ZoomSlowik

The Cubs definitely have too many holes to fill to be considered legit contenders at this point, even if everyone is healthy. For all the talk of their great starting pitching, they even have issues there. If any one of their top 4 is out for a prolonged amount of time, they are going to have a hard time coping because they don't have dependable replacements. At a minimum, Prior and Zambrano would both have to stay healthy and win at least 15 apiece, probably more. Also, Wood and Maddux have to be above .500 pitchers. If they can all win 15, that's a solid foundation, but I don't think that'll happen. Their lineup/position players also need some work. Ramirez and Lee are set, although I personally doubt Lee produces the same numbers as last season (I'd bet somewhere around .280, 35, 100). Barrett and Blanco is probably going to be the catching setup, which is passable. The need to figure out who plays SS and 2B, where they only have one legit starter (Walker) when healthy. The outfield is obviously a huge question, and they need to find at least two legit players badly. The bullpen is their other serious problem spot, where the only guy I'd call above average is Dempster, who thus far is a Borowski-like one year wonder in my book. Giles or Damon is a must for them, both would be better. They also need at least one major bullpen arm, preferrably a lefty. Two arms would probably be better, something like Ryan and Hoffman. In any case, they need to do some serious work. In order for me to consider them a strong candidate to win it all, they'd need to get Giles, Furcal or Damon (reasonable player at the other position, ie Alex Gonzalez or Jacque Jones), and some combination of elite closer/decent closer and other arms. I don't think there's any way they can do all of that.

I'm sorry, I don't see anyone going to $15 mil for Paulie. There just aren't that many teams that can throw around that much cash to start with, and most of them have bigger concerns than 1B. Are the Angels really going to commit that much cash to Paulie when they already have Colon and Vlad signed to serious money (among others), and with Morales possibly making a major impact soon? Or the Red Sox with their pitching issues? The Yankees with some similar problems and a desperate need for a CF? The Dodgers with plenty of other overpaid players on the roster? The Orioles with escalating salaries for Tejada and Lopez and a desperate need for pitching? I personally doubt it. Teams always talk about making major runs at players, but most of them fall well short of committing the money necessary to make the move. It seems like everyone thinks they have a real shot at Paulie, but I'd be surprised if more than 2 teams offer over $12 mil.

I'm beginning to wonder if Paulie is going to get the money that we think he will. I personally don't think that there will be that many teams willing to offer him $12 mil a year, meaning if we're anywhere near that we stand a decent chance. Look at what happened with a lot of these guys signed to massive contracts in the last few years. Thome's contract is an albatross around Philly's neck. Delgado is going to start making serious money and probably will have to be traded. Beltran, Beltre and J.D. Drew have all been massive disappointments thus far. Even the relative successes like Troy Glaus and Richie Sexson don't have the impact that their teams expected. I think it's highly possible that teams won't want to get locked into long term massive contracts unless they're sure they get an impact player (pitchers don't fit into this theory because they seem to be in much higher demand). If he gets much more than $12 mil, he'll move in to the Vlad Guerrero/Carlos Beltran range. He's pretty good, but he's not that good. Plus, think about how few significant offers that these guys and others had. They'll probably be two other teams that make significant offers, meaning if we make a fairly sizeable one we stand a good chance of keeping him, especially if one of them is a fringe contender like the Orioles or Dodgers.

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Oct 28, 2005 -> 11:03 PM) That is incorrect. Finley has had fewer than 400 bats just once since the age of 25. His injuries are not normally of the season ending type, he gets a lot of nagging injuries that affect his performance. Plus he's missed more time the last couple of years.

QUOTE(Randar68 @ Oct 28, 2005 -> 05:20 PM) Isn't it "weird" that Anderson probably got more face-time in the series and celebration than Rowand? And to those who said Anderson couldn't touch Rowand defensively... lol... pass the pipe. I understand he is a fan-favorite and all, but that does not mean you should throw away all objectivity and common sense. A .750 OPS CF'er making 3.25 million next year and a cheap replacemant that could put those numbers up and play equal-at-worst defensively in CF, and has a MUCH higher ceiling... I'm still having nightmares of all the horrendous swings Rowand took in the playoffs, especially the series... You really think that Anderson isn't going to have equally ugly at bats? Everyone on our team has had some brutal at bats here and there, that doesn't mean that a rookie with 1 year over A ball is going to outproduce them. Anderson's numbers are brutal thus far at the major league level, and would be worse if not for one great game against King Felix. Even at AAA he struck out too much and didn't walk enough. I think you're expecting too much from him. I expect Juan Uribe type numbers at best.

The update stole my thunder, I was going to say Steve Finley because of his injury prone past and his late-career resurgence. My second guess would be Sheffield because of him originally being associated with the Balco thing. Next would be Damon because of previous mentions. I'd also buy Garrett Anderson for the purpose of speeding his recovery from injury. I personally would seriously doubt Pods or Rowand. I can't really explain why, other than to say neither would seem to benefit that strongly from steroid use. If it were any of our guys, I'd guess Dye, because he's more of a power hitter. However, all are pretty damn thin, and none seem to have the bulging head effect.

How the hell was he 14-13 with that kind of ERA? Sounds like their management is blaming the wrong people. And we gripe about our offense...

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Oct 24, 2005 -> 10:44 PM) I'm not so sure about that. If Philly wants to get rid of Thome which they basically need to do then they're going to have to eat a huge portion of that salary. I understand his value isn't as high as it once was, but what's the point in trading him if you're going to end up eating 2/3 of his salary and not get anything good in return? Typically with the salary dump style trades, the amount of talent they receive in return goes up with the amount of money the team eats, and vice-versa. If they're going to have to pay like $10 mil of his contract every year for the life of his contract, I'd imagine they'll want at least a top prospect in return. It just doesn't seem like it'd be worth the approximate $5 mil a year savings otherwise. On the other hand, it's conceivable they'll just take what they can get to make room for Ryan Howard. This trade is a little different than previous deals because, A: Thome's health is a bigger issue than it has been with previous salary dump trades, and B: They have what appears to be a superstar in the making in Ryan Howard who plays the same position. As I said, I'll be very interested to see what happens. Obviously they'll try to get the best package of money saved/talent they can get, but who knows exactly what that'll be. Somone could be willing to eat a good portion of the money, making things more interesting.

The article doesn't exactly define "probation." There are numerous levels of punishments that could be levied, ranging from cutting scholarships to postseason bans (not that that would affect the Illini this year ). My guess is they'll probably just loose a couple of scholarships next year, but you wouldn't know from this article.

To me the worst part was claiming that Freddy and Mark are middle of the rotation type guys that are overpaid. Has this guy watched baseball? Since 2001, Mark has won 16, 19, 14, and 16 games, and only had one of those years end with an ERA over 4. That's consistently solid, and the win totals could have been higher. they make such a big deal about Maddux's 15 wins streak you'd think his results would get more respect. Freddy hasn't been as consistent, but he's also had some very good years, and was the ace on two Seattle playoff teams. In 2001 he finished with 18 wins and an ERA of 3.05, which was among the best players in baseball there. I know that was a while ago, but he was the most in demand player at the deadline last year that everyone wanted, and the guy that was supposed to put the Yankees over the top. Suddenly he's an overpaid middle of the rotation starter? Who'd you rather have for the money: Freddy Garcia, Russ Ortiz, Matt Clement, or Kris Benson? Jesus, how do some of these people get an audience. Was it that hard to see that if Garland or Contreras finally did something with their great stuff that we'd have one of the better rotations in the league? Come on. I still can't believe people picked us to finish behind the Tigers. That's just ridiculous. I gotta stop reading stuff like this; it's getting me frustrated when I should still be on cloud 9. Now watch everyone in the media pick us to go back to the ALCS next year...

So far we put in an order for 4 shirts (2 roster, don't remember which the other was), 2 hats, and the DVD at mlb.com. Plus, we're still going out looking for more stuff. We're gonna get at least 2 more shirts, either at Sports Authority/Sportsmart or at Grandstand tomorrow. Plus I'm sure we'll get more memorabilia/collectible type stuff once more of it comes out.

QUOTE(redsoxjamie @ Oct 27, 2005 -> 12:18 PM) Just to defend my boys for a minute. . . yeah, they needed a miracle to get to the world series. They're also the only team in baseball history to pull off such a miracle. Sure, if you take Pedro, Manny, Schilling, Ortiz, Damon, Foulke, Bellhorn (3 postseason HRs in 3 consecutive games), Roberts, or ANY of those guys of the team, they might not win. Where would you guys have been this year without Jenks? Or Crede? Or Dye? Or Buehrle? You're missing the point. The point is that those guys WERE on that team, and the 2004 Red Sox pulled of a feat that no other team in baseball has ever been able to accomplish. The 2004 Boston Red Sox won 98 games during the regular season--more than any other American League team but the Yankees. They swept the Angels. They came back from 0-3 against the Yankees. They swept the Cardinals. Their starting pitching was excellent. Their bullpen was very good. Their hitting was the best in baseball. Were they the best world series winning team of the past 20 years? Maybe not. But I wouldn't be so quick to sell them short. My point was that they had several great players, but the rest of their team didn't play as big a role as some of these others. Those 4 guys played a huge role for their team, and they probably wouldn't have done it without anyone of them. As a whole, I'd say only their offense was excellent. Their pitching was pretty good with Schilling and Pedro, but was fairly weak after that. Lowe sucked the whole year and merely performed well at the right time. Their pen falls under the same category, as this year shows. Even before injuries became an issue, most of the guys from last year were not pitching all that well, and even when healthy I wouldn't call Foulke a shutdown closer. They may have performed a serious miracle, but they still lost 3 games in a row to a Yankee team with some serious pitching issues, and had to comeback twice against the normally dominant Mariano Rivera, meaning they came very close to losing two more. The Sox had a lot of contributions from a lot of different players throughout the season. With the possible exception of Konerko, no one player made this team drastically better than it should have been. Did anyone else make such a massive contribution that we couldn't live without them? I don't think so. Granted our rotation carried our team, but I don't think losing any one guy would have killed us in a playoff series. B-Mac or Hernandez would have had to pitch one or two, but we had quite a bit of leeway for a medicore start considering how we won every series. We had enough options in our pen that losing any one of them wouldn't have hurt that much either. Our offense wasn't exactly stellar as it was, so I don't see how anyone had anywhere near the impact of Manny and Ortiz. The Red Sox won, and made one hell of a comeback, and nothing can change that. But if the Yankees or Cardinals had any pitching, things might have been very different.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Oct 27, 2005 -> 11:51 AM) I hate how people can't just be honest when they take a poll, I had the '05 Sox 3rd because that's where I honestly think they belong. Bo Sox fans don't honestly think the '04 team is the best do they? It seems like these polls usually favor recent or current champs. I remember when they did this after the NCAA Tournament this year UNC finished as the #1 team (think they did 1985 on). There's no way they were a better team than 1996 Kentucky, and I picked the back to back Blue Devils, the 90 UNLV team, and the 2001 Duke team ahead of them, plus there could have been arguments for several other teams. People will often just go with whoever was the charismatic or recent champ, like Boston. Franky, I wasn't impressed with their team as a whole. They had two great sluggers and two great starters, but Damon, Varitek, and Foulke are the only other guys I'd really want. I think star power has something to do with it too.

In my book it depends on how you rank the teams. If it's by season record and postseason dominance, the Sox have to be in the running along with the 98 and 99 Yankees. However, if it's on pure talent, some of the other teams come into the discussion (the 96 Braves and 97 Marlins come to mind). I don't think we can say that this is the most talented team ever, but they performed like one of the best. By the way, no way the Red Sox are number one. They needed a miracle just to get to the World Series. Take anyone of Schilling, Pedro, Manny, and Ortiz off that team and they lose at least 5 games in the standings, or a postseason series. In terms of overall teams, I didn't even consider them. If it were 4 on 4 with those guys I mentioned, they'd win.

The greatest hitter I've ever seen when he was in his prime. Great to see him get his ring.

Hell f***ing Yeah! Sox Champs! I need another drink! I Love this team! And for good measure...

We roughed up Roger Clemens, who many have called the best pitcher of all time, we managed a win in a game that Andy Pettitte, who is one of the better post season pitchers ever, started, and we roughed up (and should have beat if not for a bad homerun call) Roy Oswalt, a guy who has won 20 the last two seasons. We're not exactly beating the little sisters of the poor here. Yes, historically we're not one of the great teams, but I've seen weaker teams win titles.

She also continues to refer to us as the White Stockings, who actually became the Chicago Cubs. :headshake

Good lord, I didn't realize how loaded the Maui Invitational is this year. Yes, one of the teams is Chaminade as always, but the other 7 are Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Gonzaga, Kansas, Maryland, and Michigan State. That should make for some exciting matchups. Whichever team comes out of that alive is probably going to have a huge year.

Although none of the moves that this particular fan listed are that out of line (except the Reds might not trade Kearns in their division), the total result is pretty out there. I can't think of any teams that had like 10 new players come from outside the organization in the same year.

Jesus, did this thread get off track. Without getting into too much detail... Pods> anyone we could actually get to bat leadoff Furcal and Pierre are FA's in the coming years, but at a much higher cost than Pods, who will probably have similar production. Sizemore> Pods, but who cares since we can't get him? I don't really think you can argue that Pods is a better all-around hitter. Pods is better suited to bat leadoff, and Sizemore will probably be batting 3rd in a couple of years. Sizemore has more value as an RBI guy than as a table setter. He'd also be a good fit hitting #2 on a very good offensive team. In a pinch he can bat leadoff, but like Jeter, Crawford, and probably Damon, there is a good chance it would hurt their production. Any of those guys on the last list are probably best suited to bat second, and would put up monster numbers on a weak team hitting 3rd. Batting them leadoff seems to be a bit of a waste of their abilities to me. Let's worry about finding places for all of these prospects in a couple of years when they've actually done something at the major league level. Speculating whether Pods, Dye, or Rowand is still in the outfield for the 2007 season is pretty asanine right now because we have no idea what is going to happen with any of those guys or Anderson, Young, Owens, and Sweeney. Anyone of them could get hurt or start sucking, any one of them can come out and have an excellent year. Any one of them can do the exact same thing they are doing now, with little to no progress.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Oct 24, 2005 -> 01:42 PM) Not too mention Teixeira's home/road splits are not impressive. Neither are Dunn's. He hit over 50 points higher at home, and 26 of his 40 homers came at Great American Ballpark.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Oct 24, 2005 -> 01:43 PM) Something not noted by the astute ESPN team is that Jon Garland is a sinkerball pitcher. If he's on his game, the wall doesn't even come into play for Houston's offense. And on top of that, Garcia had the highest GB/FB ratio on our starting staff.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Oct 24, 2005 -> 11:44 AM) Teixeira HR/AB = .06677 2B/AB = .06366 K/BB = 1.72 Dunn HR/AB = .07366 2B/AB = .06446 K/BB = 1.47 I'm not going to argue that Dunn is more valuable than Teixeira, he's not. But he's not as far off as you may think. I'd rather have either one over Garland, even if he has another year as good as '05. There's quite a difference in BA and RBI however, and you can't blame all of the RBI descrepancy on the lineup. Frankly if my choice is to insert Dunn in our lineup with McCarthy and Hernandez as my 4/5 starters or acquire a different option for the #3 hole with Garland and B-Mac as my 4/5 starters, I'm going to go with the latter. I wouldn't mess with the rotation unless I had to.

I don't see trading Garland as a good move, even if we get Dunn. How can this guy assume that Garland is going to have an ERA of 4.50? He's going to go up a full run? It might go up but I doubt it goes up that much. As long as he doesn't go back to walking so many guys (cut his walks virtually in half this year) he's not going to get shelled again. If we lose Garland, we go back to having durability/inexperience issues in the back end of our rotation. Plus if Contreras goes back to being a flake again, our rotation would be seriously screwed. It'd be pretty hard to replace Garland, and it'd be very expensive. It'd certainly be nice to have Dunn in the lineup, but that's a pretty high cost. If it were Teixeira that'd be another story, but I don't think that trade would make us significantly better.