Bull

Well it depends on how you go about fielding that old team. The Cubs were older than most and not good. If you have 32 year old stars, you have known quantities and will be good. If you have 31 year old mediocre players, you will be younger but worse. And generally, the youngest teams will be teams in transition, who had to get rid of their established players and go with a bunch of youth, much of which maybe should still be in the minors. Youth, in and of itself, is not a quality. But at the same time, neither is age. A 36 year old journeyman is a 36 year old journeyman and a 23 overmatched player is still overmatched. If you are older, but good, that's great, if you are older, and not good, that's really bad. And that's the Cubs. If you are younger and good, that is ideal, but if you are a younger and bad, at least there is room for improvement. I agree, but age alone is not a negative. Some here act like that's the most important metric.

Looking for a good place for this and this seemed as good as any. While I understand the value of cheap young talent, and developing talent for the future, letting young guys get ML experience, as well as the danger of Sammy Sosa like precipitous declines in over 30 players, nursing home style rosters like the 2005 Giants, and overpaying for old talent that could be had cheaper elsewhere, (breath) I wanted to see what everyone's take was on this: http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rosters/_/sort/average_age/order/true Seems to show that the more successful teams were older than league average. While this is primarily dictated by the ability to "buy" older better players (Yankees, red sox), I was surprised to see Tampa Bay at 6. I also understand that smaller market teams are forced to have more players with less than 6 years experience who cheaper (and not yet as good) and tend to lose those player as they reach their potential. So in summary, why the opposition to "aging" players if they can provide production and have proven a level of production. I especially like the low cost/ potential rebound options.

I'm optimistic about the farm, but I have been before. Fool me twice and all that. I need to see castro put up above a .750 OPS (at any level) before I'm a believer.

There never have been any legit excuses. Hendry has been in this organization for a decade and a half, he had a major input on every team of this decade, and he's had the backing and support of owners, including ever increasing payrolls while many teams were flat or even declining. If there was a lack of young talent in the organization before, Hendry shares the blame. If there were missteps in the past, Hendry played a large part in that. He has been here forever and his teams have been major disappointments. This offseason isn't going to make or break him. He may stay or he may go, but Hendry has solidified his legacy, of extremely expensive mediocrity and occassional moderate success, and that won't change with this offseason. Second place again and he keeps his job. But he has to be closer to 1st than 4th this year. But he'll lose Piniella, which will cost him his job in October 2011.

Can I sig this?

How ironic...all #21. Not what ironic means. I think you mean coincidental.

Right along such great baseball names as Ty Griffin and Tyler Houston. Those are terrible baseball names. WHAT!! Next your going to say Rollie FIngers was a bad baseball name. Or Steve Trout. and yes that's the only time you;ll see those two names in the same paragraph.

I'm also optimistic about the Ricketts ownership group. However, I have to say that the handcuffing was more Hendry's doing than the ownership. He was given sufficient resources - he just spent himself into a corner. Agreed. I'd say 80/20 it was Hendry's fault. Hopefully we're moving forward now. And hopefully the farm is going to start producing position players, thus expanding the window. But, then, you and I have been hoping that together for almost a decade now. (Which stud to keep: Kelton or Hinske? -- remember that discussion?) I really am optimistic that this time is different! Hope springs eternal.

thanks Tim, and my final word on the topic is in that thread. For the record no one has suggested any such protest, it was purely theoretical. Back on topic, I am optimistic that the team is in good hands. I am thankful that the process is over and there's a sense of moving forward with things like expanding the front office. Regardless of who the owner is (corporation or family) it is unfortunate that the transition happened in the middle of the Cubs' window of opportunity, essentially handcuffing the front office for two years.

Right along such great baseball names as Ty Griffin and Tyler Houston.

link!

I did almost as bad. I forgot the legendary Todd Walker. I guess I had him and Derosa crossed. They're basically the same guy, right?

How would strikeouts affect UZR? More strikeouts = less opportunity to make outs in the field. Outs/9 innings is the basis of UZR. Maybe? I'm not pretending to be an expert, just throwing it out there.

And 25th in UZR. No kidding? Ouch. I wonder what on earth could cause that large of a disconnect. That defensive metrics are for [expletive] might have something to do with it. wouldn't the high number strikeouts by Cubs pitchers account for much of that discrepancy? ie fewer balls in play doesn't affect efficiency, but does affect UZR.

We've made the playoffs 3 times, with 2 near misses. They have the best player on the planet, a better coaching staff, and a better front office. Pretty easy to see why they have had more success. That's what I mean. We've seen all this FO has to show us. Unless Ricketts turns out to be another Wilpon, it's imperative he gets better baseball people. I didn't say I was ecstatic, I said "remember when we were?" This team doesn't suck as bad as many suggest. No, but it's not as good as others suggest, either. The next 2-3 years are critical with most of our key players in their primes right now. You gotta do something with Lee, Ramirez, Z, etc now or you never will. true. This was an off year. I believe the Cubs have positioned themselves to, with an average offseason, be favorites to win the division next year and several years into the future. I think the window was widest this year, with everyone favoring the Cubs entering the year. With the foundation you mention and inevitable rebound of Soriano and Soto (can they get worse?) in addition to the good core of young pitchers, there's no reason they won't contend for the next few years. As I said before, the window was the widest entering this year. Unfortunately the list is long of things that went wrong. the problem with the window being widest is that it can only get smaller from here. Time to reinvent. I stand by my original statement that this was a good team and that 2009 will be remembered as another year that could have been in a string of quality teams.

We've made the playoffs 3 times, with 2 near misses. They have the best player on the planet, a better coaching staff, and a better front office. Pretty easy to see why they have had more success. That's what I mean. We've seen all this FO has to show us. Unless Ricketts turns out to be another Wilpon, it's imperative he gets better baseball people. I didn't say I was ecstatic, I said "remember when we were?" This team doesn't suck as bad as many suggest.

For all the griping and complaining, this was very nearly a playoff team. In spite of the injuries, the drama, the disappointments, this will go down as a very decent, above .500, 2nd place team. The standard has been raised, and I'm genuinely disappointed with this team, but does anyone remember when we would have been ecstatic about three straight winning seasons?

they asked for it.....

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/ps_odds.php

I kind of feel compelled to chime in on this thread (if you don't know why, don't worry about it), though I have nothing particularly compelling to add. I see this year as a necessary phase in the development of Soto. He rose so suddenly out of non-prospect status, that there was bound to be some recoil as the league figured him out. I really believe he'll rebound next year to be an above average (but not elite) offensive catcher. It is still possible that he is Jerome Williams, Rick Wilkins (whose career OPS+ was 100 BTW). I just don't believe this is all about conditioning. also: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/sotos/sotos.htm

Because he's a poor manager? "What are you talking about?!? He won us back to back division titles and won 97 games last season!" Seriously, Lou has gotten progressively worse since he's gotten here, and has been flat out BRUTAL this season. I'm not even saying he should or will be fired, but come on. There's a very good reason a lot of people want him gone. Stop looking at win/loss records to determine how good a manager is. Look at the moves he makes and what he does. If you do that, it's easy to see that he's been pretty awful. If Lou is terrible and should have won more games with the team he has, then Hendry must have put together a 100 win team. You can't hate Hendry AND Lou AND acknowledge that there have been a ridiculous number of injuries/under-performances. Lou is a great manager despite his flaws.

Just checking in. 23 LOB? Really!?!

Clearly Lou is just pissed that Zambrano hung them out to dry after refusing treatment before his last start. This is a "you won't do me like that again" DLing.

I hate to admit it, but there's a reason teams pay so much for closers -- consistency. While I think the save is an overrated stat and I think you should use your best reliever in the toughest situation, a shut-the-door closer is worth the paycheck.

this isnt a serious question is it? not really, i mean i know he's not owed anything. but he's only making the minimum, so you think one of the 8 figure guys or the organization could throw him a little extra. I give Hill credit and respect him for being out there every single day, but his production is barely worthy of the league minimum salary and I'm sure he is happy to be making that. so your saying that a player making league minimum should be given compensation for getting playing time? Ryan Theriots making near minumum. Randy Wells too. Not that I agree, but catching everyday is a different animal. That said, Hill is fortunate he's playing.