The Other 15

BoSox could name you everybody from that team from Martinez to Papelbon to Mueller to Youk. Papelbon had nothing to do with the 2004 Red Sox. And Mark Bellhorn had a better 2002 with the Cubs than he did in 2004 with the Sox which makes him a bad argument as to why Ludwick wont hit again. Saying that players like Ludwick and Dempster wont come close to repeating their performances just because they hadn't done it before doesn't make it so. There are plenty of examples of players who hit their stride later in their careers. As important as hitting their stride, they found the right situation for themselves. Will Demp lose his control and forget how to throw a splitter that looks like a FB for 40 feet? Could happen. Will Ludwick forget how to hit fastballs with teams pitching around Pujols? Could happen. It's not as guaranteed as some think.

ESPN doesn't pay that well to their second tier people. The Cubs TV job is one of the best paying in baseball. If he was offered the job, he'd take it in a heartbeat like anybody else (other than Stone who now works for about half of what he would be if he stayed with the Cubs. Nice move).

I know what Stockton does, it was a personal commentary on Grace's ability. He's just not very good.

Despite being a beloved former Cub, Grace would be a slight step up from Stockton in terms of interesting. Do people realize how much of a homer he was for Arizona? Multiply that by doing Cubs games and you have potential young a Santo in the booth. Sutcliffe is much smoother and more ready for a top job like the Cubs. Grace need more time down on the farm.

I'm not sure. Before the Cubs, the national media used the playoff failures by the Red Sox to play up the long history of falling short. Since the Red Sox won in 2004, the whole "umpteenth year without a WS" has fallen squarely on the shoulders of Cubs . This wasn't a big issue to the Cubs in 1984 or 89. As a matter of fact both years the media used 1969 as the indicator of how long it's been since the Cubs were that good. So how'd the Red Sox win it in '04 with that on their shoulders. Right or wrong, the theory that pressure is a drag on chances isn't a theory that it's impossible for a team with the pressure to win, only harder. Right. It's not to say it's impossible to win but it is another thing that most teams don't have to deal with as a distraction. The playoffs are fluky and hard enough. Like the RedSox, just keep making playoffs and you're bound to win it once.

I'm not sure. Before the Cubs, the national media used the playoff failures by the Red Sox to play up the long history of falling short. Since the Red Sox won in 2004, the whole "umpteenth year without a WS" has fallen squarely on the shoulders of Cubs . This wasn't a big issue to the Cubs in 1984 or 89. As a matter of fact both years the media used 1969 as the indicator of how long it's been since the Cubs were that good.

That's pretty much what the scouting reports said prior to Fuku coming here. And why San Diego and the White Sox put in considerable offers for him. Once they came here, and people adjusted to them, Fuku ended up with more holes in his swing. It was obvious Fuku was not going to continue the pace he was on, I was just disappointed at the speed and level at which he fell off. What I like about Fuku is his honesty when he said he never felt good this year even at his best. A hitter like him, once he does get comfortable (and one would assume he will at some stage next year) would obviously become a much bigger threat than Iwamura. Will he get there is the 14 million dollar question. Will Lou allow him to get there is another.

No not much at all. However, Fuku put up extreme numbers in each half. When it all settles down, and he does contribute throughout the season, it seems like they will likely end up in the same area. I use Iwamura mainly because he shared so many things with Fukudome. They were power hitters in japan, and they both put up extreme numbesr in the first and second halves of their first season here. I've heard and read all the Hideki Matsui comparisons for Fuku, and that may still play out, but as of now, it seems much more likely he is Iwamura more than Matsui.

Two years might be alot for 34 vs 36, but 31 v 29? Where does it end? 31 v 29, 29 v 27, etc. They were about the same age and same experience (as far as Japan ball goes) when they crossed over. Maybe my point was not written well enough, but I understand that they are not "identical" (who is?). They were about the same players (give or take some) in their last 5 yrs in Japan. Considering the very wide range of Fukus numbers as the year went along, is it really a stretch to consider he might end up alot like Iwamura? Maybe, but we'll see.

Using their BB's, I'll go out on a limb and assume Fuku will put up a higher OBP and probably a better OPS as a major leaguer. But as far as where his baseline expectations could be for 2009, I don't find it a stretch to compare him to Iwamura at this time.

Iwamura beats him in vowles, but.... Iwamura in Japan Avg HR RBI AB H BB SB 1998 Yakult Swallows .000 0 0 3 0 0 0 1999 Yakult Swallows .294 11 35 252 74 18 7 2000 Yakult Swallows .278 18 66 436 121 39 13 2001 Yakult Swallows .287 18 81 520 149 32 15 2002 Yakult Swallows .320 23 71 510 163 58 5 2003 Yakult Swallows .263 12 35 232 61 22 5 2004 Yakult Swallows .300 44 103 533 160 70 8 2005 Yakult Swallows .319 30 102 548 175 63 6 2006 Yakult Swallows .311 32 77 615 167 70 8 2007 Tampa Bay Devil Rays .285 7 34 491 140 58 12 2008 Tampa Bay Rays .280 5 32 446 125 47 5 Fukudome Avg HR RBI AB H BB SB 1999 Chunichi Dragons .284 16 52 461 131 50 4 2000 Chunichi Dragons .253 13 42 316 80 45 8 2001 Chunichi Dragons .251 15 56 375 94 56 8 2002 Chunichi Dragons .343 19 65 542 186 56 4 2003 Chunichi Dragons .313 34 96 528 165 78 10 2004 Chunichi Dragons .277 23 81 350 97 78 8 2005 Chunichi Dragons .328 28 103 515 169 48 13 2006 Chunichi Dragons .351 31 104 496 174 93 11 2007 Chunichi Dragons .294 13 48 269 79 69 5 2008 Chicago Cubs .276 8 42 391 108 63 10 They're not statistical twins, but they were very similar players when they both came of age.

OK, everyone is entitled to their opinions and I respect that. Two guys who come from the same league, put up identical numbers, have identical swings, are about the same age shouldn't be compared at all? Even for conversations sakes?

Such as? Their minor league numbers? Their size and approach? Or vowels in their names .

Mybe but how? They're the same age (roughly) same size and same players in Japan. I should add that unmentioned in my post was that Iwamura plays a position that can let a guy get away with those numbers while Fuku obviously played one much more important to numbers. I won't waste space with their numbers in Japan, everyone is capable of looking them up. But they shared many things in common (including that Japanese league swing) before their switch to the states.

We're all looking at what the Cubs should expect from Fukudome, and the answer is probably right in front of our eyes - Iwamura. Both guys were prodigious power guys in Japan just before they made the change to the states. Iwamura had a slightly better season but they have the same approach. Watching him flail away at every pitch just like Fuku does shows that he's comfortable in his approach and can have some level of success (though nothing to write home about). Fukudome said he was never comfortable with his approach (even when the Wrigley idiots were wearing those offensive headbands). Lets' forget the numbers he put up by early June - he wasn't that good. And lets' forget his numbers after that - he isn't that bad. When he does find himself, look to see something that resembles Iwamura with more walks. It wouldn't be the LH middle of the order bat that they though they signed, but he would be useful as a CF if Pie fails to impress in ST.

I hope that Cub fans don't confuse Theriot's offensive numbers as a reason to not look for improvement at a very important position in baseball. As for the confrontation, last year Ronnie would have immediately swung at O'Niel and just grazed him. This season, he was patient and still ended up just grazing him.

I don't think people are suggesting to trade Lee just to trade him, or that trading him is necessary to winning a damn playoff game. Most people would just like to see him traded because one of the best 1B in the league just happens to be a FA. Not only is he better, but he's younger too. I was commenting on Stones quote which said nothing of adding Teixeria. Two words for anyone even remotely hopeful that Teix is somehow in the Cubs plans - Scott Boras. I have issues with Lee, have had them long before it was popular to express them, but he isn't a problem. He just isn't a big bat in the heart of the order. Placing Rammy at 3 and moving Lee to 5 to protect the mythical prototypical LH bat at #4 would be great. Problem is, that guy is not available. Now I duck and pray to avoid the eventual "what about Adam Dunn?"

Let me start with this very telling quote: The only thing "on the house" is the roof, Harry. - Steve Stone Therin lies the difference between the two's personalities because I'm sure Harry never had a problem getting things on the house. Good ole Stoney, last year at this time he had all his perrotheads that prowl in these message boards convinced that Arizona was simply on a different plateau than the helpless Cubs. They had too much talent for the Cubs, thus the sweep. Nowhere in there was noticed that one team had a couple of key hits and the other had none. Now the new party line is that the Cubs are too right handed and thus they become beatable by good RH pitching. Wow, stunning, that good RH pitching can beat the Cubs in a short series. They better overhaul the entire organization because no one else in baseball is beatable against good RH pitching! I wonder how a team with a offense that outscored everyone in their league (and most of their league by a large margin) and pitching to be good enough to be a very close second in era, have so much trouble against RH pitching. Must have faced all lefties during the reg season. However, that is not to say that Cubs are simply snakebit. There are issues and they have little to do with "too RH" and more to do with performance. I'll take a RH combo of Lee, Aram, Soto (funny how no one is calling him out) and Soriano as long as they perform to their levels. Even remotely close to their levels would do.

Sorry for the PM, YearofDaCubs, I just pressed the wrong button. Where did it go? Good question. For openers, and for the thousandth time, the velocity isn't as important as the change in velocity between pitches for a guy like Harden who's strength is disguising his pitches from the same arm slot. He still had that at the end of the season, just not as exaggerated as earlier. His velocity likely went to the same place his control went - fatigueland. He threw 148 innings this year compared to 71 over the last two years. He's only had one year in which he has approached normal starters IP's and that was 4 years ago. To expect a perfect season from him was overly hopeful. To expect a pitcher that will keep you in every game for 5 or 6 inning was very reasonable and that's exactly what they got. And barring some major injury for anyone to suggest that thats' not enough for $7mil simply doesn't know what they are talking about. Quite honestly, every major market team is in position to take on special players like Harden or (gasp, here comes that name again) Prior if the price is right. After 148 innings of 2.00 era - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's a good gamble.

1984 or 2003? Very similar. Both teams were 1 game away from the WS with 3 to play. 1984 team led each of the 3 games they lost at one point of the game. 2003 team got beat convincingly by a spectacular pitching performance by Beckett in game 5. But they also had the biggest and latest lead (3 with 5 outs to go). They also managed to come back from a big game 7 early deficit to take a lead (remember Woodys HR? How I wish Dusty had recognized at that moment that Woody had just given all he could and bring in Clement) The other common thread was that, at least for me, neither team was good enough to win the WS. In no way did I imagine that anyone would beat the '84 Tigers and I thought the same of the '03 Yankees. Oops!

I'll go out on a long limb here and predict that a good RH pitcher, given enough innings, will post good numbers against any team. Thus the term "good RH pitcher!" Get over this postseason. No one in particular was to blame. The entire team, including Lou, was to blame. They ran into hot pitching and EVERY important player, DESPITE HOW POPULAR HERE, failed. Failed miserably. The few bright spots (Zmabrano, Dero early, and Lee late) wasn't enough. Just like last seasons rants about how Arizona was light years ahead of the Cubs were ridiculous, this years belief that the Cubs were not built to win is just as silly. Now, without further ado, lets get back to the predictable Soriano, Lee, Aram, and Zambrano bashing, while praising the very ordinary Theriot.

I think you summed it up pretty well. The Dodgers were the worst case scenario with their pitching and how they've fared against the Cubs. Clearly, after Fukudome fell off, they were a different team that started to rely on power more than playing baseball as the season went along. Teams like that can be stopped by good pitching. Unfortunately, Lou chose the wrong SP to open the series. I like Torres choice of Lowe who was his hottest pitcher but not his best. I know it's hindsight, but I was never comfortable with Demp in game one. He was leaking oil for over a month when BB's were concerned. When he finally blew up in the 5th inning (hes was flirting with danger all game) it put the team on the defensive and they never recovered. Obviously it's not all on Ryne, but they never seemed to get comfortable after that and only got tighter as each inning in the series passed by.

2003 had loads more talent where it matters - starting pitching that controls the other team while your less talented team takes advantage of a few chances and breaks.

Amen! Seriously, what's so frustrating about this? They were never in it at all. The system of the playoffs is still that the hottest team, not the best team wins first round matchups. Anyone really believe the Rockies were the best team in the NL last yr? 2003 was especially excruciating because the Cubs used the "hot team card" to eliminate the Braves who won 101 games. We all forget that? Then they overcame a 0-1 deficit to take a 3-1 lead with Zambrano, Prior, and Wood coming up. That my friends was heartbreak.

100 years? Come on, you've probably been a fan fro about a decade or so. In that time, they've made the playoffs roughly half the time. Believe me, as a Cub fan, you've had it good.