Buster Olney ranks Cubs infield as the best in baseball

[CSF77]

Cubs got better with their rotation but I worry more so after Lackey vs the rotation in general. I applaud Maddon coming up with a bull pen day as it was better than what they had for a 3 starter.

I'm not too concerned right now. Add to it their system is still loaded where that can pull a dead line deal.

This argument is very tired

 

[DanTown]

Yes, the Mets got pasted... IN THE WORLD SERIES. 1945... that was the last time you made it that far and lost.

Your goal as a Cubs fan should be getting to the World Series and winning it.

How do you play for the World Series? Qualify for the playoffs. How do you qualify for the playoffs? With elite depth and talent. Now, obviously the Cubs lost last year but there is no "just do this and you'll win the WS". Also, taking advice from the Sox on winning the world series is like taking financial advice from a guy who won the lottery.

 

[brett05]

How do you play for the World Series? Qualify for the playoffs. How do you qualify for the playoffs? With elite depth and talent. Now, obviously the Cubs lost last year but there is no "just do this and you'll win the WS". Also, taking advice from the Sox on winning the world series is like taking financial advice from a guy who won the lottery.

In fairness, the 2005 team was a ton more than winning the lottery. They are probably a top 5 all time season in baseball

 

[DanTown]

In fairness, the 2005 team was a ton more than winning the lottery. They are probably a top 5 all time season in baseball

I'll let you name whatever measure you want to use to evaluate that ridiculous statement but go nuts.

Also, the point about the lottery would still stand seeing as the Sox have won ONE post-season GAME since that season and previous to that, hadn't won a playoff game since 1983.So for those scoring at home

Since 1983
Seasons in the playoffs: 3
WS wins: 1

That's not some team with some history of success.

 

[brett05]

I'll let you name whatever measure you want to use to evaluate that ridiculous statement but go nuts.

Also, the point about the lottery would still stand seeing as the Sox have won ONE post-season GAME since that season and previous to that, hadn't won a playoff game since 1983.So for those scoring at home

Since 1983
Seasons in the playoffs: 3
WS wins: 1

That's not some team with some history of success.

It's five times, four if you do not count 1983.

Your last line is fair, but that is it. that 2005 team did what very few baseball teams have done and that is lead wire to wire. On top of that they were 11-1 in the playoffs which included sweeping the World Series and throwing 4 CG in the AL Championship series. That's a ton more than a lottery ticket. When it was done many had the team where I've ranked them.

 

[DanTown]

It's five times, four if you do not count 1983.

Your last line is fair, but that is it. that 2005 team did what very few baseball teams have done and that is lead wire to wire. On top of that they were 11-1 in the playoffs which included sweeping the World Series and throwing 4 CG in the AL Championship series. That's a ton more than a lottery ticket. When it was done many had the team where I've ranked them.

Seems odd that one of the best teams in the history of baseball couldn't qualify for the playoffs immediately preceding or immediately after when the team didn't have major roster turnover.

Again, if some White Sox fan(s) want to talk about how great their franchise is at winning, they're flat out wrong. The 05 team was really good and they had a historic playoff run but I wouldn't call that team one of the better teams ever.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

It's five times, four if you do not count 1983.

Your last line is fair, but that is it. that 2005 team did what very few baseball teams have done and that is lead wire to wire. On top of that they were 11-1 in the playoffs which included sweeping the World Series and throwing 4 CG in the AL Championship series. That's a ton more than a lottery ticket. When it was done many had the team where I've ranked them.

That team was a fun team to watch as it shifted and plugged holes as needed, especially at closer. As far as single season runs that one is right up there.

 

[Diehardfan]

It's five times, four if you do not count 1983.

Your last line is fair, but that is it. that 2005 team did what very few baseball teams have done and that is lead wire to wire. On top of that they were 11-1 in the playoffs which included sweeping the World Series and throwing 4 CG in the AL Championship series. That's a ton more than a lottery ticket. When it was done many had the team where I've ranked them.

I mentioned all this earlier....2005 was a great year, but it was one and done. Last Sox post season series win before 2005 was 1917....and they haven't won one playoff series since 2005. If they were so damn good in 2005...what happened to them? Where did they go? It's certainly a lot closer to a "lottery ticket" or "catching lightning in a bottle" than some sort of dynasty. That's pretty much why Cub fans are annoyed by Sox fans....we know our team hasn't done dick but Sox fans think their team has and that is just a boatload of crap.

 

[ChiSoxCity]

How do you play for the World Series? Qualify for the playoffs. How do you qualify for the playoffs? With elite depth and talent. Now, obviously the Cubs lost last year but there is no "just do this and you'll win the WS". Also, taking advice from the Sox on winning the world series is like taking financial advice from a guy who won the lottery.

How do you play for the World Series? It's simple. You already know the Cubs are good enough to make the playoffs. So you focus on making the Cubs a stronger PLAYOFF TEAM. This means you have to address your one glaring weakness in the playoffs last year--starting pitching.

They have enough depth at the position spots, but they lack depth in the starting rotation. All the Cubs had to do was add another top end starter to slot behind Arietta and ahead of Lester, who was awful in the playoffs last year and is essentially a #3 starter at this point. The playoffs are about pitching, so the Cubs should load up with another top end quality starter. That's how you prepare for a World Series run.

Heyward, Zobrist and Lackey may help you win more regular season games, but they won't get you into the WS like adding Cole Hamels, or Jordan Zimmerman at the trade deadline would have. Acquiring Greinke or Price during the offseason should have been a priority for the Cubs, but they inexplicably chose to throw money at new position players known for their defense instead. You better hope they wise up by the trade deadline, or it's ground hog day against the Mets in the NLCS again.

 

[brett05]

Seems odd that one of the best teams in the history of baseball couldn't qualify for the playoffs immediately preceding or immediately after when the team didn't have major roster turnover.

Not odd at all. Example from another sport...1985 Chicago Bears.

Again, if some White Sox fan(s) want to talk about how great their franchise is at winning, they're flat out wrong.

Totally agree.

The 05 team was really good and they had a historic playoff run but I wouldn't call that team one of the better teams ever.

They were great. Wire to wire winners. Three different closers. Most would.

 

[brett05]

That team was a fun team to watch as it shifted and plugged holes as needed, especially at closer. As far as single season runs that one is right up there.

Thanks.

I think we can dislike or even hate the other team in Chicago and still be real about baseball too. Whatever the odds are, the 2016 Cubs could be the modern Murder's Row. As a hater that scares me some, but kinda excites me to see it too.

 

[brett05]

I mentioned all this earlier....2005 was a great year, but it was one and done. Last Sox post season series win before 2005 was 1917....and they haven't won one playoff series since 2005. If they were so damn good in 2005...what happened to them? Where did they go? It's certainly a lot closer to a "lottery ticket" or "catching lightning in a bottle" than some sort of dynasty. That's pretty much why Cub fans are annoyed by Sox fans....we know our team hasn't done dick but Sox fans think their team has and that is just a boatload of crap.

So you are either a lottery ticket winner or a dynasty? Put down the coffee. No one here or anywhere has ever called the White Sox a dynasty. Way to strawman.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Thanks.

I think we can dislike or even hate the other team in Chicago and still be real about baseball too. Whatever the odds are, the 2016 Cubs could be the modern Murder's Row. As a hater that scares me some, but kinda excites me to see it too.

I was the product of a mixed marriage. My dad was a Sox fan (originally a Tigers fan but loyal to the AL when he moved to Chicago) and my mom was a Cubs fan. Naturally the first team I glommed on to was the Red Sox. 1969 got me into the Cubs, I liked all those mid seventies White Sox teams with Chet Lemon, Dick Allen, Wilbur Wood, etc. enjoyed the 1983 team. Through the seventies I was probably a Cubs and Red Sox fan first and a White Sox fan after that. The White Sox kind of lost me somewhere along the way but I'm not a hater.

 

[SilenceS]

Frank Thomas was maybe my favorite player of all time. Him and Mark Grace are a toss up. I loved the "Big Hurt". They use to call me that in little league cause I was a big kid and used his batting stance and had a ton of power. The only other thing I would do is the Jim Thome point. All about that intimidation.

I remember his home run derby's. I think one was in Pittsburgh where he just destroyed baseballs. The guy was a monster and an incredible hitter.

I watched the White Sox a lot in the 90's. WGN! I use to like a lot of their players. They lost me in the 2000's and I hate Hawk Harrelson. I just do.

 

[brett05]

Frank Thomas was maybe my favorite player of all time. Him and Mark Grace are a toss up. I loved the "Big Hurt". They use to call me that in little league cause I was a big kid and used his batting stance and had a ton of power. The only other thing I would do is the Jim Thome point. All about that intimidation.

I remember his home run derby's. I think one was in Pittsburgh where he just destroyed baseballs. The guy was a monster and an incredible hitter.

I watched the White Sox a lot in the 90's. WGN! I use to like a lot of their players. They lost me in the 2000's and I hate Hawk Harrelson. I just do.

I was a hater of Harry Carey. Never understood his appeal. Then two things happened for me and I feel in love with Harry. 1) His early stuff with the Cardinals. That's some good recordings right there. I stumbled across a website many, many years ago and got the chance to hear what he was like without any influences or stroke. Man was he awesome. Then a thought occurred to me. Did the influenced/ recovering Harry make the game better? I couldn't fight the answer anymore. The answer was clearly yes. Harry's contribution to baseball from the Chicago teams was immeasurably greater than his play by play skills. Harry enhanced the game.

 

[brett05]

How is that possible? Did the 2005 White Sox have Dave Winfield in the lineup?

Dave Winfield?

 

[SilenceS]

Come on, man.

Who cares? Different forum. Keep it out of here. Debate about it in the correct forum that it was posted.

 

[brett05]

Come on, man.

And, Dave Winfield is one of the greatest athletes to play, your point of mentioning him in this thread?

 

[brett05]

What do you mean when you say "wire to wire winners"?

Did not know you did not know the term. The term that the team was always in first place for every single day. It's very rare to do it in baseball.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Not odd at all. Example from another sport...1985 Chicago Bears.

The question involved making the playoffs. 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991. The only year they missed the playoffs in that stretch was 1989. They finished 1st in their division every one of those seasons, except for 1991 in which they finished 2nd. The 85 Bears are the opposite of what Dantown suggested.