Comparing fundamental changes on the bad part of town:

[UK1679666180]

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/gonfalon_cubs/discussion/lessons_to_be_learned/

 

They improved defensively, but the pitching both in the rotation and in the pen is the reason why the Sox are so good.

 

The Cubs have to weigh the positive and negatives of going after a 5th starter when factoring other holes.

 

The bullpen has no one to set-up, they found a diamond in the rough in Dempster, and Wuertz can be a decent 7th inning guy assuming Baker doesn't try and use him 4-5 times a week.

 

The bench was horrible last year.

 

They have a declining Maddux and an oft injured Wood.

 

If Hendry follows the same thought process as last year, the Cubs will be spending more on less productive players again.

[cubbieinexile]

Its all bull about the White Sox. They didn't completely revamp the team. Its a team full of sluggers with one addition they now have a speedy guy at lead-off who likes to steal. thats it, thats the big change. The Sox have always tried to have a good pitching staff. What they did this year was nothing radical. They did get lucky in that Contreras either lived up to his expectations finally or he had a fluky season.

 

c: Brought over AJ and it had nothing to do with defense. He was supposed to bring his bat to make up for his poor glove. He had neither in 2005

 

1B: Paul Konerko. No changes, same guy that has been there since 1999. 2nd good year in a row after his horrible slump.

 

2B: Iguchi. Came over this year. Good bat for a second base, nothing special with the glove.

 

3B: Joe Crede. Been here since before Guillen, a porous bat with some pop. Is good with the glove.

 

SS: Juan Uribe. His bat went missing this year or I should say his bat was found last year but misplaced again. Was good with the glove, though he still makes an error now and then.

 

RF: Dye, his pop came back this year, around average in the field.

 

LF: Scotty: speedy guy with no pop and doesn't like to walk. Good year with the glove

 

CF: Rowand, the fielder they have been trying to install now in center for years. Bat took a step back this year a good glove.

 

They bring in Dye, Scotty, Uribe, Iguchi, and AJ. Only two of them have any real defensive value.

 

Its all a bunch of hooey, it was lightning in a bottle. This for the most part is the same kind of team that went to the playoffs in 2000, had its run in the early 90's and went to the playoffs in 1983.

[cubbieinexile]

He says the white sox thought outside the box and how is getting a speedy CF'er (who they move to LF) thinking outside the box? Was he batting 6th, was he not running before they got him? No. They wanted somebody with speed to lead-off. They go and get the stereotypical lead-off hitter to fill that need. They went and got Lou Brock. Oh and has the author forgot about Borowski when making his Bobby Jenks digs?

[UK1679666180]

Iguchi is a defensive upgrade, Uribe was outstanding defensively, Posednik is a definite upgrade in LF over Lee, and Dye was an upgrade in RF over Magglio and others in '04.

 

They definitely improved defensively last year.

 

But, they made their upgrades with their staff. Hermanson, Jenks, Politte, the progression of Cotts and the improvement of Garland and Contreras.

 

Meanwhile, the Cubs will not likely make the necc. changes needed to improve this team. Getting another bat in the bat in the middle of the order (Burnitz at any price is not the answer), getting a leadoff hitter while waiting for Pie (who'll have to develop into a hitter with a good eye), and right now Cedeno is the starting SS.

 

The staff has a declining Maddux, injured Wood, and a manager who is careless with all of them.

 

The Cubs need a philosophy change, regardless of what the Sox did.

[cubbieinexile]

Yeah they improved but one they didn't rethink anything.

 

Did they get Dye for his defense? No.

 

Did they get AJ for his defense? NO

 

Did they get Everett for his defense? No.

 

Did they get Scotty for his defense? Sort of, though he was never considered a great defender in CF, they probably felt his move to LF would make him a better then average LF'er. But they got Scotty because of his lead-off role.

 

Whats that leave? The middle infielders and pretty much everybody tries to put good defensive players there. Its a departure for the Sox in that they had Valentin there who while he got a bad rap wasn't a bad defender. But he got old and his bat declined forcing a move.

 

this team isn't revamped, and if Frank stays healthy from start to finish the team looks even less revamped.

 

 

The sox got improvement from their pitching staff, and they got it from places most people didn't think they would get it. Contreras and Garland. Well if Wood stays healthy and Maddux has a bounce back year then the Cubs look exactly like the Sox this year. If you want to believe the Cubs need to revamp that is fine but writing an article and using the Sox as evidence is faulty. The Sox got lucky and doing anything based on the Sox decisions means the cubs will have to rely on luck to win season to season.

[UK1679666180]

Baseball is progressionary, they had various areas of need and they improved upon them.

 

Bringing in Dye not only filled a void left by Ordonez, it improved it defensively.

 

Uribe was brought over from Colorado b/c of his glove.

 

If the Cubs were to bring in Furcal it would be more for his supposed leadoff skills and speed. But, the more significant upgrade would have been the defensive improvement of furcal to Nomar. Of course, it was Neifi for most of the year, so the defensive improvement would not significant, but the offensive improvement would.

 

If Wood is heathly and Maddux bounces back (both are unlikely, Maddux's rebound is more unlikely) then you still have an offense that needs improvement and a bullpen.

 

You don't win 99 games on luck, it's impossible. Run differential can't sway that much like it did for the Cubs in '03.

[cubbieinexile]

How many SS are acquired not because of their glove? There are a very small handful of SS who can hit the rest can field. Picking up a light hitting SS is not thinking outside the box, its not going in a new direction, or shifting gears. Its doing basically what any other GM would do when trying to fill the SS spot.

 

In terms of luck I am not talking about flipping a coin and having come out heads 99 times. I am talking about luck in taht several player come together at exactly the right time while your opponents fall apart at the right time. Is this a 99 win team if Garland and Contreras don't pitch like they did? No it isn't. Could we put this offense in the NL and put a Cubs jersey on them and have them win 99 games? Nope.

 

The White Sox are a team that if they had to play in the NL and without a DH would have scored less runs then the Cubs did. The Sox DH were worth 14.4 runs per 100 PA while the Cubs #9 hitters (to include the PH as well and not just the pitchers) were worth 6.5 runs per 100.

 

This isn't a team that did something in a new way. They built their team on pitching (which they have done for a very long time, quick name the best slugger before Frank) and hitting home runs. That isn't something new or radically different then what they were doing before. The difference is that this year their pitching was much much better then the last few years.

[Derwood]

The big difference was knocking 1.3 runs off the team ERA from 2004 to 2005 (and adding 20+ saves).

 

Dou credit the new pitching coach, the defense, or a little of both?

[MembersOnlyJacket]

If the Cubs were to bring in Furcal it would be more for his supposed leadoff skills and speed. But, the more significant upgrade would have been the defensive improvement of furcal to Nomar. Of course, it was Neifi for most of the year, so the defensive improvement would not significant, but the offensive improvement would.

 

 

As for Furcal, his defense this season was far better than at any point in his career. Was '05 a season in which his defensive work matched his ability level or will he regress to throwing the ball into the camera well 30 times a year in '06 ? I'm not sure I'm sold on that. One thing is for sure, no matter where he throws it, he would have a first baseman who can snag almost anything.

[UK1679666180]

How many SS are acquired not because of their glove? There are a very small handful of SS who can hit the rest can field. Picking up a light hitting SS is not thinking outside the box, its not going in a new direction, or shifting gears. Its doing basically what any other GM would do when trying to fill the SS spot.

 

In terms of luck I am not talking about flipping a coin and having come out heads 99 times. I am talking about luck in taht several player come together at exactly the right time while your opponents fall apart at the right time. Is this a 99 win team if Garland and Contreras don't pitch like they did? No it isn't. Could we put this offense in the NL and put a Cubs jersey on them and have them win 99 games? Nope.

 

The White Sox are a team that if they had to play in the NL and without a DH would have scored less runs then the Cubs did. The Sox DH were worth 14.4 runs per 100 PA while the Cubs #9 hitters (to include the PH as well and not just the pitchers) were worth 6.5 runs per 100.

 

This isn't a team that did something in a new way. They built their team on pitching (which they have done for a very long time, quick name the best slugger before Frank) and hitting home runs. That isn't something new or radically different then what they were doing before. The difference is that this year their pitching was much much better then the last few years.

 

It's not about thinking outside the box, it's about improving a weakness. Going from Valentin to Uribe was an upgrade defensively.

 

I don't think it was luck that Garland and Contreras finally matched their talent with production. I also think Cooper has done a very good job with that staff. Nothing luck about it, I love when it becomes a scapegoat

 

If you put the Sox offense in the NL, you have to put the pitching staff in the NL and assume likewise they would've allwed even fewer runs.

 

They made significant changes. New LF'er, RF'er, 2B, and C. New closer in Hermanson, replaced by Jenks.

 

They made significant changes to a roster and pitching staff over the past couple of years that needed it. (Garcia, Hernandez, Contreras, Politte, Hermanson, Jenks).

 

It's been progressionary as far as the pitching staff over the last couple of years.

[UK1679666180]

If the Cubs were to bring in Furcal it would be more for his supposed leadoff skills and speed. But, the more significant upgrade would have been the defensive improvement of furcal to Nomar. Of course, it was Neifi for most of the year, so the defensive improvement would not significant, but the offensive improvement would.

 

 

As for Furcal, his defense this season was far better than at any point in his career. Was '05 a season in which his defensive work matched his ability level or will he regress to throwing the ball into the camera well 30 times a year in '06 ? I'm not sure I'm sold on that. One thing is for sure, no matter where he throws it, he would have a first baseman who can snag almost anything.

 

He definitely had his best year defensively and I'm not sure whether he'll be able to repeat it. But if Hendry is weighing his options between Furcal and Nomar, I would rate health and Furcal's ability to hit leadoff with speed and the two primary factors to would lead Hendry to with Furcal over Nomar. The defensive advantage of Furcal over Nomar would be a secondary advantage compared to those primary factors.

[cubbieinexile]

So how are they different then say the 2003 Cubs? Why are they the shining example?

 

The cubs went out and got pitching, they also developed it. They also let unknowns pitch in close games. They were not afraid to go in a different direction. They went out and traded away the young position players of the future for good players right now. The 2003 Cubs were 5 outs away from being a shining example to the White Sox on how to build a team. They were progressive in their building. They went and got Alou for left, tried to let Patterson develop in center (much like Rowand), had Sosa in Right. Tried to let Choi develop, replaced Hundley for Miller who was a better defensive catcher and then got Barrett the next year. Traded for ARam at third. Traded away Hill when they needed holes to fill and then got good production from Grudz and then Walker.

 

Lets see the Sox got a new LF'er. The Cubs did that as well in Alou.

 

The Sox got a new catcher to replace a bad one. The Cubs did that as well.

 

The Sox are developing a CF'er. The Cubs are too.

 

The Sox got a new SS, so did the Cubs one that if healthy is much better then the Sox SS.

 

The Sox got a 2B with a decent glove and some pop. The Cubs did too.

 

The Sox have a slugging first basemen. The Cubs have a much better one.

 

The Sox got an average right fielder to replace a questionable once great. So did the Cubs.

 

The Sox are developing a 3Bman with a good glove but questionable glove. The Cubs have the opposite.

 

So out of the positional players the Cubs and Sox are pretty much thinking along the exact same lines, and for the most part they think alike when it comes to pitching.

 

The difference? Injuries. The Cubs positional players and pitchers cannot stay healthy. Injuries to Sosa, Walker, Nomar, ARam, Choi, Patterson, Prior, Wood, Borowski and others have cost the Cubs wins. How many wins do the Cubs win in 2004 if ARam isn't gimpy, Sosa loses time, Walker loses time, and Wood and Prior. Does it amount to 10 wins? Perhaps it does.

[UK1679666180]

So how are they different then say the 2003 Cubs? Why are they the shining example?

 

The cubs went out and got pitching, they also developed it. They also let unknowns pitch in close games. They were not afraid to go in a different direction. They went out and traded away the young position players of the future for good players right now. The 2003 Cubs were 5 outs away from being a shining example to the White Sox on how to build a team. They were progressive in their building. They went and got Alou for left, tried to let Patterson develop in center (much like Rowand), had Sosa in Right. Tried to let Choi develop, replaced Hundley for Miller who was a better defensive catcher and then got Barrett the next year. Traded for ARam at third. Traded away Hill when they needed holes to fill and then got good production from Grudz and then Walker.

 

Lets see the Sox got a new LF'er. The Cubs did that as well in Alou.

 

The Sox got a new catcher to replace a bad one. The Cubs did that as well.

 

The Sox are developing a CF'er. The Cubs are too.

 

The Sox got a new SS, so did the Cubs one that if healthy is much better then the Sox SS.

 

The Sox got a 2B with a decent glove and some pop. The Cubs did too.

 

The Sox have a slugging first basemen. The Cubs have a much better one.

 

The Sox got an average right fielder to replace a questionable once great. So did the Cubs.

 

The Sox are developing a 3Bman with a good glove but questionable glove. The Cubs have the opposite.

 

So out of the positional players the Cubs and Sox are pretty much thinking along the exact same lines, and for the most part they think alike when it comes to pitching.

 

The difference? Injuries. The Cubs positional players and pitchers cannot stay healthy. Injuries to Sosa, Walker, Nomar, ARam, Choi, Patterson, Prior, Wood, Borowski and others have cost the Cubs wins. How many wins do the Cubs win in 2004 if ARam isn't gimpy, Sosa loses time, Walker loses time, and Wood and Prior. Does it amount to 10 wins? Perhaps it does.

 

Are you comparing the '05 Sox to the '03, '04, or the '05 Cubs'?

 

I think the '05 Sox staff was better all-around than the '03 Cubs, even if Prior stayed healthy. Without looking, they were probably slightly better offensively.

 

I'm talking about the '05 Cubs, the team that has regressed significantly even with the fact they can't stay healthy which I feel partially due to the manager in regards to pitcher usage.

[cubbieinexile]

What I am talking about is this crap comparison people are making because the Sox are in the series. Sox haven't done anything new or different or unusual. Looking back at this team nobody is going to learn anything they didn't already know about building a team. Building a team is about long range success except for certain case of course and we have no idea how well this team will do yet. I have a feeling that this team fluked into a good situation this year. One that will be hard pressed to duplicate year in year out. The Sox won this year with very good pitching and plugging of holes on the offense the Cubs did that in 2003 and won games they did that in 2004 and won games. This year certain restraints and injuries cost them dearly. The author says the Cubs should look to the southside and follow their lead, but looking to the southside their is nothing to follow. What should the Cubs do? Build a good pitching staff? Well gee golly the Cubs are trying to do that, and in terms of arms they have better ones then the Sox. Plug holes in the hitters? Well gee golly that was why Barrett, Lee, ARam, Walker, and Nomar were there. Develop the hitters? Neither the Sox or the Cubs have done that great of a job doing that recently so what exactly is ther for the Cubs to follow. They are doing what the Sox are doing.

 

Should the Cubs really be going out and finding players that are similar to Dye and Everett? Should they trade away Barrett and get lesser catcher like AJ? The Sox built an offense that was more pathetic then the Cubs this year. that should be emulated?

[UK1679666180]

I think the Cubs need a #1 or #2 hitter to compliment Walker/Murton. They also need to improve the bullpen like the Sox did and should address a spot in the rotation. They also need a RF'er, but have far more greater resources to get someone like Giles instead of Dye.

 

I think the improvements needed are very similar.

[Derwood]

The Cotts/Jenks 8th inning last night was hard to watch simply because I know there is no one in the Cubs pen who would have struck out the side with runners on 1st and 3rd and nobody out. The Sox pen is nails right now, the Cubs, not so much.

[cubbieinexile]

From the first post in that link:

It will certainly be interesting to see where the White Sox go from here. Very rarely does one see a successful team have less of a clue as to how they became successful than the White sox of this season. They hit 200 home runs, have a below-average offense and think they're a successful offense that scraps out runs. The top 3 offensive teams barely stole more bases combined than the White Sox yet all got more out of their stolen bases since they got caught so much less.

[MembersOnlyJacket]

Another factor to consider; how would a White Sox World Championship impact the direction of the Cubs, if at all ? Hendry's tenure continues to grow longer and when you add the pressure of putting forth of a winning team, General Manager's have been known to make irrational decisions. The Cubs would be the furthest removed from a Championship of any kind with the Ranger franchise a distant second. Throwing around more money isn't going to do the Cubs any good this offseason. They have more than enough of it to go around and bring in the right parts without increasing payroll.

[UK1679666180]

Another factor to consider; how would a White Sox World Championship impact the direction of the Cubs, if at all ? Hendry's tenure continues to grow longer and when you add the pressure of putting forth of a winning team, General Manager's have been known to make irrational decisions. The Cubs would be the furthest removed from a Championship of any kind with the Ranger franchise a distant second. Throwing around more money isn't going to do the Cubs any good this offseason. They have more than enough of it to go around and bring in the right parts without increasing payroll.

 

Exactly, money isn't going to do anything w/out a change in philosophy 1st.

[cubbieinexile]

What change in philosphy? Getting players like Prior, Zambrano, ARam, and barrett is a bad philsophy? The Cubs way of doing thing isn't broke, its hurt but it isn't dead. It needs to be tweaked not a system wide change. They have the youth and they need to play it more. That isn't a change in philosphy but a tweak. Signing Furcal or Giles would not be a system wide philosphy change.

[UK1679666180]

What would you call purging the roster of all the bad characters? Hendry had an off-season desire to clear all the bad apples off the Cubs roster.

 

What about smearing Sosa's name thru the mud while he's still on the roster and then trying to trade him? The kicker, a move to get a RF'er was dependent on trading Sosa who had very little trade value compounded by the Cubs releasing video of him leaving early.

 

What would describe Hendry's philosophy as far as providing a solid bench. Personally, I think versatility trumps offense.

 

The way the Cubs operated last off-season was about as broken as you can get.

 

Getting Giles would be a huge change in philosophy, his main asset his eye at the plate, that hasn't happened.

 

Getting Furcal would fall right into line (overspending on tools).

[MPrior]

The hitting philosophy needs to change. Right now it seems like the Cubs players are indoctrinated with an aggressive, swing-at-anything-close philosophy. A much better philosophy (better because it WORKS, whereas the aggressive approach doesn't really) is that of plate discipline, being patient and waiting for your pitch to hit. The Cubs need to encourage that type of hitting, and sign players who employ it.

 

It's important to note for those of you who are tired of us "walk romanticists" (as we've been called) that while this approach does increase walk totals, that's not all it's about. It's about swinging at good pitches to hit, which will lead to more and better hits, as opposed to popping up on bad first pitches. And on top of all that, it also leads to increased pitch totals from the opposing pitchers. There really is no reason this approach should not be implemented - I have literally never heard or thought of any convincing argument against it.

[Exile on Waveland]

What change in philosphy? Getting players like Prior, Zambrano, ARam, and barrett is a bad philsophy? The Cubs way of doing thing isn't broke, its hurt but it isn't dead. It needs to be tweaked not a system wide change. They have the youth and they need to play it more. That isn't a change in philosphy but a tweak. Signing Furcal or Giles would not be a system wide philosphy change.

 

Unfortunately, getting Giles would be a change in philosophy.

 

I mean, c'mon, the guy has only hit 20-23-15 homers the past season, with 88-94-83 RBI's. You gotta get more power and run production from corner outfielders. Not to mention the fact he's a dirty base-clogger.

[MembersOnlyJacket]

What change in philosphy? Getting players like Prior, Zambrano, ARam, and barrett is a bad philsophy? The Cubs way of doing thing isn't broke, its hurt but it isn't dead. It needs to be tweaked not a system wide change. They have the youth and they need to play it more. That isn't a change in philosphy but a tweak. Signing Furcal or Giles would not be a system wide philosphy change.

 

Signing Giles would be a drastic change in philosophy. Granted he will be 34 entering next season, he has been to the DL once since 1998. His career OBP is almost .420. Hendry made a brilliant move by trading for a similar type player in Lee in his prime. Giles might be past his best seasons, but what he has left over the next 2 to 3 years and the way he plays the game is beyond anything that is out there right now.

 

As for Furcal. I've made my case for why I don't want him to be a Cub. He's another toolsy player.

 

I want Hendry to sign baseball players.

[CubfaninCA]

Dye would have looked real good in a Cubs uniform.

 

If Contrereas isn't just lightning in a bottle, the Sox will be good for a while. Buerhle, Garland and Garcia are pretty tough.