Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:39 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 382 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 5:38 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4838
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
Jason Bay is no longer playing like an All-Star. Josh Hamilton is.


Trades should not be evaluated based on how the players you traded away have performed, but rather on the basis of how the players you traded for have performed. Trades are made to improve your team. That is the relevant barometer of success.

J_C_Steel wrote:
Jocketty will keep winning with other people's players. Outside of Ryan Ludwick and the reanimated corpse of Scott Rolen, everyone on the 2012 Reds' starting lineup was acquired by Wayne Krivsky. And while he did obtain Matt Latos, the Reds' 2012 rotation was primarily built around Krivsky's players. (That's likely to remain the case unless the experiment of Chapman starting actually returns dividends, which is an optimistic thought.) Jocketty has never had the experience of taking a team bereft of talent and turning it into a winner; he's always had other people's toys to play with.


Yup. Jocketty didn't acquire the players the Cardinals used in their amazing run from 2000-2007, even though Jocketty became the Cardinals' GM in 1994. Riiiiight. Those players he inherited in 1994 must have had some unreal longevity to help Jocketty's Cardinals win the 2006 World Series, huh?

;)


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:33 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4841
Location: Pittsburgh
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
Jason Bay is no longer playing like an All-Star. Josh Hamilton is.


Trades should not be evaluated based on how the players you traded away have performed, but rather on the basis of how the players you traded for have performed. Trades are made to improve your team. That is the relevant barometer of success.

That's ridiculous. You can't determine whether or not the team has improved without taking into account how good they would have been if they had kept the players they have traded away.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:23 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
Posts: 2170
sisyphus wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
Jason Bay is no longer playing like an All-Star. Josh Hamilton is.


Trades should not be evaluated based on how the players you traded away have performed, but rather on the basis of how the players you traded for have performed. Trades are made to improve your team. That is the relevant barometer of success.

That's ridiculous. You can't determine whether or not the team has improved without taking into account how good they would have been if they had kept the players they have traded away.

Are you serious? Your OK with ignoring how valuable Jason Bay was at the time we traded him? How little we got in return for him?

_________________
0 straight losing seasons


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4841
Location: Pittsburgh
Ryann wrote:
Are you serious? Your OK with ignoring how valuable Jason Bay was at the time we traded him? How little we got in return for him?

Get back to me when you can come up with a coherent post that addresses a subject that I am actually talking about.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:11 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
Posts: 2170
sisyphus wrote:
Ryann wrote:
Are you serious? Your OK with ignoring how valuable Jason Bay was at the time we traded him? How little we got in return for him?

Get back to me when you can come up with a coherent post that addresses a subject that I am actually talking about.

That isn't coherent enough for you? Do you speak another language?

The subject is that Jocketty is a MUCH better GM then NH. This was brought up by jcsteel well over 2 years ago...Of course the NH fanclub pointed out how awesome NH has done. They also instisted that Jocketty is the worse gm.

Now 2.5 years later the reds are the powerhouse in the NL central, and the pirates are still a joke. Who is the better gm?

More importantly is 6 years enough for you to evaluate NH's performance?
Was 6 years long enough for him to build a winner? Obviously not.

_________________
0 straight losing seasons


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4841
Location: Pittsburgh
Ryann wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
Ryann wrote:
Are you serious? Your OK with ignoring how valuable Jason Bay was at the time we traded him? How little we got in return for him?

Get back to me when you can come up with a coherent post that addresses a subject that I am actually talking about.

That isn't coherent enough for you? Do you speak another language?

The subject is that Jocketty is a MUCH better GM then NH. This was brought up by jcsteel well over 2 years ago...Of course the NH fanclub pointed out how awesome NH has done. They also instisted that Jocketty is the worse gm.

Now 2.5 years later the reds are the powerhouse in the NL central, and the pirates are still a joke. Who is the better gm?

More importantly is 6 years enough for you to evaluate NH's performance?
Was 6 years long enough for him to build a winner? Obviously not.

The subject of the thread is a comparison of Jocketty to Huntingdon. That was not the subject of my post, as anyone with minimal reading skills can understand.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:46 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
Posts: 2170
Okay. Then please make the comparison! Jocketty is clearly the BETTER GM despite what others think. He has succesful results while NH has achieved nothing but mediocrity.

_________________
0 straight losing seasons


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:51 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4838
Location: Washington, DC
sisyphus wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
Jason Bay is no longer playing like an All-Star. Josh Hamilton is.


Trades should not be evaluated based on how the players you traded away have performed, but rather on the basis of how the players you traded for have performed. Trades are made to improve your team. That is the relevant barometer of success.

That's ridiculous. You can't determine whether or not the team has improved without taking into account how good they would have been if they had kept the players they have traded away.


You are reading my post far too narrowly. And you're incorrect. My statement is "Trades are made to improve your team. That is the relevant barometer of success." Obviously, if you trade Babe Ruth for Francisco Cabrera, that's a bad trade because it made your team worse.

Moreover, you're not thinking like a GM. You're thinking like a fan or media member, who like to decide who "won" or "lost" trades. That doesn't matter. What matters is what's best for your team. For example, say you're the GM of a team with two excellent first basemen, a popular established veteran signed to a long-term contract who can be expected to put up .280/.350/.550 for years to come and a prospect whom your analysts believe is capable of .280/.340/.500 for the next few years. If you trade that prospect to another team for a solid starting pitcher, that prospect out-performs those expectations (going, say, .300/.360/.520), and the pitcher you trade for performs well enough to help your team win a championship, then who cares how well the prospect you traded performed? Your trade did what it was supposed to do -- it IMPROVED your team and helped you win a title. It doesn't matter if the prospect you traded becomes a perennial All-Star. Mission accomplished.

Each trade must be evaluated within the context of the GM's overall strategy and the team's current goal. If the trade improved the team and helped it achieve its goal, then it was a good trade, regardless of how well the players traded away performed.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
That's ridiculous. You can't determine whether or not the team has improved without taking into account how good they would have been if they had kept the players they have traded away.


You are reading my post far too narrowly. And you're incorrect. My statement is "Trades are made to improve your team. That is the relevant barometer of success." Obviously, if you trade Babe Ruth for Francisco Cabrera, that's a bad trade because it made your team worse.

Moreover, you're not thinking like a GM. You're thinking like a fan or media member, who like to decide who "won" or "lost" trades. That doesn't matter. What matters is what's best for your team. For example, say you're the GM of a team with two excellent first basemen, a popular established veteran signed to a long-term contract who can be expected to put up .280/.350/.550 for years to come and a prospect whom your analysts believe is capable of .280/.340/.500 for the next few years. If you trade that prospect to another team for a solid starting pitcher, that prospect out-performs those expectations (going, say, .300/.360/.520), and the pitcher you trade for performs well enough to help your team win a championship, then who cares how well the prospect you traded performed? Your trade did what it was supposed to do -- it IMPROVED your team and helped you win a title. It doesn't matter if the prospect you traded becomes a perennial All-Star. Mission accomplished.

Each trade must be evaluated within the context of the GM's overall strategy and the team's current goal. If the trade improved the team and helped it achieve its goal, then it was a good trade, regardless of how well the players traded away performed.

I see. So did trading Adam Dunn to the D'Backs in 2008 for Micah Owings and Wilkin Castillo "improve the team and help it achieve its goal"?

Did trading Ken Griffey Jr. to the White Sox in 2008 for Mick Masset and Danny Richar "improve the team and help it achieve its goal"?

Did trading Josh Hamilton to the Rangers in December 2007 for Danny Herrera and Edinson Volquez "improve the team and help it achieve its goal"?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:37 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4838
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
I see. So did trading Adam Dunn to the D'Backs in 2008 for Micah Owings and Wilkin Castillo "improve the team and help it achieve its goal"?

Did trading Ken Griffey Jr. to the White Sox in 2008 for Mick Masset and Danny Richar "improve the team and help it achieve its goal"?

Did trading Josh Hamilton to the Rangers in December 2007 for Danny Herrera and Edinson Volquez "improve the team and help it achieve its goal"?


All of those trades were made in the context of saving money and applying it elsewhere. Again, one must place the trades within the full context of Walt Jocketty's work. Viewed in abstentia, those trades look pretty awful. But Jocketty used money freed up from those trades to bring in other players. How did those players perform?

Well, the Reds have won their division two of the last three seasons and go into 2013 as the favorites again.

Did trading Jason Bay "improve the [Pirates] and help it achieve its goal"? Unlike the Reds following the Dunn and Griffey Jr. trades, the Pirates didn't win the NL Central Division two years after trading Jason Bay, their best player at the time...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:39 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4838
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
Jocketty will keep winning with other people's players. Outside of Ryan Ludwick and the reanimated corpse of Scott Rolen, everyone on the 2012 Reds' starting lineup was acquired by Wayne Krivsky. And while he did obtain Matt Latos, the Reds' 2012 rotation was primarily built around Krivsky's players. (That's likely to remain the case unless the experiment of Chapman starting actually returns dividends, which is an optimistic thought.) Jocketty has never had the experience of taking a team bereft of talent and turning it into a winner; he's always had other people's toys to play with.


J_C_Steel wrote:
Yup. Jocketty didn't acquire the players the Cardinals used in their amazing run from 2000-2007, even though Jocketty became the Cardinals' GM in 1994. Riiiiight. Those players he inherited in 1994 must have had some unreal longevity to help Jocketty's Cardinals win the 2006 World Series, huh?

;)


How 'bout you answer that one, Willton? What players did Jocketty inherit from 1994 that allowed him to turn the Cardinals into a MACHINE from 2000-2007?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:44 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5388
J_C_Steel wrote:
What players did Jocketty inherit from 1994 that allowed him to turn the Cardinals into a MACHINE from 2000-2007?


You're making two different arguments here.

Yes, the players Jocketty inherited in 94 were not the same as 00-07. However, many the players he inherited in 94 (Brian Jordan, Ray Lankford, John Mabry, Ozzie Smith, Tom Pagnozzi, Alan Benes...) were a key factor in their run to the NLCS in 96.

Furthermore, if your case is that by year six that Jocketty turned the Cards into a machine, then you can't definitively say that NH hasn't done that because it is still unknown (it appears unlikely, but it is still unknown).

For all we know the Bucs version of Pujols could still be yet to arrive and/or the seeds of the previous six years are about to flourish as abundantly as they did for Jocketty in STL after year six.

It appears as if everyone has conceded that Jocketty's first six years in both CIN and STL have been better than NH's tenure in PIT. The only debate has been because you're using a fairly faulty comparison.

If the crux of your case is that a GM can turn around a downtrodden team in less than six years, then you should have started and ended your debate with Billy Beane and/or Andrew Friedman.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
Jocketty will keep winning with other people's players. Outside of Ryan Ludwick and the reanimated corpse of Scott Rolen, everyone on the 2012 Reds' starting lineup was acquired by Wayne Krivsky. And while he did obtain Matt Latos, the Reds' 2012 rotation was primarily built around Krivsky's players. (That's likely to remain the case unless the experiment of Chapman starting actually returns dividends, which is an optimistic thought.) Jocketty has never had the experience of taking a team bereft of talent and turning it into a winner; he's always had other people's toys to play with.


J_C_Steel wrote:
Yup. Jocketty didn't acquire the players the Cardinals used in their amazing run from 2000-2007, even though Jocketty became the Cardinals' GM in 1994. Riiiiight. Those players he inherited in 1994 must have had some unreal longevity to help Jocketty's Cardinals win the 2006 World Series, huh?

;)


How 'bout you answer that one, Willton? What players did Jocketty inherit from 1994 that allowed him to turn the Cardinals into a MACHINE from 2000-2007?

Ray Lankford, Blake Stein and TJ Matthews (who Jocketty traded with Eric Ludwick to get Mark McGwire). Admittedly, Jocketty did a fine job converting the Cardinals from a middling organization into a perennial contender after 6 years. But, again, he had 6 years.

Also, something to keep in mind: Jocketty was probably one of the best in the business from 1994-2006, but that doesn't mean that he is among the best now or will be among the best as the years go on. Andrew Friedman and Theo Epstein are among the GMs who have surpassed him, in my view. More could follow.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Last edited by Willton on Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:18 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4838
Location: Washington, DC
OK. If Neal Huntington leads the Pirates to 95 wins and the NLCS this year, and then leads them to win 93, 97, 85, 105, 100, and 83 games the next six seasons, including a World Series title, then I will personally write him a letter of apology and start a thread on this board calling myself "The Dumbest Man Alive."

Does anyone believe that Huntington has positioned the Pirates for that kind of success?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4841
Location: Pittsburgh
J_C_Steel wrote:
You are reading my post far too narrowly. And you're incorrect. My statement is "Trades are made to improve your team. That is the relevant barometer of success." Obviously, if you trade Babe Ruth for Francisco Cabrera, that's a bad trade because it made your team worse.

Moreover, you're not thinking like a GM. You're thinking like a fan or media member, who like to decide who "won" or "lost" trades. That doesn't matter. What matters is what's best for your team. For example, say you're the GM of a team with two excellent first basemen, a popular established veteran signed to a long-term contract who can be expected to put up .280/.350/.550 for years to come and a prospect whom your analysts believe is capable of .280/.340/.500 for the next few years. If you trade that prospect to another team for a solid starting pitcher, that prospect out-performs those expectations (going, say, .300/.360/.520), and the pitcher you trade for performs well enough to help your team win a championship, then who cares how well the prospect you traded performed? Your trade did what it was supposed to do -- it IMPROVED your team and helped you win a title. It doesn't matter if the prospect you traded becomes a perennial All-Star. Mission accomplished.

Each trade must be evaluated within the context of the GM's overall strategy and the team's current goal. If the trade improved the team and helped it achieve its goal, then it was a good trade, regardless of how well the players traded away performed.

So if the Red Sox record improves this year, they made a good trade for Hanrahan, even if Melancon puts up the same numbers in Pittsburgh that Hanrahan does in Boston, plus Sands hits 25 home runs for the Pirates? I'm sorry, but that's a bad trade for the Red Sox any way you look at it. They improved, but not as much as they would have by standing pat with what they had. It isn't that the guy you traded away becomes and All-Star that matters, it's that he would have helped you win more games than the guy you got.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:15 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4838
Location: Washington, DC
sisyphus wrote:
So if the Red Sox record improves this year, they made a good trade for Hanrahan, even if Melancon puts up the same numbers in Pittsburgh that Hanrahan does in Boston, plus Sands hits 25 home runs for the Pirates? I'm sorry, but that's a bad trade for the Red Sox any way you look at it. They improved, but not as much as they would have by standing pat with what they had. It isn't that the guy you traded away becomes and All-Star that matters, it's that he would have helped you win more games than the guy you got.


If Melancon pitches as well for Pittsburgh as Hanrahan does for the Red Sox, then the Red Sox did not improve their team with the trade. As for Sands, if the player the Red Sox have manning 1B or RF (whichever position you optimistically forecast Sands playing while hitting 25 home runs) hits better than Sands, then they didn't really lose that production.

The ONLY relevant question post-trade is: Did the trade make your team better and more able to meet its goal? If yes, then it was a good trade, even if you gave up good players. If no, then it was a bad trade, even if you gave up bad players.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:18 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4838
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
Also, something to keep in mind: Jocketty was probably one of the best in the business from 1994-2006, but that doesn't mean that he is among the best now or will be among the best as the years go on. Andrew Friedman and Theo Epstein are among the GMs who have surpassed him, in my view. More could follow.


I never said Jocketty was better than Andrew Friedman or Theo Epstein. He may be. I can't say for sure. I just said he's better than Neal Huntington.

Now that Huntington is entering his sixth year, do you believe that, going forward, he's positioned the Pirates for the kind of success that the Cardinals experienced in their sixth year and beyond under Walt Jocketty?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
Also, something to keep in mind: Jocketty was probably one of the best in the business from 1994-2006, but that doesn't mean that he is among the best now or will be among the best as the years go on. Andrew Friedman and Theo Epstein are among the GMs who have surpassed him, in my view. More could follow.


I never said Jocketty was better than Andrew Friedman or Theo Epstein. He may be. I can't say for sure. I just said he's better than Neal Huntington.

Well congratulations for being proven right thus far. We'll throw a party in your honor because you apparently don't feel like you get enough attention around here.

J_C_Steel wrote:
Now that Huntington is entering his sixth year, do you believe that, going forward, he's positioned the Pirates for the kind of success that the Cardinals experienced in their sixth year and beyond under Walt Jocketty?

No, not yet. We need more talent in the organization in order to have sustained success going forward. But given the team's performance last year, I believe this team has a chance at contending in 2013, even if it is only an outside one.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:53 pm 
Online
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 4838
Location: Washington, DC
Willton wrote:
No, not yet. We need more talent in the organization in order to have sustained success going forward. But given the team's performance last year, I believe this team has a chance at contending in 2013, even if it is only an outside one.


We disagree here. In 2012, the Pirates finished fourth in the division behind the Reds, Cardinals, and Brewers. The team went 12-5 against the last-place Astros, who are now gone. We can only identify one area in which the Pirates truly upgraded, and that's catcher. The rotation has more question marks (Francisco Liriano, James McDonald, and one of Kyle McPherson/Jeff Locke) than sure things. The 61-win Cubs have definitely improved, particularly with their pitching. The Reds are even better after their trade for a Shin-Soo Choo. The Cardinals have great pitching depth and a solid lineup. The Brewers can hit with the best of 'em.

What makes you think the Pirates can do any better than fourth in the division in 2013?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'd show Huntington the door for this guy...
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
J_C_Steel wrote:
Willton wrote:
No, not yet. We need more talent in the organization in order to have sustained success going forward. But given the team's performance last year, I believe this team has a chance at contending in 2013, even if it is only an outside one.


We disagree here. In 2012, the Pirates finished fourth in the division behind the Reds, Cardinals, and Brewers. The team went 12-5 against the last-place Astros, who are now gone. We can only identify one area in which the Pirates truly upgraded, and that's catcher. The rotation has more question marks (Francisco Liriano, James McDonald, and one of Kyle McPherson/Jeff Locke) than sure things. The 61-win Cubs have definitely improved, particularly with their pitching. The Reds are even better after their trade for a Shin-Soo Choo. The Cardinals have great pitching depth and a solid lineup. The Brewers can hit with the best of 'em.

What makes you think the Pirates can do any better than fourth in the division in 2013?

The Reds are almost certainly going to see some regression from their pitching staff. Dusty Baker worked Cueto and Bailey very hard last year, as they threw more innings and more pitches last year than they ever had in their entire respective careers. Bailey in particular threw 3334 pitches last season, which is 1,200 more than he had thrown in any of his previous years in the majors. And given the physical build of Cueto (5'10', 215 lb.), I don't think his arm can take much more of Dusty. Plus, I'm expecting Arroyo to regress due to age, and I'm also expecting the Chapman starting experiment to be a disaster.

The Brewers will likely still have a terrifying lineup. But their pitching is loaded with question marks. Michael Fiers looks like the real deal, but Gallardo's control is slipping, Marco Estrada was impressive but is still a converted reliever, and Greinke and Marcum are both gone. Tom Gorzelanny was signed to presumably take a rotation spot, but he is fragile (as we know) and his peripherals are unimpressive. And the pitchers from their farm system (Tyler Thornburg and Wily Peralta) show some promise but are likely to be inconsistent. And that's just their rotation; their bullpen is a disaster.

The Cubs have improved, but not enough to get them out of the basement. Adding Edwin Jackson is not going to catapult them into being an average team. They're two best hitters are still Anthony Rizzo and Starlin Castro, Alfonso Soriano's resurgeance in 2012 is not likely to continue into 2013, they no longer have Ryan Dempster, and their rotation still can't stay healthy, which means they are still relying on guys like Travis Wood and Justin Germano to eat innings.

The Cardinals are a legit contender and most likely to win the division. But that doesn't mean that the Pirates can't win a wild card spot, particularly when there are now two such spots available and given the uncertainty of the NL Central.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 382 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Clevelandsux, fred_1_15301, Google [Bot], J_C_Steel, PirateParrot, StarlingArcher, urbman21 and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits