David

People like to say this a lot. The truth is, though, sometimes good pitching wins, and sometimes good offense wins. It's a short series. There's no telling how the games will play out. The game of baseball doesn't suddenly change because it's the playoffs or because the calendar says October. Sure, a team with 2 or 3 good pitchers, and then a dropoff (in their rotation), is better off in the playoff format, but that's pretty much the situation the Cubs find themselves in, anyway. Granted, the weather has an effect, but we're playing in Arizona, and hell, the forecast for Saturday is 81 degrees and sunny. :shock: That aside, the Cubs pitching is better anyway.

I 100% agree with this.

Of course, you could argue that BP and ESPN are on opposite ends of the credibility spectrum.

You really don't know this. There's no way to know how much the new ownership is going to spend. There's really no way to even know who the new owners are going to be at this point, despite all the conjecture from the papers so far. Isn't it a little like maxing out your credit card and hoping that your future salary will be able to afford your current purchases though? It's an irresponsible way to live your life, and it's an irresponsible way to run a business. The only way it pays off, is if we win a WS this year. It is, but if the gamble pays off we are all happy. Where would this team be without those purchases this year? Ultra-screwed because of JH's many terrible decisions.

You really don't know this. There's no way to know how much the new ownership is going to spend. There's really no way to even know who the new owners are going to be at this point, despite all the conjecture from the papers so far. Isn't it a little like maxing out your credit card and hoping that your future salary will be able to afford your current purchases though? It's an irresponsible way to live your life, and it's an irresponsible way to run a business. The only way it pays off, is if we win a WS this year. It certainly is. I don't think I've defended Hendry once in this thread. If I have come across that way, I've misrepresented myself.

An older and short, but good piece on White.. http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/columnists/040224callis.html

You really don't know this. There's no way to know how much the new ownership is going to spend. There's really no way to even know who the new owners are going to be at this point, despite all the conjecture from the papers so far.

Logan White. OK, bring him here, then. And then let him trade our older players for all those damn young and inexperienced players that Coletti wants to get rid of.

I don't foresee the team going to an owner with shallower pockets and an unwillingness to spend. Potential owners would be coming in knowing how much money is tied up for the future in contracts and would already be spending a crapload to buy the team. But who knows with all the reports out there? I suppose Bud could really screw us if he wants to. I guess you could look at the situation in one of two ways. Either the new owner, knowing what the Cubs cost and what the Cubs have committed in payroll for the next several years, will be one that is going to come in here, and try to spend a ton of money and win, or the new ownership will have their hands tied and completely cheap out after spending upwards of a billion dollars on the team and having much of the payroll tied up for years (and years). Either way, though, having a bunch of money tied up for years, especially in players whose production will be declining, is not a good thing.

Soriano is here because of a lot of money, not because Hendry is a good GM. Ramirez is here because the Pirates were poor and couldn't afford him anymore, and the Cubs could. He's made some decent deals, but he's made far more bad ones that he's been able to hide with a large payroll. Can't you say that for just about any big market team? Both NY teams, Boston, Angels etc... All GM's make mistakes, but big market team can hide or out spend them. The Yankees, Boston, and the Angels more or less consistently make the playoffs every year though. Compare the payrolls. Yanks 180 Boston 145 Cubs are at 90. Big difference. Where have the Cubs been spending in terms of their own competition to get to the playoffs? I'd assume it's somewhere near the top. They should, considering what they've spent, at the very least, have been contending for the last several years, and they haven't.

First name that comes to mind is Paul DePodesta. Maybe he can get his old team to give up some of those young players like Kemp, Billingsley, Loney, etc that are such trouble makers. DePodesta was a GM for a total of 2 years. That hardly qualifies as "consistently above average." That is my problem with people that constantly complain about Hendry and how easy it would be to replace him with a better GM. Sure, potentially there are better GMs, but the names that keep getting thrown around are terrible. DePodesta? Hendry has had more success than Depodesta. As you pointed out, Depodesta got 2 years. Hard to really get a lot of success, dontcha think? How do you know he's terrible when he has barely gotten a shot? Out of curiosity, who set up the Dodgers for this surge of great young players that they have now? Were most of those players drafted/acquired during DePo's tenure?

Soriano is here because of a lot of money, not because Hendry is a good GM. Ramirez is here because the Pirates were poor and couldn't afford him anymore, and the Cubs could. He's made some decent deals, but he's made far more bad ones that he's been able to hide with a large payroll. Can't you say that for just about any big market team? Both NY teams, Boston, Angels etc... All GM's make mistakes, but big market team can hide or out spend them. These teams have won more than the Cubs over the past several years. A LOT more. (Well, minus the Mets, at least)

After seeing the first two months of this team I'm shocked we won 85 games. I have no doubt that with this current club as is, we would've won 90 games easy... Agreed. This is why it bothers me a bit to hear the Cubs referred to as a bad playoff team and all that. They came back from ~10 games under .500 and 8.5 games back over two months into the season. You have to play pretty damn well and consistently to do that. Hell, had we not lost Soriano in August, we might have won 90 games, or at least come a bit closer. I guess you really have to look at the season as a whole, though. I'm biased, but I definitely think the Cubs are better than their record. I heard the other day that the Cubs are the best team in baseball since June 23. So I don't buy the argument that the only reason the Cubs made the playoffs is because of our division. And yes, we would have been even better with healthy Zo, A-Ram and D-Lee, all of whom were banged up much of the regular season. We're the best team record wise because we were playing the NL Central while other teams were playing the East and West. and when did the first two months of the season stop counting? yes, we were good after june, but you can't just throw out the first two months. I acknowledged this already. Still, the Cubs were getting incredibly unlucky in one run games early in the season. It's not that they don't count, it's that there was clearly a shift in the performance of this team at that point, and the better team is pretty much the team we have seen for the last 4 months of the season. It's not like it was completely inexplicable, either. We were unlucky early on. One run games just weren't going our way. For much of the season, the power bats were underachieving significantly. There were roster changes made. This is pretty different team than the one we were watching in April... not just performance wise, but roster and playing time allocation-wise.

It's his job to find good players. The fact is, though, that the record the team has put up in his tenure relative to the amount of money that has been spent (and the farm system this team had when he took over) = a massive failure that only a massive spending spree last offseason could mask.

After seeing the first two months of this team I'm shocked we won 85 games. I have no doubt that with this current club as is, we would've won 90 games easy... Agreed. This is why it bothers me a bit to hear the Cubs referred to as a bad playoff team and all that. They came back from ~10 games under .500 and 8.5 games back over two months into the season. You have to play pretty damn well and consistently to do that. Hell, had we not lost Soriano in August, we might have won 90 games, or at least come a bit closer. I guess you really have to look at the season as a whole, though. I'm biased, but I definitely think the Cubs are better than their record.

What GM wouldn't be if his ownership allows it?

Going this route will save me a lot of keystrokes. So I'll second this.

Wow....

Well, we're Cubs fans, lol...and I don't want to see Philly (or Cole Hamels), so if the Rockies are a worse matchup for them, even better. On top of that, I don't want to face that San Diego staff or see our bats get stifled in Petco. I think, the way our bats have come around in terms of power (even in FL, think of all the near misses in the huge park and humidity) we can more than hang in a Coors slugfest with these guys. Plus, facing COL we'd have home field in the NLCS, which would be a little icing on the cake. We would in SD too. Colorado's pitching is now better than San Diego's, and they have two really good lefties. Their hitters would do well against the Cubs' pitching too. Gotta take Peavy out. True, I should've worded that better, but if the Pads are so depleted, what makes us think they can beat the Phils? Of primary importance to me is getting them out of the equation.

Yes, the Padres are clearly the inferior team. I don't understand why so many are hoping for a Rockies-Cubs potential NLCS. Well, fine, even if you feel that way... Would you rather face the Rockies or Phillies? If the Pads are so depleted, and won't be able to start Peavy twice, do they really stand much of a chance against Phil? I sure as hell don't want to face Philadelphia. I know that much.

Well, we're Cubs fans, lol...and I don't want to see Philly (or Cole Hamels), so if the Rockies are a worse matchup for them, even better. On top of that, I don't want to face that San Diego staff or see our bats get stifled in Petco. I think, the way our bats have come around in terms of power (even in FL, think of all the near misses in the huge park and humidity) we can more than hang in a Coors slugfest with these guys. Plus, facing COL we'd have home field in the NLCS, which would be a little icing on the cake.

Tell me why you're rooting for the Rockies again? I want HFA in the NLCS, I don't want to face Peavy or Young (despite his second half struggles) or the rest of their league leading pitching staff... And I feel like our lineup can do a lot more damage in Coors than in Petco now that the power bats have seemingly found their way.

Does anyone think our offense could do some major damage in 3 games in Coors field now that they seem to have found their power strokes? I'd be worried about our pitchers, though...Especially Hill and Lilly. Remember how amazingly awesome Prior was at Coors? :cry:

I think I could die happy if I never saw another player on a team I'm rooting for slide/dive into first again.

Colorado... and, I dunno.. there would be a lot of drama to a Cubs vs. Red Sox or Yanks World Series... I honestly couldn't care less who we'd face in the WS, how about that.... :D