- Joined:
- Jun 7, 2011
- Posts:
- 18,077
- Liked Posts:
- 3,472
- Location:
- Chicago
Yeah, I think they'd either just keep Quade or promote a guy from within if they're rebuilding, and hire someone more competent if they're actually trying to contend.
Billy Martin says hi...doesn't seem very likely to me.
Yeah, I think they'd either just keep Quade or promote a guy from within if they're rebuilding, and hire someone more competent if they're actually trying to contend.
Why won't the Astros win?
Because the Astros don't have any real talent. I mean have you looked at their roster. It is beyond terrible at just about every part. The Cubs at least have some excuse for being this bad since they have been the hardest hit with injuries. The Astros just plain suck.
Because the Astros don't have any real talent. I mean have you looked at their roster. It is beyond terrible at just about every part. The Cubs at least have some excuse for being this bad since they have been the hardest hit with injuries. The Astros just plain suck.
I hope you arent one of those fans that believes if it wasnt for injuries you would be contending......please say you are not one of those.
Without injuries I thought this would be a slightly below 500 team. That is good enough for contending in this division (Cincy is 1 under and only 3 out), but no I don't believe this is a good team. I also don't believe that the record is reflective of the talent on the 25 man roster on opening day. In fact if you look at the quote I didn't say that injuries complete explain the Cubs record. I said that it is some of the reason why they are this bad.
I think this was an 80-win team at best even if everyone were healthy.
Dude, no way...even if they were 100% healthy there's no chance in hell they would win 80 games.
Dude, no way...even if they were 100% healthy there's no chance in hell they would win 80 games.
i wasnt putting words in your mouth, i was simply asking.
28. Cubs (28): My pick of the Cubs to win the Central was not one of those deals where I would have been willing to bet the mortgage. I was feeling optimistic about a bunch of talented and overpaid people putting it together in such a way where the talent would show itself one final time. Bounce back seasons for Pena, Soriano and Ramirez. A good back end of the pen with Wood and Marmol. A pretty decent rotation, at least on paper. Yeah, it would have taken some luck for it all to break right, but this struck me as a good break-right kind of club. And one, I must admit, that had I guessed right on, would have allowed me to look pretty damn clever come October. Ah, well, you win some and you lose some. I mostly lose some when I try to make clever predictions.
Calcaterra on HBT.
Bad luck and all that. Plus the fact the Cubs are bad at baseball.
I think this was an 80-win team at best even if everyone were healthy. They'd need insane production from every single player to get to 85-88 or whatever wins they need to contend. It wasn't realistic. Not impossible, but improbable.
How do you figure that?
Offensively:
Lee with a better 1B. (50 points better OPS)
Theriot with a better 2B. (50 points better OPS)
Got Castro for a full season rather than just over half a season
So the offense improved
Pitching:
Replaced Silva with Garza
Replaced Gorzellany with Cashner
Added Kerry Wood to the pen
You can't tell me this team wasn't on paper 5 wins better than last years 75 win team.
The Cubs are still 32-31 with their original 5 starters are on the mound, and 5-23 when they aren't.
You don't think the Cubs couldnt have won 8 or so of those 23 losses when guys like Ramon Ortiz, Casey Coleman, Doug Davis, and Rodrigo Lopez are taking the mound?
Coleman and Davis took the bump 18 times. We only won 4 of those.
This is not the second worst team in baseball. It's not a good team, but it's not this bad. 78-82 wins should have been where this team sat. Not in the 60's.