SoonerCubFan

He was about the whole offense in Games 1 &2, but that error and the first pitch ground out last night stranding Soto at 3B were 2 of the 3 biggest plays in the series (along with the Loney game 1 foul tip). Each game had a chance to be totally different - or at least keep them competitive and not embarrassing.

Yes, the dominance of Prior and Wood up to the 8th inning of Game 6 was the biggest thing. We also were facing guys like Russ Ortiz and Mike Hampton twice each in the NLDS, had a leadoff hitter who got on base, and a middle of the order (including Ramirez prior to the open stance) who delivered. But,it's still the dominating SPs that get it done, and we didn't have it this year.

Count me in with simply making the LDS 7 games, although there's something to be said for the champion having to run the gauntlet of a short series and a couple of long series - not much, but something. And I agree with abandoning the All Star Game as deciding WS home field advantage. One other thing to "clean up" baseball IMO - move the Astros to the AL to get the leagues evened up like they should be. Then you could go back to 18 intra-divisional games with each division team (72 games), 6 games (3 home and away) with every other League team (60 games), and 6 games (3 home and away) against every member of one division in the other League (30 games) on a rotational 3 year basis. That way there would be a lot more to base the Interleague record decision on, beyond the simple fairness of it all. It still would not be 100% fair in determining the WC winner, but it's not any worse in that regard than what we've got right now.

I get your point, but have to lean toward the side that says it doesn't have a bearing. Case in point, 2006 Cardinals. They spent all of 2000-2005 with generally better to much better teams than 2006, yet always failed to do anything at the end, making one World Series and even then, failing to even lead a single inning. Then in 2006, with one of the worst regular season teams to make the post season in MLB history, they win it all. Same people in the front office and managing/coaching - much moreso than the Cubs of 2003-2008. I agree with the other poster's point about the players as well - only TWO players are left from 2003 and THREE from 2004 in their same role(s). The manager is different. Perhaps biggest of all is that the Front Office/Ownership has taken a much different approach to assembling the team than anytime in our lifetimes, and shows every indication that they will continue to invest aggressively in keeping a contender in play each year for the foreseeable future, which is the REAL key to ever eventually having October success. If they fail to win it all this year, it will be on the merits of a new, unique set of circumstances. The parallels to the 2005 Sox is very interesting to see how it plays out, but we all know it is up to what the players do or don't do from here on out that will tell the tale.

I'm thinking they took him out after getting his 100th RBI on the triple. Amazing ... 100 RBI and 61 EBHs in just 71 games. Has be one of the most remarkable AAA seasons in a while.

I agree with most assessments in this thread, except those of Soto overperforming - at least offensively. His numbers for the year are right at his prior line (albeit with limited history) - .286/.371/.500 vs. .292/.371/.504 (year and career OPS+ of 124), and given his 2007 performance in AAA and MLB along with his hot start, I was actually hoping for at least this much if not more. The one area where I have been pleasantly impressed with him is with the leadership.

Absolutely. So many pieces have come together in a near-perfect blend of roles, with very few "career years". I'd have to go with: 1. Soto (Silver Slugger likely and #2 Team ERA) 2. Dempster (has made the biggest difference to the rotation) 3. Soriano (a whole different team with him playing)

From what I have read he will not be healthy until mid-season. Then I would expect him to be very rusty and most likely not of much use to the major league team this season. If he wouldn't agree to a contract with a club option for next year then he can walk after this season anyway. So from the Cubs perspective they pay him a pretty good salary for another year just to get him rehabbed so he can cash in as a free agent in '09. If he would not take the two year contract then I can see why the organization decided it was better to cut him loose now. I would be very surprised if whatever team he signs with does not either get a two year deal (or one year with a team option for '09) or pays a lower amount in a one year deal than what the Cubs could have forced him to take. Exactly my sentiments, to the letter, regardless of the Mitchell report. I, too, was a vocal Prior advocate before the 2001 draft, and invested a lot of interest in him over the years which has turned out badly. I certainly wish a mutual agreement could have been reached, and have delusions that he could somehow miraculously help down the stretch this year, but it would seem that it's not Hendry who's being emotional or illogical when looking at the situation as it really is.

I'm in there with you. Rich Hill and Erik Bedard are the same guy stat-wise (w/Hill actually a bit better) through age 27. Hill probably won't match Bedard's age 28 season, but then he may pitch after August as well. Hill is a year younger, has a healthier history with no past abuse, has two more seasons under the Cubs' control, and may end up just as good or better the next 3-4 years. I'd be all for getting Bedard, but using Hill to do it would be a step backward.

Everyone always projects better in retrospect. However, Bedard and Hill have shown a very similar pattern of progression at the same age. In fact, their age 27 seasons (including the one where Bedard "showed signs") are remarkably similar: Bedard 2006 - 33 starts, 196.3 IP, 196 H, 171 K, 69 BB, 1.35 WHIP, 121 ERA+ Hill 2007 - 32 starts, 195 IP, 170 H, 183 K, 183 K, 63 BB, 1.20 WHIP, 119 ERA+ It would be hard to project Hill (or anyone) to explode like Bedard did this season, but he did dominate AAA on his way up, so it's not that much of a stretch to see him having a big run. After all, his arm has not been abused for his age, and he's got a much better physical makeup. I could easily see Hill outperforming Bedard for the next few years. A strong move by the Reds if they did nab him, but we should be glad we've kept Hill.

Without looking it up, I think Bedard is younger than Hill. He's more established in the tougher league. Bedard does better without his good stuff than Hill does- hence the "Hill is too inconsistent" theory. I can't help but wonder if Bedard is damaged goods. So what if he's the leading seller at the jerk store. How can you trade your best pitcher, who's also young unless you get a really good haul in return. You should look it up. Bedard is a year older than Hill. Interestingly, at age 27 (2006 for Bedard, 2007 for Hill) they had almost exactly the same season in terms of ERA+, IP, BB and Hill was actually better at WHIP (less hits allowed) and Ks. Thus, age and consistency are both lacking foundation in the comparison. The original question is very valid, and Hill has a lot less wear and tear for his age and has a couple of years more under the Cubs control. Given Hill's terrific 2005 AAA season as a history of dominance, he could very well progress to Bedard's 2007 level from here. I'm less inclined to want to trade him now that Cabrera is off the market.

It would seem to me that signing the core of the team (Ramirez, Lee, Zambrano, Soriano, etc. ) to long term contracts would have the very goal of fielding a competitive team for the long run. This is a HUGE change in philosophy compared to previous management methods where they may elect to pay one guy to fill the seats and let the others go. With a young core of solid intra-organizational players like Soto, Theriot, Fontenot and Pie, they should be in a position to go after an ARod or Cabrera to finish off the everyday lineup. And the thing is: now we (or at least I) actually think that they might just get it done, no matter how far they go this year.

I'm not sure where the 3 day rest idea comes from, since he hasn't pitched since last Saturday. With 5 days of rest, and his better effort last time out, I'm hoping more for him being over a dead arm period and back to his June-July form the rest of the way.

And that particular piece was written back in late January. Actually, they have an updated Top 30 prospects list that has it as Price, Wieters and Vitters as the top 3 with Brackman falling to 6th due to "inconsistency". I'd like to see an updated first round projection soon - it looks like Callis made such an initial list on May 19 with a couple of updated projections right up to draft day. Of course, even if Price does go #1 it will still be interesting to see what falls to the Cubs and what route they will take. Even in the 2001 draft with Mauer pre-slected we didn't know if it would be Prior or Teixeira until the pick was in.

Actually they could all hit 40+, except Bonds likely wouldn't have enough ABs to do so. But, the real point is that the Cubs would have 4 guys who could easily hang a 130+ OPS, and, if they platooned Jones/Murton and a solid year out of Barrett two more positions well over 100. Not to mention the very real possibility that someone like DeRosa in the #2 slot would probably benefit from enough meatbll pitches to also stay well over 100. All of which has traditionally led to Top 3 (if not #1) offenses. It might still be cleaner to do the Murton/Bonds platoon and Pie in CF, or just go with Drew, but Bonds added to the existing team would be very scary.

He's not gonna want to sign as a 4th OF or pinch hitter. Well, if we actually do land him I expect it's to be the primary LF in a platoon with Murton, which may be quite acceptable to him at this stage since he's about 200 points higher OPS-wise against RHPs and has a tendency to fall off after the All Star break. Seems like a good way to make LF and the bench more productive in one move - just another piece in the overall puzzle.

Losing ARam can only be smoothed over if we get Cabrera and sign him to a Pujols-like contract. Other than that, I see little hope for this offseason if ARam is lost.

I would rather have him be asked, "After watching the World Series, have you finally figured out how important a lead-off guy getting on base consistently is?" Granderson was the Corey Patterson of leadoff hitters, but even Eckstein had a couple of fluky games to elevate his post-season numbers to mediocre overall. Eckstein was horrible in the NLDS, fair at best in the NLCS, and started out the WS 0 for 9 the first 2 games. Neither was the epitome of consistent - Juan Pierre could have done (and did in 2003) more than this. IMO, there was nothing to be learned from this postseason except the importance of just getting there.

GMJ has had OPS+ 10 points higher than Pierre (and even better than that the last 3 years), and is a better fielder with a much better arm, plus switch hits. And, he'll likely be cheaper than Pierre by a few million. If it were between the two, I'd much rather have GMJ. Pie is a decent option if we get much better at 2B, SS, and/or one of the other 2 corner OF spots, but I'd prefer we let him start out at Iowa or be used as a trading chip in a major trade.

Since I was the one to refer to the best lineups in the last 40 years in another thread, I still stand by the view that the 1984 was the best constructed lineup top to bottom, with the 1967-1972 teams good but imbalanced (poor leadoff and bottom of the order). The 1984 led the NL by a wide margin in runs scored, coming 1st in SLUG and 2nd in OBP, resulting in a large team OPS lead. They had excellent OBP at the top (and speed to go along with it), and lots of power spread from the 2nd to 7th place hitters. They had three guys with OPS+ of 128 or greater, and five better than league average, with one 98 OPS+ guy who still drovbe in 94 runs. They had their weak link hitting 8th. The 1989 team (surprisingly to me) finished 1st in runs, finishing 3rd in OBP and 2nd in SLUG. They had a one year flash of solid hitting throughout the lineup (6 guys league average or better ine the everyday lineup, including a great platoon of Dwight Smith and Lloyd McClendon), although Walton was a vastly overrrated leadoff hitter. The teams from 1967-1972 finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 6th, and 4th in runs scored, largely because of Williams and Santo in the middle, with help for a year or two from guys like Hickman, Pepitone, Cardenal and Adolfo Phillips. Banks was decent through 1969, but not great. Kessinger was a lousy leadoff hitter (career OPS+ of 72 is only slightly better than having Neifi leading off for 6-8 years), Beckert had a couple of decent years but was overall below average, and the 6-8 hitters were generally weak. The Cubs have had sporadic terrific hitters like Sosa, Madlock, Buckner, etc. but never seem to overlap them on a team of solid hitters. Only in the late 60s-early 70s did they overlap morfe than 2 excellent hitters. The biggest surprise team was probably the 1975 team, which was young and had some promise, finishing 4th in runs with 2 young guys posting 140+ OPS+ (Madlock and Thornton). In conclusion, the key is to get a team with at least 3-4 guys capable of having well above league average OPS (and healthy), and as many guys above league average as possible. Lee and Ramirez are locks to be well above (120 or better OPS+). Murton is already good enough to be slightly above, so I expect him and Barrett to be at least 110+, and a platoon of Murton and Jones may yield a combined 110-120 out of one OF position. That's probably 4 positions we're well off at. The key will be to upgrade at least 2 of LR/RF, CF, 2B or SS to proven better than league average players.

Wasn't this our problem in 2004? Either we would win with the long ball or we sucked. Piniella has stated that the home field should be an advantage to us. If that is true (and I believe it is), then we had better learn how to win when the wind is blowing in at 20 mph. Power will not help us much in that situation. As with any good team (coach), you have to learn to adjust to the environmental conditions of the ballpark, particularly with Wrigley. If we want to be a playoff contending team....we have to learn how to use Wrigley as an advantage to us. Ken I've long felt that the Cubs assembled teams too one-dimensional on the power side due to Wrigley. Then, occasionally, they try to go too far the other direction (1974, 2006) that also can't consistently win. Basically, a team of Dave Kingman's or a team of Juan Pierre's will neither one win. But a team full of Billy Williams', who can hit for power with contact and solid OBP would be ideal. The good teams of 1967-1972 had a lot of power in the middle but lacked balance throughout. The very good 1984 team had the best combination of table setters at the top and power in the middle.

Over his career Rj has been much less effective after years in which he pitched a high number of innnings. However, RJ probably isn't a good example. Let's look at Bartolo Colon. Age IP ERA+ 25 204 129 26 205 127 Cy Young 27 188 129 Total IP 597 AVE ERA+ 128 At age 28 (the prime of his career) he pitched 223 innnings his ERA+ dropped to 111 (4.09 ERA) 29 233 148 Cy Young 30 242 116 31 208 92 32 222 120 Cy Young From 29 to 32 he averaged 226 IP/year. His AVE ERA+ was 119. But after his 242 IP year look at how his performance dropped in both IP and ERA+. Then after a 222 IP year he comes up with an arm injury. 33 56 86 Arm injury Just for everyone's edifiction I am posting the link from a previous reference. The data are from a "study" Pedromartizfan did on a Yankees Website in 2004. There is a pretty strong corelation to those data. I guess the question becomes, do we want to bet that Big Z is freak? As for me, I wouldn't bet on it. Good stuff. However, I've never understodd how any of the Oakland pitchers weren't/aren't at or near the top of this list. Must not fit someone's agenda, since they are the glory boy organization. Zito averaged 230 IP in 2002-3 in his early 20s, and his ERA+ went from 169 to 129 to 105 and has since leveled off at a modest 116. Mulder went 225+ twice, went into decline and finally had his arm fall off this year. Hudson went 235+ three straight years, and has since fallen every year the last three to now become a below average starter. As a postscript, I am very leery of shelling out the big $ for Zito, and would be very skeptical of Hudson helping much, even if he was a throw in with Andrew Jones.

Well put Swordsman. I didn't see ANY reference to offense mentioned, so to assume that what he said rules out offensive prowess does need some context. Seems like DLee and ARam have plenty of defensive athleticism and plenty of OPS. Since the singles and doubles reference ultimately points to the OF, guys like Soriano or AJones or Drew would also be decent prototypes for both sides.

Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight, as I think there's some validity to both sides - moreso on the abise side, but there's also a history of freak pitchers that don't follow any pattern. Couple of points: 1. Using Randy Johnson on the side of pro-abuse seems very sketchy. The guy was still dominating at age 40. Kinda like using Nolan Ryan by saying finally blew out his arm at age 46 after 100,000 pitches. 2. I agree that I'm more concerned about the back problems at this point on the physical side. 3. Lastly, I am totally for the sell high issue. Especially if we can land someone like Miguel Cabrera in the mix. I would ALWAYS trade a great starting pitcher for a great young position player.

For me, it's a matter of putting the best possible team on the field, assuming both Jones and Murton are still with the Cubs in 2007. It has nothing to do with wanting to sit him. If they could open up a corner OF spot with this platoon and plug in a high-OPS guy, then we upgrade two positions with a simple platoon. Reverse question - why should we preclude such a move simply because we finally have a young position player, especially with a lack of power in a power position?