-75m payroll team might be forced to go that route, but a $100m gives you the luxury of great offense and great hitting, and there is absolutely no reason to not go for that approach.

 

I would say that with a top 5 payroll there's no excuse to go into a season without a championship caliber team. I don't care how they construct it.

[Fanzones trumpet]

I'll take my chances with an outstanding pitching staff and an average offense.

 

I think that's a terribly flawed approach.

 

Sure, you can get lucky and squeeze into the playoffs with that theory, see Houston. Or you can have all your pitchers pitch the best they've ever pitched and come out of nowhere with a great year. But you can also struggle to contend if all you do is prevent runs, and don't score enough.

 

It's not a terribly flawed approach at all if you believe the games is changing (as I do). And even in the steroid era there are plenty of examples of teams making the playoffs with excellent pitching an an average offense.

 

The game is reverting a bit, but we're never going to see the kind of smallball we saw prior to the 90's ever again.

 

As far as the Cubs go, I think you have a better chance leaving the pitching alone and ugrading the offense than vice versa. Of course you want and need to upgrade both, but after watching the wildly inconsistent and often pititful Cubs offense, hitting (OBP namely) has to be first up on the to get list.

 

The numbers this year are pretty dramatic insofar as offensive decline is concerned. And I believe that even with a significant upgrade in offense, the pitching staff is not good enough to win a WS.

[goonys evil twin]

I would say that with a top 5 payroll there's no excuse to go into a season without a championship caliber team. I don't care how they construct it.

 

Well, that of course is the truth.

[goonys evil twin]

The numbers this year are pretty dramatic insofar as offensive decline is concerned. And I believe that even with a significant upgrade in offense, the pitching staff is not good enough to win a WS.

 

The staff is virtually the same as it was in 2003 and 2004, and that was the number 3 team ERA both seasons. There's no reason they can't return to that level, and there's no reason why a top 3 ERA in your league can't win the series. Florida's was worse in '03, and Boston's was worse in '04.

[BigbadB]

The Cubs pitching staff was 5th in the major leagues with a .250 BAA.

 

Figure out a way to reduce the walks, and it doesn't take as many runs to win more games. Figure out a way to improve your OBP, and you score more runs, therefore making life a little easier on the pitching staff.

[Fanzones trumpet]

The numbers this year are pretty dramatic insofar as offensive decline is concerned. And I believe that even with a significant upgrade in offense, the pitching staff is not good enough to win a WS.

 

The staff is virtually the same as it was in 2003 and 2004, and that was the number 3 team ERA both seasons. There's no reason they can't return to that level, and there's no reason why a top 3 ERA in your league can't win the series. Florida's was worse in '03, and Boston's was worse in '04.

 

I think there are significant differences. Wood was a #2 caliber pitcher in 2003, and Prior was an ace. It's questionable whether either thing will be true next year. Clement was a solid #3 in 2003 and put up a decent e.r.a. in 2004. Maddux probably won't even match the 4.02 era from 2004.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The numbers this year are pretty dramatic insofar as offensive decline is concerned. And I believe that even with a significant upgrade in offense, the pitching staff is not good enough to win a WS.

 

The staff is virtually the same as it was in 2003 and 2004, and that was the number 3 team ERA both seasons. There's no reason they can't return to that level, and there's no reason why a top 3 ERA in your league can't win the series. Florida's was worse in '03, and Boston's was worse in '04.

 

I think there are significant differences. Wood was a #2 caliber pitcher in 2003, and Prior was an ace. It's questionable whether either thing will be true next year. Clement was a solid #3 in 2003 and put up a decent e.r.a. in 2004. Maddux probably won't even match the 4.02 era from 2004.

 

While your assessment of Wood and Prior could be on the money, who in the FA market is as good a bet as they are. Millwood, while pitching very well last season, has had his years of inconsistiency and Burnett is as much an injury risk as Wood.

 

If Prior were a FA, he'd be the hottest commodity among all pitchers; I'll guarantee that.

 

While Maddux may not match his 2004 numbers, we're married to him at 9 million. We have holes we can plug in the offense, but with the exception of one starter, we're married to the rotation we have.

[CubfaninCA]

With the steroid crackdown, will pitching become more important? Sure seems so this year. Perhaps all those walks aren't as important w/ less extra base hit to knock them in??

 

If the Cubs can pull off a trade for Livan Hernandez, I'd be thrilled. He's an inning eater and has had success in the playoffs. Even if Wood flames out again, Z, Prior, Hernandez and Maddux is an adequate 4 man playoff rotation. If Prior returns to 2003 form, it's a really tough playoff rotation.

 

Make some tweaks to the offence and they can sneak into the top 5 in runs and be a very competitive team.

[erik316wttn]

With the steroid crackdown, will pitching become more important? Sure seems so this year. Perhaps all those walks aren't as important w/ less extra base hit to knock them in??

 

If the Cubs can pull off a trade for Livan Hernandez, I'd be thrilled. He's an inning eater and has had success in the playoffs. Even if Wood flames out again, Z, Prior, Hernandez and Maddux is an adequate 4 man playoff rotation. If Prior returns to 2003 form, it's a really tough playoff rotation.

 

Make some tweaks to the offence and they can sneak into the top 5 in runs and be a very competitive team.

 

Would Washington want to give him up, though?

[BigbadB]

With the steroid crackdown, will pitching become more important? Sure seems so this year. Perhaps all those walks aren't as important w/ less extra base hit to knock them in??

 

If the Cubs can pull off a trade for Livan Hernandez, I'd be thrilled. He's an inning eater and has had success in the playoffs. Even if Wood flames out again, Z, Prior, Hernandez and Maddux is an adequate 4 man playoff rotation. If Prior returns to 2003 form, it's a really tough playoff rotation.

 

Make some tweaks to the offence and they can sneak into the top 5 in runs and be a very competitive team.

 

That guys arm will fall off any day now.

 

Perhaps it is the walk that teams should spend more focus on now that steroids are having their impact on offense.

 

The Cubs ranked 2nd in the NL in SLG. Only Florida had a better team batting average than the Cubs in the NL. NO ONE IN THE NL WALKED LESS THAN THE CUBS. NO ONE! It wasn't even close. The Cubs walked 419 times.

 

Feel free to do some digging and find out how many teams that walked 419 times or less finished anywhere better than the Cubs finish this year. Good luck!

 

You can disagree with this theory if you wish, but have some statistics that prove your argument rather than simply calling people names, like "walk romanticists".

[Guest]

Feel free to do some digging and find out how many teams that walked 419 times or less finished anywhere better than the Cubs finish this year. Good luck!

Since the schedule went to 162 games -- 1961-present -- only 14 teams have walked less than 419 times and won 80 or more games. The best of these were the 1968 Cardinals, who took the NL Pennant with 97 wins despite only taking 378 free passes.

[Tim]

Feel free to do some digging and find out how many teams that walked 419 times or less finished anywhere better than the Cubs finish this year. Good luck!

Since the schedule went to 162 games -- 1961-present -- only 14 teams have walked less than 419 times and won 80 or more games. The best of these were the 1968 Cardinals, who took the NL Pennant with 97 wins despite only taking 378 free passes.

Ah, but that was a much different run environment, too.

[BigbadB]

Yeah, maybe I should have said "since the dead ball era". The Cardinals offense in 1968 was very generic in comparison to nowadays.

 

Better yet, look at those ERA's and IP'd by that Cardinal pitching staff.