Maybe you didn't follow the Cubs as closely in the early part of the decade. 2003 was the year that the was supposed to be the beginning of dominance for a decade. The 2008 team was the end of any relevance. but in terms of which team was better, it's not even close. the 2008 team was completely stacked. That 2008 team was not stacked by any stretch of the imagination. They didn't have any holes, but they were basically just good everywhere instead of having any real greatness. 2003 had a HOF RF and what should have been 2 HOF starting pitchers at the beginning of their careers. 2003 had the feeling of a team on the verge of continued dominance and 2008 had the feel of a complete one-off opportunity. Not to mention 2003 did something no other Cubs team had ever done, win a playoff series, while 2008 ended in completely bombed. Say what you will about playoffs being a crap shoot, but let's not pretend they don't matter or shouldn't influence your opinion of a team.