2007 Cubs = 2006 Tigers???

by santo for prez on Aug 23, 2006 7:25 PM CDT

I noticed a lot of negativity on the open thread today probably caused by this recent losing streak.

If the Cubs can finish like they have played the last couple of months they will end up around 70-92 give or take a couple of games.......Does anyone know what Detroit's record was last year? It was 71-91.

A good offseason, a healthy DLee and next year could be a completely different season. What is to say that two of the rookies won't come back next year on fire .....how many Tiger fans thought their rookies were gonna be so good?

So many posters on here (myself included) have voiced their opinions stating, "let the kids play" since the season is lost anyway. Well the kids are playing and they are going to take their lumps, the key is for them to reflect on their experience and prepare to come back next season and improve.

I am not real knowledgeable about how Detroit played as a team last year (I started the deployment process in the beginning of July) so let me know why you think that either the Tigers were in the same situation as the Cubs are or why they were better off than this years Cubs are heading into next season.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 74 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Whether or not they can match the 2006 Tigers

In order to have any chance, they need to learn how to STAY HEALTHY and OFF THE DL.

Unfortunately, for me, it's hard to make any comparison at this point, because we have seen so many different players here. The key to next season, regardless of the moves they make in the offseason, will be to keep who we do have off the DL, something we have not been able to do any season since 2003.

by LuisSalazar on Aug 23, 2006 7:57 PM CDT reply actions

Yeah, definitely!

If the Cubs can improve significantly in LF, CF, RF, SS, 2B, the bullpen, the bench, and 4 spots in the rotation while spending only $15 million they could definitely be like the 2006 Tigers in '07.

by Maddog on Aug 23, 2006 8:39 PM CDT reply actions

Post of the week

n/t

by Molechaser on Aug 23, 2006 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions

Not so much...

I appreciate the sentiment and sarcasm, but the bullpen hasn't been that bad...and with wood it should be fine.
What exactly do you want to upgrade from CF? And RF? I may be in the minority, but we're two acquisitions from a decent offense.

by thekansasian on Aug 24, 2006 1:24 AM CDT up reply actions

I agree with you

We are one signing of a Willie Mays and Roberto Clemente away from competing.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 8:14 AM CDT up reply actions

Oh, that's right...

Your the one who has been cheering against the Cubs...you really think we need that much more to compete in the NL? We may not be a year away from a WS win, but we could easily contend for the pennant with a couple acquisitions...But you're probably right, sarcasm and cynicism will probably help us make it.

by thekansasian on Aug 24, 2006 8:25 AM CDT up reply actions

Yes the Cubs are terrible

Your the one who has been cheering against the Cubs.

Yes, outside of Matt Murton and Carlos Zambrano this organization is devoid of people worth rooting for.

you really think we need that much more to compete in the NL?

Yes, the Cubs are the AWFUL, they wouldnt win the International League with the roster they currently are running out there with.

We may not be a year away from a WS win, but we could easily contend for the pennant with a couple acquisitions

What did you ask Santa for this year?

But you're probably right, sarcasm and cynicism will probably help us make it.

Nah, covering our ears and eyes and hoping is the best way to go.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions

Haha...

Devoid of people worth rooting for?

So you don't cheer for D-Lee? A-Ram? You weren't happy that O'Malley tossed 8 shutout innings his first start? You really don't like Barrett? Watching minor leaguers come up to the majors for the first time isn't appealing?

I root for everyone who is a Cub, from Glendon to Z. I'm not going to hope they play bad; and just because Ronny isn't a major leaguer doesn't mean he isn't worth rooting for. It's not his fault he's put in the lineup or even with the organization. Being frustrated with the team is one thing; but not rooting for them? Incredible...

They wouldn't win the International league? Right...since they DO have a winning record in their own division.

I wish I could hop up on your horse and see things the "way they really are", where the blinders have been put on all of us...

I don't even know where to start with you...it is fans like you that give fans a bad name.

I shall hereby refer to you as Debbie Downer.

by thekansasian on Aug 24, 2006 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions

Answers

So you don't cheer for D-Lee? A-Ram?

You weren't happy that O'Malley tossed 8 shutout innings his first start?

Ho Hum

You really don't like Barrett?

Watching minor leaguers come up to the majors for the first time isn't appealing?

If they were future answers yes, unfortunately outside of Donald Veal and Felix Pie we don't have any of those.

They wouldn't win the International league? Right...since they DO have a winning record in their own division.

It's called hyberbole, but sir the NL Central is the worst division in baseball.

I don't even know where to start with you...it is fans like you that give fans a bad name.

Wow!

I shall hereby refer to you as Debbie Downer.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions

I answered your stupid commentary

and you don't dignify mine with a response?

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions

Don't expect one.

He's too busy being negative.

by Al Yellon on Aug 24, 2006 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions

I mean,

I know this season is a wash...and it may be hard at times to stay optimistic....but the National League is SOOOO bad, with NO signs of immediate improvement....the CUBS are just a healthy team and a couple acquistions from being a top team in the NL.

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions

Its nice you can believe this

i hope it works out for you.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions

Not just for me....I hope it works

for all of us that had to sit and watch a franchise as worthless as the Tampa Bay Devil Rays (and about as popular as them in their own city,) that is the chicago white sox win the world series last season.....to our disgust!

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions

And that isn't even my CUBS bias....

Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez, Carlos Zambrano, Mark Prior and Cesar Izturis have been on the NL All Star team at least once (Lee and Aramis were starters,) plus Michael Barrett (quite possibly the best offensive catcher in the NL,) Matt Murton (could hit 20 next year....I wouldn't want management to think of him how they did with Palmerio and have Murton hit 500 HR,) Jacque Jones (even though I can't stand him, he is putting up numbers this season,) and possibly Juan Pierre if he is resigned.......you could argue that the 2007 CUBS team is one of the best offensive units in the NL.......add a Soriano or a Vernon Wells??? Man, now we're talking!!

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions

Have your "sources"

given you any inside info on why the Cubs will be markedly improved from their 95-100 loss team in 2006? Your brilliant readership seems to believe the team is "1 or 2 players away" from making a 20 to 25 game improvement next season.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions

Would you like the Win Share list?

Maybe together we can find those +25-game players?

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions

Like I said...

Debbie Downer

by thekansasian on Aug 24, 2006 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions

Correct

n/t

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions

Agreed, with thekansasian

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions

if decent is .500

then yes.

by mike bornemann @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions

And what did the Tigers do in the offseason?

They signed Todd Jones and Kenny Rogers. That's it. Not exactly earth-shattering moves.

Oh, and they CHANGED MANAGERS.

Other than that, you're looking at the same team they trotted out there last year.

by theprognosticator on Aug 24, 2006 2:17 AM CDT up reply actions

well they also had

justin verlander, jeremy bonderman, joel zumaya, ivan rodriguez, carlos guillen, placido polanco, magglio ordonez, marcus thames, curtis granderson, and craig monroe to name a few.

Whats the difference between the 2005 Detroit Tigers and the 2006 Chicago Cubs? About 60 million dollars in talent that would be needed to solely found in the free agent market.

Stop the nonsense. This Chicago team is HISTORICALLY bad, nothing short of 130-140 million dollars in 2007 in going to make this team even representative.

85 million is more likely.

i understand you are all hopeful cub fans, and that's just fine. but at the same time, its ok to occassionally be realistic about our situation - its dire and has no hope of improving with jim hendry/andy macphail at the helm.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 8:11 AM CDT up reply actions

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...

because I have debated with you several times on this board....and you are baseball educated. That being said, let's not be so over-dramatic......

Stop the nonsense. This Chicago team is HISTORICALLY bad, nothing short of 130-140 million dollars in 2007 in going to make this team even representative.

85 million is more likely.

I mean are you kidding? First off, the National League is a joke. There are only 6 teams at or above .500. Especially the National League Central. The Astros are crumbling, and not far behind them are the St. Louis Cardinals. Both teams have SERIOUS work to do in the offseason, maybe even more needs to address than the CUBS. The CUBS have many health issues....Astros have NO ONE guaranteed back in the rotation and the Cardinals have one, Chris Carpenter.

Second of all, $130-$140M??? The payroll will be somewhere in the $100-$105M range first off (not the $85M you posted, which btw, the CUBS haven't been that low in payroll in years,) With the exists of Maddux, Perez, Walker, Wood (buyout) and others, the CUBS will have +/- $30M to spend in free agency. They aren't just going to sit on that money, especially after this season and Jim Hendry's job being under a microscope. Keep in mind as well, like Al has said.....free agency is not the only way to acquire talent......

Last, the lineup that you mentioned of the Tigers postion players is not leaps and bounds ahead of the CHICAGO CUBS current roster.....

Derrek Lee > Sean Casey
Cedeno = Neifi
Izturis < Guillen
Aramis > Inge
Pierre > Granderson
Murton < (slightly) Monroe
Jones = Ordonez (like it or not, JJ has more HR, close in BA and AVG)

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions

The Tigers offense is average at best

Compare the pitching staffs, that's why they're in first place right now.

Peter: "Brian, there's a message in my Alphabits! It says, 'Oooooo!'"
Brian: - "Peter, those are Cheerios." - Family Guy

by VS on Aug 24, 2006 8:37 AM CDT up reply actions

Ding Ding....

Tell him what he's won!!

I was just debating what Santo said......he mentioned many offensive players on the Tigers along with Zumaya, Verlander, etc...

When a fully healthy PRESENT CUBS offense is a better offensive unit......Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez, Michael Barrett and Jacque Jones (like him or not) have more offensive fire power themselves than all of the Tigers....

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 8:44 AM CDT up reply actions

Huh???

"Last, the lineup that you mentioned of the Tigers postion players is not leaps and bounds ahead of the CHICAGO CUBS current roster....."

Really? Not in my view.

Derrek Lee > Sean Casey - No argument except that Casey hasn't played all year for the Tigers and they got a pretty good 1st half out of Shelton.

Cedeno = Neifi - This comarison is silly. Neifi has less than 10 games with the Tigers. Polanco played nearly the entire year and is light years better than Cedeno.

Izturis < Guillen - This should be in bold. Guillen is an offensive force at SS; .390 OBP, .500 SLG

Aramis > Inge - Agreed. Although Inge is excellent defender at 3B, much better than Ramirez, and provides decent power.

Pierre > Granderson - Actually even as hot as Pierre has been and cold as Granderson has been lately, Granderson numbers are still better.

Murton < (slightly) Monroe - Although this may be the case in general, it hasn't panned out this year especially with Murton being used low in the order where his most valuable tools, patience and bat handling not being maximized.

Jones = Ordonez (like it or not, JJ has more HR, close in BA and AVG) - Hardly. Ordonez has significantly more RBIs, runs scored, OBP. Also he doesn't run the bases like a blind man nor throw like 4 year old. And you need to get a similar year from Jones in '07. A regression is likely for Jones.

So in summary, the Cubs are better at 1B and 3B and worse at every other position, siginificantly worse at SS and 2B (maybe a toss up in LF). This doesn't even get into the pitching differences , mention Marcus Thames good numbers whose played over 85 games already, the value of Pudge at catcher.

by Thunderclap Newman on Aug 24, 2006 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions

Well, I was stating right now i guess

with Cedeno = Neifi - This comarison is silly. Neifi has less than 10 games with the Tigers. Polanco played nearly the entire year and is light years better than Cedeno.

but the Tiger offense is not signifigantly better than that of the CUBS......only slightly, as i mentioned

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions

Well

if you consider the difference between 10th best runs scoring offense (642R, 5.1R/game) and the 30th best runs scoring offense slight (529R, 4.2R/game), OK.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=9

I happen to think that's an enormous difference.

by Thunderclap Newman on Aug 24, 2006 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions

Without getting in to the which offense is better

comparing an NL runs/game to an AL runs/game isn't a fair comparison.

by rlpete on Aug 24, 2006 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions

agreed

So equalize it with a factor of .25, .33, or even .5 runs per game and you still have a huge difference. It just not a fact that the Tigers offense is slightly better than the Cubs. They're significantly better.

by Thunderclap Newman on Aug 24, 2006 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions

Did you factor in that....

The CUBS most productive offensive player of a year ago spent most of this year on the DL?? I didn't say the CUBS were better, or even mean to imply =.....I said Detroit was a slightly better offensive unit....if both were healthy and firing on all cylinders......

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions

did YOU

facto in that the cubs most productive offensive player of a year ago was in no way guaranteed to even approach those "career anomaly" numbers.

addresses group:
People you need to stop thinking Lee is a .325 guy, he might be, but he very well may be a sligthly better than career average .290 hitter. kinda like how Prior (as some of you finally realized) is not a 30 start guy.

by mike bornemann @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions

yes....

I am well aware that prior to 2005, Derrek Lee had about a .271 career avg. with about 31 HR as his career high.....well aware, thanks for pointing it out though ;)

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions

Well

the numbers and the objective positional analyses say the Tigers are significantly better. So I'm going to stick with that.

by Thunderclap Newman on Aug 24, 2006 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions

Apples and oranges....

I would rather have Michael Barrett, Aramis Ramirez and Derrek Lee than any three of their offensive outputs........

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions

You've completely lost me...

Now you're talking about just three players? You stated your point was the Tigers were only slightly better offensively than the Cubs. The numbers and analyses state that is just not true. Are the Cubs better at a couple positions? Sure. But that never in doubt.

by Thunderclap Newman on Aug 24, 2006 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions

But the question is..

..what is so different from the 2005 Tigers compared to the 2006 Cubs and why can't the 2007 Cubs be as good as the 2006 Tigers.

One more month!!!!!

by santo for prez on Aug 24, 2006 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions

You ever seen the show Diff'rent Strokes?

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions

I hope this isn't about...

...the episode where Dudley gets molested.

by KenBrett34 on Aug 24, 2006 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions

You

ever admitted to posting a erroneous statement?

by Thunderclap Newman on Aug 24, 2006 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions

No, almost never....

I don't think that it was all that erroneous. I stated IMO that certain players were better on the CUBS than tigers......IMO.....

IMO Juan Pierre is better than Curtis Granderson with his.....

.285/.329 153 hits and 44 SB

.260/.342 (props for the high OBP, Pierre should take notes on how to draw a walk) 8 SB and 119 hits

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions

You can't even follow the comments

You keep going off track.

You stated that the Tigers are slightly better than the Cubs offensively. This is your erroneous statement. By any and all measures the Tigers are a substantially better offensive team than the Cubs. The Cubs are the worst worst offensive team in baseball and the Tigers are in the fargin' top 10.

Now I certainly expect you to go off track again if you decide to respond and refuse to admit your initial point was erroneous, so I am done with this discussion.

by Thunderclap Newman on Aug 24, 2006 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions

I think that I added Derrek Lee

to that orginal post though....and, even if his stats were similar to his previous career averages (.270/30/90) he would have signifigantly improved this ballclub......offensively....hence an OPINION....

Yes, the Tigers offense is LEAPS and BOUNDS more productive than the CUBS' anyone can pull up the stats on that.....I meant that a completely healthy and productive CUBS offense hitting to it's potential is just as effective as the Tigers'.......

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions

OK

Go ask a Tiger's fan about this..."well they also had
justin verlander, jeremy bonderman, joel zumaya, ivan rodriguez, carlos guillen, placido polanco, magglio ordonez, marcus thames, curtis granderson, and craig monroe to name a few."

What would they thought of with Verlander and Bonderman in the starting rotation, or Thames and Monroe....they probably would have been talking like we are about guys like Mateo, Hill, Marmol, Guzman...and guys like Murton, Theriot, and Izturis.......will those players pan out? Who knows, nor did they know last year. Then add in guys like DLee, Barrett, ARam, Pierre, Jones and a couple of FAs and we are looking at possibly the same thing next year.

The bottom line is that they weren't looking at this kind of season relying on rookie pitchers and not a lot of pop from their sticks but it happened and it could happen to us next year as well.

One more month!!!!!

by santo for prez on Aug 24, 2006 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions

You've confused being realistic with...

being suicidal...

By the way, most of those players you mentioned on the Tigers weren't all that good last year.

Bonderman was merely average in 05, there were plenty of whispers that he was becoming a bust. Pudge turned in one of his worst seasons. People were saying he was washed up. Guillen was hurt. Ordonez was hurt. Monroe wasn't very good. Thames was a .196 hitter in 2005. Granderson wasn't even an everyday player and wasn't spectacular in the minors either.

Basically what you're doing is Tuesday morning quarterbacking, unfairly using hindsight to say, look at all the talent the Tigers had, when going into 2006, there was little reason to think they would be where they are today.

Perhaps our vision is skewed concerning our Cubs because we want them to win and we try to see ways in which they can, but yours is no better due to your irrational hatred for the management and the team for that matter.

You're the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. You're Michael Moore screaming at Ann Coulter for being extreme.

So don't talk like you have the market cornered on reality. Your handle on it, despite it being your chief buzzword and seemingly an obsession, is as equally as shaky as ours. You are a bizarro Cub fan. Equally as deluded, just on the other end of the spectrum.

You are no better than the rest of us, and quite a bit more pathetic because you root for the team to lose.

by theprognosticator on Aug 24, 2006 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions

Applauding..

...clap..clap...clap...clap...clap..very well put!

One more month!!!!!

by santo for prez on Aug 24, 2006 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions

Sad But True

its dire and has no hope of improving with jim hendry/andy macphail at the helm.

Totally agree. Fire them all and keep praying for the Trib to sell.

What does not kill you makes you stronger.

by Pa on Aug 25, 2006 5:50 AM CDT up reply actions

But my question is...

...what is the difference between the Tigers last year and the Cubs this year? Their records are relative, how did the Tigers improve so drastically?

I am not questioning the problems with the Cubs this year, I am asking why they can't do the same thing as the Tigers next year.

One more month!!!!!

by santo for prez on Aug 23, 2006 9:11 PM CDT reply actions

Quick take on the Tigers

Biggest factor: excellent young pitching, some of whom got better faster than expected

Second biggest factor: healthy veterans -- Guillen, Pudge, Ordonez, etc.

Third biggest factors: a manager who demands the best from every player, every day, and plays the guys who can get it done

Sure, these could happen to the Cubs. But they probably still need a bat in the middle infield and a couple starters from outside the organization.

by cubzfan on Aug 23, 2006 9:17 PM CDT reply actions

Look at the comment he made...

...back in April when they lost a series. He said something to the effect that they weren't going to accept losing and it seemed like they were just playing to get the last game over with. He wasn't going to accept it and they would not play like that. Well, since then they have been the best team in baseball. Hopefully the Cubs address the manager position and we can turn that part around.

I agree also with the need to add some power at 2B and hopefully we get healthy seasons out of ARam, DLee, Barrett and add that pop. And who knows, maybe one or two of those kids pitch lights out and Prior stays healthy.

I am going to remain optomistic that things will be much better next year.

One more month!!!!!

by santo for prez on Aug 23, 2006 9:37 PM CDT up reply actions

Talent, or lack there of.

n/t

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 8:15 AM CDT up reply actions

Reply

Biggest factor: excellent young pitching, some of whom got better faster than expected

2007 CUBS - Have better than average young arms in Marshall, Guzman and Hill. If Guzman can stay healthy and continue to throw 97-98 like he did yesterday, while staying on top of his command, he could be a nice spot starter/long reliever. Hopefully Rich Hill and Sean Marshall will have formidable seasons at the back end of the rotation....but I am not expecting either to look like Justin Verlander.....maybe Zach Miner. ;)

Second biggest factor: healthy veterans -- Guillen, Pudge, Ordonez, etc.

No question this is what pushed the Tigers over the envelope. Without getting into much detail here (b/c we all know what the CUBS need in this department.) Derrek Lee and Mark Prior have to stay healthy all season....PERIOD!

Third biggest factors: a manager who demands the best from every player, every day, and plays the guys who can get it done

Here's where the biggest problem lies. Alan Trammel was out already, the Tigers were already scouting replacements. Whether or not Dirt-Bag will be back next spring is a question only a handful of Tribune Company executives know the answer to....while I might be on a Tribune Company payroll, I'm not one of them. ;)

Sure, these could happen to the Cubs. But they probably still need a bat in the middle infield and a couple starters from outside the organization.

Keep in mind, the Tigers only made a couple small acquistions. A mid-season move in 2005 that brought over Placido Polanco (who, was without a doubt, one of the best 2B's in the AL this season,) and the highest profile moves were signing Todd Jones and Kenny Rogers. Starting out by signing Alfonso Soriano (or working out a deal for Vernon Wells, who knows,) already puts them near the top of a very weak National League Central......if a Jason Schmidt or another dominate, impact pitcher is added.....they could be right at the top of the National League.....

Marge, weaseling out of things is what seperates us from the rest of the animals.....except the weasel - Homer Simpson

by TheBeerBaron on Aug 24, 2006 8:13 AM CDT up reply actions

Well, it's not too far fetched...

...but it does depend on Hendry's having a good offseason, something he hasn't done since 2003/2004. First of all, Baker has to go, for reasons manifest to all of us. Second, another big bat is necessary. This can be done one of several ways. The first and most obvious is to sign either Carlos Lee or Alfonso Soriano, and I'm leaning towards Soriano because of age and greater versatility. Should the Cubs fail to sign either of them, trading for Vernon Wells would also be a good move. This will pretty much empty out our farm system of what's left, to the tune of Pie and at least an arm or two, so it's good that we'll be getting a high draft pick. Murton could slide into the leadoff spot. He has a solid OBP, gap power, good baserunning skills (even if he's not as fast as some), and works counts well. I like Murton, and if his defense improves, he will be a solid Major League player. A solid second baseman is also a good idea. Mark Loretta or Brian Giles would be ideal, and either of them could slide into the 2 hole behind Murton. I suppose Theriot or Fontenot could be a decent Plan B. Lest I forget, we also need two starting pitchers, and one of them actually has to be good (i.e. Jason Schmidt). I'd buy out Wood's contract and offer him an incentive deal to pitch out of the bullpen, which would also eliminate those pesky Roberto Novoa appearances. Two birds with one stone, and the bullpen looks pretty solid. Last is to sign a couple of decent bench players, and that's a quality roster. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to wake up from this pipedream. You're on thin ice Hendry; don't let us down yet again.

by Perkins on Aug 24, 2006 12:24 AM CDT reply actions

All starts...

at the top. Leland is the difference there, and as long as Dusty's Gang is back in town then, NO, we cannot be the 2007 Tigers...

by airweino on Aug 24, 2006 2:06 AM CDT reply actions

no

by mike bornemann @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 9:05 AM CDT reply actions

lmao

"It's hard to put your finger on it. You have to have a dullness of mind and spirit to play here." --Jim Brosnan

by cubbiejulie on Aug 24, 2006 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions

A lot has already been stated but

The Cubs can be competitive next year in the NL since their division is bad and both Houston and StL look like some serious changes are in store.

The Tigers turn around is due to pitching and mainly Rogers and Verlander. The Cubs need to sign at least 1 pitcher in the off-season and I think 2. Can one of the Cubs pitchers develop like Verlander. Possible but unlikely. Verlander was a top pitching prospect. His development is not a surprise. The only surprise is that it happened in 2006 not 2007. The only Cub prospect pitcher that was ever thought of as highly as Verlander was Guzman before the injury. Can he develop like Verlander next year, of course it's always possible. However, to think that someone like Marmol will develop like that just because he is getting a chance, is unrealistic optimism.

by rlpete on Aug 24, 2006 11:20 AM CDT reply actions

In conclusion...

I would think that nobody really thinks the Cubs of 2007 will be the Tigers of 2006 (obviously pending the offseason activity), but I think most would agree that they have a good chance of contending in the National League next year.

by thekansasian on Aug 24, 2006 11:32 AM CDT reply actions

Whew...

Now that that is resolved, let's move on to comparing the '83 (71-91) and '84 (96-65) Cubs to the 06 and 07 Cubs.

They played hard. They did their best. Move on. Their whole life isn't out in that field. It's their job. It's not an obsession.

by McHuge on Aug 24, 2006 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions

The reason for this diary...

...is to show all of the negative people here that next year is a long way off. Off-season acquisitions have yet to be made, guys could be healthy all season, and the younger guys may make huge strides between now and next year. IMO there is no reason for people to try to drag everyone down by pissing on next season. If that is how some people really feel then why should the Cubs even bother to try and improve. I firmly believe that when the Cubs turn things around (next season) and start winning again, that there will be a lot of posters on here with absolutely nothing to say. I think that some people like this blog (Cubs blog) so much because it gives them a chance to do what they love most of all.....complain and be sarcastic.

One more month!!!!!

by santo for prez on Aug 24, 2006 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions

sure

if hendry's off season performance is equal to or better than every other NL gm's performanc.

by mike bornemann @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions

Dombrowski's offseason wasn't very good...

He landed Todd Jones and Kenny Rogers.

Detroit fans were livid.

Yet the team wins.

by theprognosticator on Aug 24, 2006 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions

This is exactly..

...what I was asking....what does anyone see different between the Tigers last year and the Cubs this year (and in turn why can't we end up with the same results next year?).. I really hope we do end up with the same results next year. Then you will probably be able to surf through the Pirates blog and see some of these posters on there since they won't have all of the fuel from the Cubs. I really think that some of the posters get their kicks out of sinicism.

One more month!!!!!

by santo for prez on Aug 24, 2006 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions

landing kenny rogers

was hardly a small move.

by mike bornemann @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 5:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Yeah because...

40+ year old journeymen pitchers who punch out cameramen are vital to a team's roster.

by theprognosticator on Aug 24, 2006 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions

13-6 is.

you know, the on the field stuff that actually counts? not the old style and wi fi.

by mike bornemann @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 24, 2006 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Oh I agree Mike that rogers has been solid...

...but it's not exactly what anyone called a huge move on the part of the Tigers.

And W-L, while important, isn't exactly the best way to measure a pitcher and his performance.

Rogers has been solid, not spectacular. It's the emergence of Verlander and the improvement of Bonderman that has been key to the Tigers's success.

by theprognosticator on Aug 24, 2006 7:29 PM CDT up reply actions

no its not

but it would put him 2nd in wins on our squad, if he got enough run support to get those wins.

by mike bornemann @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Aug 25, 2006 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions

Which would be highly unlikely...

I'd say he'd have about 7 of those wins with the way we've played this year.

by theprognosticator on Aug 25, 2006 12:42 AM CDT up reply actions

Regardless of how many wins he would

have with the Cubs this season, Rogers has been a very solid pitcher for the Tigers.

by VS on Aug 25, 2006 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions

Completely agree...

Rogers has been a nice addition. He replaced Jason Johnson, which can only be considered a good thing.

But, going into the season, nobody was lauding the Tigers for their offseason additions of Todd Jones and Kenny Rogers.

by theprognosticator on Aug 25, 2006 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions

Just too throw this in....

QUIT COUNTING ON PRIOR. He is not going to have 30 starts next year. This is the same trap Hendry fell into. He cannot be counted on as a "what if".

by Peoria Matt on Aug 24, 2006 8:33 PM CDT reply actions

I would not count on him...

..as one of the starting 5. IF he comes into the season healthy and IF he can stay healthy and IF he can show a resemblance of '03 Prior or parts of '04 Prior then he will only help a team that I think is only a few good moves away from a successful season. IF those things happen it would be the difference between something good and something really good.

One more month!!!!!

by santo for prez on Aug 24, 2006 8:39 PM CDT up reply actions