To Pie Or Not To Pie...

[1908]

Yes. I also think Pie has a chance to be a speical player. I wouldn't just trade him away for anyone.

I'd understand Hendry's thinking if he included Pie as part of a package for Abreu, but I don't think Bobby would make them favorites, and I'd much rather see them sign Giles and hang on to Pie.

 

I am interested though, what do you think Pie's numbers will look like his rookie season? Will that season be 2006 or 2007?

So much is up in the air in terms of the Cubs outfield right now, I have no idea when Pie will be up.

[goonys evil twin]

In his rookie year do you expect Pie to post numbers similar to Albert in his rookie year? Do you expect him to post simialr numubers to what Abreu posted for the last three years? If so when do you expect Pie will be playing for the Cubs and producing those numbers?

Do you think the Cubs are an Abreu away from winning the World Series in the next couple years?

 

Yes.

 

It wouldn't guarantee, but it's the closest thing to it. The Cubs have been a top pitching team in 2 of the past 3 years. They've been a mediocre or worse hitting team every year. An impact RF to go along with Aramis, Lee, Barrett and whatever top of the order player Hendry gets (assuming that player is competent) would put them as close to the WS as any team in the NL.

[1908]

In his rookie year do you expect Pie to post numbers similar to Albert in his rookie year? Do you expect him to post simialr numubers to what Abreu posted for the last three years? If so when do you expect Pie will be playing for the Cubs and producing those numbers?

Do you think the Cubs are an Abreu away from winning the World Series in the next couple years?

 

Yes.

 

It wouldn't guarantee, but it's the closest thing to it. The Cubs have been a top pitching team in 2 of the past 3 years. They've been a mediocre or worse hitting team every year. An impact RF to go along with Aramis, Lee, Barrett and whatever top of the order player Hendry gets (assuming that player is competent) would put them as close to the WS as any team in the NL.

Is the difference between Giles and Abreu over the next couple seasons worth giving up Pie?

[CubinNY]

Yes. I also think Pie has a chance to be a speical player. I wouldn't just trade him away for anyone.

I'd understand Hendry's thinking if he included Pie as part of a package for Abreu, but I don't think Bobby would make them favorites, and I'd much rather see them sign Giles and hang on to Pie.

 

I am interested though, what do you think Pie's numbers will look like his rookie season? Will that season be 2006 or 2007?

So much is up in the air in terms of the Cubs outfield right now, I have no idea when Pie will be up.

 

I would understand Hendry's thinking if he didn't trade Pie, as well. I'd rather have Giles too, he only costs money.

 

I tend to think Pie will be up in 2007. But I am a bit worried about his numbers in the DR this winter. Maybe he is tired.

 

This whole sorry debate appears to be largely academic as there are no indications that Hendry is doing anything with regard to the sucking chest wound that is right field. I hope he has one more blockbuster left in him.

[goonys evil twin]

Bottom line how you feel about a Pie for Abreu deal should partially be dependant on the Cub’s World Series chances in the next few years with him.

 

If I were the Cubs I'd most likely do the deal.

 

I don't really feel that the chances are too great, considering all our hopes rest on Prior/Wood/Zambrano and not on acquiring an impact bat. If Prior/Wood/Zambrano are all healthy for a full season and produce like we know they can, we don't need Abreu to make the playoffs and potentially win a WS. If they're not all healthy, Abreu isn't going to get us to the WS.

 

That is some extremely backward thinking.

 

Prior Wood and Zambrano were all healthy and effective in 2003, and it led to an 88 win team. Why? Because the offense was mediocre due almost exclusively to the low BB/OBP numbers.

 

If you feel the chances aren't great to capitalize on those guys in the next couple years, then you might as well advocate trading them all.

 

That's pure silliness in my opinion.

 

It's silly to say that the success of 2006 depends on our rotation? Abreu isn't the last piece to the puzzle, so why trade away your best prospect for him? his age is the primary factor, IMO. you're basically trading away the future for a shot at the next two years with Abreu.

 

Zambrano and Prior are going to be re-signed long term and they're both young. it would be nice to win in the next two years, but we have too many holes and too many things that can go wrong (and are likely too, like Wood's arm falling off) to take a chance on Abreu, who isn't a long term solution.

 

You are saying two different things. You are saying the team needs the pitching to be healthy to win, but then you are following that up with a "we shouldn't waste our time going after an impact bat because it's all about the pitching and offense doesn't matter."

 

It makes no sense. It's silly.

 

If this was Pittsburgh, and they didn't have the money to go after an impact bat, and had to rely on career years from pitchers, well, then just sit back and hope for those career years because your options are limited. But this is not the 1999 Cubs, when it made no sense to trade prospects for bats, because that team was so bad. This team does not have so many holes that an impact bat couldn't make a difference. They could conceivably be better in 2005 at every single offensive position except 1B, depending on who Hendry gets for the OF. Last year's pitching decline hurt, but it was sharp decline from the success of the early 2000s. It is quite possible to improve the pitching with minor tweaks, but impossible to improve this offense with tweaks. They need an impact bat.

 

And Pie is not untradable. I was a staunch "keep them all" guy in the late 90's and early 00's, but keeping that same attitude now, when the window of opportunity is closing on the "our best pitchers are outperforming their contracts" era would be quite foolish. Pie is no better prospect than any of the top prospects of the 97-02 hayday of Cubs prospect lists. Sure he's got value, but much of that value is what he can get this team via trade. He won't contribute to this team for at least a year, and even then probably won't be all that good. Now is not the time to be concerned with the 2008-2012 Cubs. As long as Hendry doesn't completely handicap this team's future with a list of asinine deals, those teams will take care of themselves. 2006-2007 matter most of all right now, much more than 1999-2002 mattered going into those seasons.

 

If you don't want to trade Pie, fine. But don't make up some goofy excuse that pitching health is the only thing that will helpl this team win, therefore they shouldn't make a move to fill the biggest need on this team.

[goonys evil twin]

In his rookie year do you expect Pie to post numbers similar to Albert in his rookie year? Do you expect him to post simialr numubers to what Abreu posted for the last three years? If so when do you expect Pie will be playing for the Cubs and producing those numbers?

Do you think the Cubs are an Abreu away from winning the World Series in the next couple years?

 

Yes.

 

It wouldn't guarantee, but it's the closest thing to it. The Cubs have been a top pitching team in 2 of the past 3 years. They've been a mediocre or worse hitting team every year. An impact RF to go along with Aramis, Lee, Barrett and whatever top of the order player Hendry gets (assuming that player is competent) would put them as close to the WS as any team in the NL.

Is the difference between Giles and Abreu over the next couple seasons worth giving up Pie?

 

You're talking to the wrong person if you're advocating signing Giles. Giles is atop the list. But Hendry doesn't seem to have any interest in the most obvious solution, therefore it's time to look into the next best options, and trading for Abreu is clearly in that group.

[1908]

You're talking to the wrong person if you're advocating signing Giles. Giles is atop the list. But Hendry doesn't seem to have any interest in the most obvious solution, therefore it's time to look into the next best options, and trading for Abreu is clearly in that group.

I think signing Giles makes a heck of a lot more sense than trading away your best prospect, and I have a feeling that Hendry has as much interest in trading Pie for Abreu as he does for signing Giles.

[Fanzones trumpet]

Prior Wood and Zambrano were all healthy and effective in 2003, and it led to an 88 win team. Why? Because the offense was mediocre due almost exclusively to the low BB/OBP numbers.

 

"Almost exclusively?" Didn't Shawn Estes, Antonio Alfonseca and a poor first two months from Clement have a lot to do with it?

[goonys evil twin]

You're talking to the wrong person if you're advocating signing Giles. Giles is atop the list. But Hendry doesn't seem to have any interest in the most obvious solution, therefore it's time to look into the next best options, and trading for Abreu is clearly in that group.

I think signing Giles makes a heck of a lot more sense than trading away your best prospect, and I have a feeling that Hendry has as much interest in trading Pie for Abreu as he does for signing Giles.

 

That's true. But then again, Pie is only the Cubs best prospect because they are so bereft of top flight prospects after slowly falling down the list of top farm systems. He's got some pretty large flaws for all the we can't trade him for a current start talk.

 

I'm not advocating trading Pie instead of signing Giles. I'm all about Giles. But if the GM won't open his eyes to the obviousness of signing Giles, he has to trade for an impact corner OF someway and somehow. And I'd like to see them trade prospects other than Pie to get that corner OF. But I would not let Pie and his slim chance for greatness stand in the way of making a trade, if he was a dealbreaker. He's not worth it.

[mg420]

You're talking to the wrong person if you're advocating signing Giles. Giles is atop the list. But Hendry doesn't seem to have any interest in the most obvious solution, therefore it's time to look into the next best options, and trading for Abreu is clearly in that group.

I think signing Giles makes a heck of a lot more sense than trading away your best prospect, and I have a feeling that Hendry has as much interest in trading Pie for Abreu as he does for signing Giles.

 

That's true. But then again, Pie is only the Cubs best prospect because they are so bereft of top flight prospects after slowly falling down the list of top farm systems. He's got some pretty large flaws for all the we can't trade him for a current start talk.

 

I'm not advocating trading Pie instead of signing Giles. I'm all about Giles. But if the GM won't open his eyes to the obviousness of signing Giles, he has to trade for an impact corner OF someway and somehow. And I'd like to see them trade prospects other than Pie to get that corner OF. But I would not let Pie and his slim chance for greatness stand in the way of making a trade, if he was a dealbreaker. He's not worth it.

hendry most likely thinks he is.

[goonys evil twin]

Prior Wood and Zambrano were all healthy and effective in 2003, and it led to an 88 win team. Why? Because the offense was mediocre due almost exclusively to the low BB/OBP numbers.

 

"Almost exclusively?" Didn't Shawn Estes, Antonio Alfonseca and a poor first two months from Clement have a lot to do with it?

 

Not really. The pitching was near the top of the league. Certainly good enough to make for a 90+ win season. The offense was mediocre. That's the reason they failed to win 90 wins. You can't really snicker at a top 3 pitching staff, or expect much more. You can expect more than a 9th ranked scoring offense, especially when you have a top payroll.

[1908]

That's true. But then again, Pie is only the Cubs best prospect because they are so bereft of top flight prospects after slowly falling down the list of top farm systems. He's got some pretty large flaws for all the we can't trade him for a current start talk.

The Cubs system is not what it was three years ago but Pie would be the top prospect in a lot of systems. BA had him ranked 17th overall the last time they did their rankings.

 

I'm not advocating trading Pie instead of signing Giles. I'm all about Giles. But if the GM won't open his eyes to the obviousness of signing Giles, he has to trade for an impact corner OF someway and somehow. And I'd like to see them trade prospects other than Pie to get that corner OF. But I would not let Pie and his slim chance for greatness stand in the way of making a trade, if he was a dealbreaker. He's not worth it.

I agree about signing Giles.

[Fanzones trumpet]

Prior Wood and Zambrano were all healthy and effective in 2003, and it led to an 88 win team. Why? Because the offense was mediocre due almost exclusively to the low BB/OBP numbers.

 

"Almost exclusively?" Didn't Shawn Estes, Antonio Alfonseca and a poor first two months from Clement have a lot to do with it?

 

Not really. The pitching was near the top of the league. Certainly good enough to make for a 90+ win season. The offense was mediocre. That's the reason they failed to win 90 wins. You can't really snicker at a top 3 pitching staff, or expect much more. You can expect more than a 9th ranked scoring offense, especially when you have a top payroll.

 

I think you're placing much emphasis on offense at a time whene the game is shifting back to a much more balanced game. As far as 2003 is concerned, I don't think it's a stretch to say that if the Cubs had replaced Shawn Estes and his 5.73 e.r.a with a decent 4-4.25 e.r.a. 5th starter, they would have exceeded 90 wins.

[goonys evil twin]

I think you're placing much emphasis on offense at a time whene the game is shifting back to a much more balanced game.

 

I think you are completely ignoring what I said, and overstating the shift of the game.

 

The Cubs were a top 3 pitching team but 9th ranked hitting team in 2003. Can you spot the area that could have been improved more easily in an effort to improve upon an 88 win season? They've constintently been an upper half (in the NL) pitching team and a lower half hitting team the past few years. Scoring runs has been a problem. It's been a consistent problem, it's been a big problem.

 

I'm not saying ignore the pitching and only improve the offense. Unlike the pitching and defense crowd, I don't think it's wise to narrow your focus, and I think it's absolutely ridiculous to do so when you have the recources the Cubs have.

[Fanzones trumpet]

I think you're placing much emphasis on offense at a time whene the game is shifting back to a much more balanced game.

 

I think you are completely ignoring what I said, and overstating the shift of the game.

 

The Cubs were a top 3 pitching team but 9th ranked hitting team in 2003. Can you spot the area that could have been improved more easily in an effort to improve upon an 88 win season? They've constintently been an upper half (in the NL) pitching team and a lower half hitting team the past few years. Scoring runs has been a problem. It's been a consistent problem, it's been a big problem.

 

I'm not saying ignore the pitching and only improve the offense. Unlike the pitching and defense crowd, I don't think it's wise to narrow your focus, and I think it's absolutely ridiculous to do so when you have the recources the Cubs have.

 

You could have improved 2003 easily by simply replacing Shawn Estes with a decent starter--say Greg Maddux circa 2004.

 

I'm not disagreeing that the offense should be improved. But I understand you to be arguing that the offense is the biggest problem on the team, and I disagree; pitching --both starting and relief--was unacceptable last year, and the Cubs aren't going anywhere unless it's significantly improved. As far as the changes in the game are concerned, you need only look at the two WS teams last year to see the change.

[goonys evil twin]

You could have improved 2003 easily by simply replacing Shawn Estes with a decent starter--say Greg Maddux circa 2004.

 

I'm not disagreeing that the offense should be improved. But I understand you to be arguing that the offense is the biggest problem on the team, and I disagree; pitching --both starting and relief--was unacceptable last year, and the Cubs aren't going anywhere unless it's significantly improved. As far as the changes in the game are concerned, you need only look at the two WS teams last year to see the change.

 

I don't think it would have been simple to add Greg Maddux to the 2003 team to make it's pitching better.

 

Offense is clearly the biggest problem on the team. Pitching had one down year in the past 3. Offense has been bad every year. They have already addressed pitching, and are supposedly still focusing on pitching, but offense has been ignored, to the point that one of the most important spots on this team is absolutely vacant, with no signs for improvement coming.

 

Using last year's WS teams as your basis for a change in the game is extremely weak. After Florida won everybody said speed was the new name of the game. Then Boston won with an enormous attack and average pitching. I suggest you look at a lot more than just the 2 WS teams. Look at the entire playoff group. There were a lot of top offenses in that group, and there are always a lot of top offenses in that group. There will always be a lot of top offenses in that group.

 

It's unnecessary to promote a strategy that focuses almost exclusively on preventing runs. There is no one way to win, but greatness on both sides of the lines is the best way to go about trying. I don't want them to just have a good offense or just have a good pitching. I can't understand why so many Cubs fans seem content with just good pitching/defense (run prevention) and are willing to ignore the offensive woes.

 

It has always been a fact that you need to score runs and prevent the other team from scoring to win in baseball. And it will always be the case. The Cubs have focused entirely on pitching the past 10 years, and it hasn't gotten them very far. MacPhail's strategy was to draft and otherwise acquire a plethora of young arms, then trade or sign bats when those arms were ready. After 10 years, it's about time the Cubs start thinking about scoring runs.

[SeldomSeen]

Prior Wood and Zambrano were all healthy and effective in 2003, and it led to an 88 win team. Why? Because the offense was mediocre due almost exclusively to the low BB/OBP numbers.

 

"Almost exclusively?" Didn't Shawn Estes, Antonio Alfonseca and a poor first two months from Clement have a lot to do with it?

 

Not really. The pitching was near the top of the league. Certainly good enough to make for a 90+ win season. The offense was mediocre. That's the reason they failed to win 90 wins. You can't really snicker at a top 3 pitching staff, or expect much more. You can expect more than a 9th ranked scoring offense, especially when you have a top payroll.

 

Let me preface this by pointing out that I am and have been in favor of signing Giles or another big bat for RF.

The pitching as a whole was near the top of the league in 2003. The starting pitching skewed those stats, though, in spite of a pretty poor pen. The Cubs ranked 9th in the NL that year in holds, and 12th in saves (say what you will about the importance of this stat) with only 36 conversions in 51 opportunities. Clearly, there was room for improvement (hindsight being 20/20).

This is not to say that they should forgo pursuing a bat to improve the offense, but there have been consistent holes with this team for several years: with leadoff, SS, and the pen the major ones. I see Hendry's approach this year as methodical rather than haphazard or random. He's shoring up the pen now, while those guys are still available, and he'll move on the rest later, as they are more likely to take their time deciding where to sign.

Another quick point- this rotation is built around guys who can be dominant for 8 innings, or effectively wild for 5 2/3. The more effective options the better, I say.

[Fanzones trumpet]

You could have improved 2003 easily by simply replacing Shawn Estes with a decent starter--say Greg Maddux circa 2004.

 

I'm not disagreeing that the offense should be improved. But I understand you to be arguing that the offense is the biggest problem on the team, and I disagree; pitching --both starting and relief--was unacceptable last year, and the Cubs aren't going anywhere unless it's significantly improved. As far as the changes in the game are concerned, you need only look at the two WS teams last year to see the change.

 

I don't think it would have been simple to add Greg Maddux to the 2003 team to make it's pitching better.

 

Offense is clearly the biggest problem on the team. Pitching had one down year in the past 3. Offense has been bad every year. They have already addressed pitching, and are supposedly still focusing on pitching, but offense has been ignored, to the point that one of the most important spots on this team is absolutely vacant, with no signs for improvement coming.

 

Using last year's WS teams as your basis for a change in the game is extremely weak. After Florida won everybody said speed was the new name of the game. Then Boston won with an enormous attack and average pitching. I suggest you look at a lot more than just the 2 WS teams. Look at the entire playoff group. There were a lot of top offenses in that group, and there are always a lot of top offenses in that group. There will always be a lot of top offenses in that group.

 

It's unnecessary to promote a strategy that focuses almost exclusively on preventing runs. There is no one way to win, but greatness on both sides of the lines is the best way to go about trying. I don't want them to just have a good offense or just have a good pitching. I can't understand why so many Cubs fans seem content with just good pitching/defense (run prevention) and are willing to ignore the offensive woes.

 

It has always been a fact that you need to score runs and prevent the other team from scoring to win in baseball. And it will always be the case. The Cubs have focused entirely on pitching the past 10 years, and it hasn't gotten them very far. MacPhail's strategy was to draft and otherwise acquire a plethora of young arms, then trade or sign bats when those arms were ready. After 10 years, it's about time the Cubs start thinking about scoring runs.

 

You're dead wrong on Boston 2004; they had the 3rd lowest ERA in the AL, only .001 behind second place Oak. Not coincidentally, that was the one year in the last 87 that they won it all. I also think you're not according enough weight to the effect that steroids had on the game until last year.

 

I suggest that you if look over the years at the playoff teams--you'll find more examples of top three pitching staffs than top three offenses.

[goonys evil twin]

You're dead wrong on Boston 2004; they had the 3rd lowest ERA in the AL, only .001 behind second place Oak. Not coincidentally, that was the one year in the last 87 that they won it all. I also think you're not according enough weight to the effect that steroids had on the game until last year.

 

I suggest that you if look over the years at the playoff teams--you'll find more examples of top three pitching staffs than top three offenses.

 

By all accounts, pitchers were just as into the illegal supplements as the hitters.

 

Again, why are you so willing to accept mediocre offense when the team is using a top 5 payroll?

 

There is no rational reason to advocate sacrificing offense for pitching.

 

I'm simply asking Hendry to address something he's ignored every year that has hurt the team. I'm not asking him to sacrifice pitching.

[Fanzones trumpet]

You're dead wrong on Boston 2004; they had the 3rd lowest ERA in the AL, only .001 behind second place Oak. Not coincidentally, that was the one year in the last 87 that they won it all. I also think you're not according enough weight to the effect that steroids had on the game until last year.

 

I suggest that you if look over the years at the playoff teams--you'll find more examples of top three pitching staffs than top three offenses.

 

By all accounts, pitchers were just as into the illegal supplements as the hitters.

 

Again, why are you so willing to accept mediocre offense when the team is using a top 5 payroll?

 

There is no rational reason to advocate sacrificing offense for pitching.

 

I'm simply asking Hendry to address something he's ignored every year that has hurt the team. I'm not asking him to sacrifice pitching.

 

Even assuming that pitchers were just as much into steroids as the hitters, the numbers over the last 10 years suggest that steroids was much more beneficial to the hitters than to the pitchers.

 

The payroll is not unlimited; it's a question of prioritizing given the $65 million in sunk costs that are already there. Again, I'm all for improving the offense intelligently. I just think that pitching was a big problem last year.

 

How can you say he's ignored the offense every year? He brought in Aramis Ramirez in 2003, one of the best offensive 3B in the NL. He brought in Derrek Lee the same year. He sacrificed defense for offense at C--a critical defensive position-- by trading Miller for Barrett. He emphasized offense at two more critical defensive positions--2B and SS--by acquiring Walker and Garciaparra.

[goonys evil twin]

Even assuming that pitchers were just as much into steroids as the hitters, the numbers over the last 10 years suggest that steroids was much more beneficial to the hitters than to the pitchers.

 

Perhaps steroids isn't the catch-all for the improved offensive numbers, huh?

 

I just think that pitching was a big problem last year.

 

How can you say he's ignored the offense every year? He brought in Aramis Ramirez in 2003, one of the best offensive 3B in the NL. He brought in Derrek Lee the same year. He sacrificed defense for offense at C--a critical defensive position-- by trading Miller for Barrett. He emphasized offense at two more critical defensive positions--2B and SS--by acquiring Walker and Garciaparra.

 

Offense has been a big problem every year. It's been a below average scoring team consistently because this team doesn't get on base enough. And this team doesn't get on base enough because this team doesn't draw enough walks. Hendry has completely ignored that problem year after year, which is why this team has had the same problem year after year.

 

Pitching was a problem last year. But hitting has been a problem every year.

[Fanzones trumpet]

Even assuming that pitchers were just as much into steroids as the hitters, the numbers over the last 10 years suggest that steroids was much more beneficial to the hitters than to the pitchers.

 

Perhaps steroids isn't the catch-all for the improved offensive numbers, huh?

 

I just think that pitching was a big problem last year.

 

How can you say he's ignored the offense every year? He brought in Aramis Ramirez in 2003, one of the best offensive 3B in the NL. He brought in Derrek Lee the same year. He sacrificed defense for offense at C--a critical defensive position-- by trading Miller for Barrett. He emphasized offense at two more critical defensive positions--2B and SS--by acquiring Walker and Garciaparra.

 

Offense has been a big problem every year. It's been a below average scoring team consistently because this team doesn't get on base enough. And this team doesn't get on base enough because this team doesn't draw enough walks. Hendry has completely ignored that problem year after year, which is why this team has had the same problem year after year.

 

Pitching was a problem last year. But hitting has been a problem every year.

 

I don't understand your steroids observation; are you saying steroids didn't have a significant impact on the offensive explosion that was reversed last year?

 

The Cubs scored 789 runs in 2004-7th in the NL, which isn't below average. The major reason it was a problem last year was because of injuries to Garciaparra, Walker and Ramirez, and Patterson's complete (and totally unexpected) implosion, not because Hendry "completely ignored" it. I named you five guys Hendry brought in in the last two years who are excellent offensive players, and you ignored the point.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't understand your steroids observation; are you saying steroids didn't have a significant impact on the offensive explosion that was reversed last year?

 

The Cubs scored 789 runs in 2004-7th in the NL, which isn't below average. The major reason it was a problem last year was because of injuries to Garciaparra, Walker and Ramirez, and Patterson's complete (and totally unexpected) implosion, not because Hendry "completely ignored" it. I named you five guys Hendry brought in in the last two years who are excellent offensive players, and you ignored the point.

 

I'm saying that it's quite clear that many factors played into the increased offense, and steroids being used as a catch-all is a big mistake.

 

They were 7th in 2004, but 9th in 2003 and 2005. That's consistently mediocre. I didn't ignore your point. The fact is scoring runs has been a problem for years. It has been a problem because of a lack of walks taken by the team, which led to a lack of OBP. It has been the same problem year after year. But because this team doesn't value walks taken, it's never been fixed.

 

I don't buy the injury excuse. Injuries can be used to explain the one year downturn in pitching a lot easier than they can the consistently mediocre offense.

[badger1679666666]

Prior Wood and Zambrano were all healthy and effective in 2003, and it led to an 88 win team. Why? Because the offense was mediocre due almost exclusively to the low BB/OBP numbers.

 

"Almost exclusively?" Didn't Shawn Estes, Antonio Alfonseca and a poor first two months from Clement have a lot to do with it?

 

Not really. The pitching was near the top of the league. Certainly good enough to make for a 90+ win season. The offense was mediocre. That's the reason they failed to win 90 wins. You can't really snicker at a top 3 pitching staff, or expect much more. You can expect more than a 9th ranked scoring offense, especially when you have a top payroll.

 

Wasn't their bullpen awful that year also? aside from Borowski and Farns? I seem to remember Wood having at least 5-7 games he left with the lead but got a ND.

[goonys evil twin]

Prior Wood and Zambrano were all healthy and effective in 2003, and it led to an 88 win team. Why? Because the offense was mediocre due almost exclusively to the low BB/OBP numbers.

 

"Almost exclusively?" Didn't Shawn Estes, Antonio Alfonseca and a poor first two months from Clement have a lot to do with it?

 

Not really. The pitching was near the top of the league. Certainly good enough to make for a 90+ win season. The offense was mediocre. That's the reason they failed to win 90 wins. You can't really snicker at a top 3 pitching staff, or expect much more. You can expect more than a 9th ranked scoring offense, especially when you have a top payroll.

 

Wasn't their bullpen awful that year also? aside from Borowski and Farns? I seem to remember Wood having at least 5-7 games he left with the lead but got a ND.

 

Not awful, middle of the pack, according to ERA. They were 8th in the NL and 16th in MLB. Starting pitching was fantastic, overall pitching was great. It was hitting that held them back.

 

FYI, Remlinger was fine that year. Overpaid, and not as good as he was before signing, but a nice bullpen arm. Guthrie was also servicable, but his peripherals were not sparkling.