This article has some jaw-dropping stupidity in it -- the bit about Piniella being a fraud yet okay for Chicago where "the bar is lower" is sheer nonsense -- but it's true that the Cubs should bounce back. I don't know if the projection should be quite .500 but it's not far off. I'd say the chances of the Cubs going to the playoffs, or winning 90 games, is significantly non-zero.

I thnk the Cubs would return to 500 just based on
a) a full year of Lee
b) a full year of no Neifi
c) a full year of Hill

IF Prior and Wood can contribute anything, this club can be in the playoff race..

Zero chance. Unless they go payroll crazy in the offseason and just start adding the best players (Soriano to 2B, Zito or Schmidt to the rotation plus that second Japanese pitcher, Igawa I believe), there are still too many problems.

Depending on who plays center, the outfield's offensive production (and defense) won't be great or probably even good - Jones is unlikely to repeat his 2006 except in the field, and Murton is probably the best of the bunch yet we're not even sure if he'll be playing every day. They'll get almost nothing offensively out of a middle infield of Izturis + Cedeno/Theriot. The rotation right now is Zambrano, Hill, and three question marks. There's no bench, and a bullpen faced with the question of who will close. And all of it has to come together under a new manager.

If they go 81-81, they should consider it a very successful season.

Soriano's value is greater in the outfield, he makes too many errors at 2B. With a questionable rotation, I would stress defense. There is nothing wrong with Soriano as long as he does not play 2B.

Well the Cubs Pythag was at 70 wins so they have to make up 11 wins to get to .500. Where are they going to come from? The good news is that they had an astonishing 50.6 runs below performance from Cedeno, Perez, Mabry et. al. Replace these guys with any old replacement and that's five wins right there. Prior and Rusch were another 20 runs below performance and that's not going to happen again so now we're at seven wins. A full season of Lee circa 2004 is probably worth four or five runs which brings the Cubs to .500 just by picking the right AAA guys.

The problem is that every team in baseball, certainly every bad team, could say the same thing. Every bad team ends up blowing lots of wins by fielding below replacement players and by having injuries. That's what makes them bad. Now it seems impossible that the Cubs will field as many unbelievably bad players for as long next year as they did this year but I still think that .500 is a longshot.

That being said they are in the same division as one team that is actively trying to lose (Pirates) and another that might as well be (Reds) so .500 is probably close than I think.

a full year of no Neifi

In theory, yes. But since he's likely to be replaced by a couple of guys with damn near identical lines, no.

The article also gives me the impression that the Cubs are done with thier moves, but is it really enough?

* Keeping Ramirez will certainly help
* A healthy Lee will also help, but will he repeat his elevated play as a Cub or will he be more in line with his days in Florida?
* Just how much can Wood contribute given his extensive injury history?
* And what about Pinella? He will make mistakes, just like every manager, but how much can a manager affect a team? Ozzie got a WS in his first year, but did not make the playoffs the next. As a Rangers' fan, I saw how Showalter killed the clubhouse, but I really don't think Washington will make them a division winner. It is up to the players, and the Cubs have not really done much to improve there.
* Will the Cubs be better without Perez? That all depends who the start in his place. Right now, they don't have anybody in the farm system that just knocks your socks off.

The article also gives me the impression that the Cubs are done with thier moves, but is it really enough?

The Cubs are nowhere close to done. Notice it's not a Chicago paper/writer, just someone commenting on his opinion of what they've done so far.

Zero chance. Unless they go payroll crazy in the offseason and just start adding the best players (Soriano to 2B, Zito or Schmidt to the rotation plus that second Japanese pitcher, Igawa I believe), there are still too many problems.

Depending on who plays center, the outfield's offensive production (and defense) won't be great or probably even good - Jones is unlikely to repeat his 2006 except in the field, and Murton is probably the best of the bunch yet we're not even sure if he'll be playing every day. They'll get almost nothing offensively out of a middle infield of Izturis + Cedeno/Theriot. The rotation right now is Zambrano, Hill, and three question marks. There's no bench, and a bullpen faced with the question of who will close. And all of it has to come together under a new manager.

I strongly disagree. The Cubs have a reasonable core of talent. That, combined with their underperformance in 2006 and deep pockets poises them for a probably big bounce. Right now I'd project something between 75-83 wins as 50/50. It depends largely on what Hendry accomplishes this off-season, but it's not a tall order to move this team into mediocre/average territory.

Payroll: They probably will go payroll crazy, or at least try
Middle Infield: I would be surprised if it's those three all year
Starting pitching: The biggest problem, but if they can add two guys who show up every five days and put in something approximating a QS, it will be okay.
Bench: Remains to be seen.
Bullpen: There's actually a pretty good core of bullpen talent.
New Manager: Why is this a problem? If anything, I see it as a plus.

Ozzie got a WS in his first year, but did not make the playoffs the next.

Two minor things: It was his second year that he got the ring. Also, he won 90 games this year, so while as a fan or owner, you are not going to be satisfied with that, in terms of performance evaluation, it's not like there was all that much difference between the two years...

"They'll get almost nothing offensively out of a middle infield of Izturis + Cedeno/Theriot."

I'd actually be cautiously optimistic about Theriot, if I were a Cubs fan. He looked pretty good the couple of times I saw him.

The owner of the Cubs is pending bankruptcy. Why exactly do you think they would go payroll crazy?

Which is not to say that you can pencil him in for a .900 OPS, of course, but I don't see why he couldn't put up a repeat of his '06 AAA line in the bigs.

The owner of the Cubs is pending bankruptcy. Why exactly do you think they would go payroll crazy?

Because the Cubs are one of their few profitable units and they believe that adding payroll will make it more successful and attractive to a potential buyer?

At least that's what I hope.

The owner of the Cubs is pending bankruptcy. Why exactly do you think they would go payroll crazy?

It's pretty much been the standard line in every story about the Cubs this offseason, including those in a paper that shares the same owner. Their payroll should go up to about $115mil.

New Manager: Why is this a problem? If anything, I see it as a plus.

Of course it's a plus. But there's almost always some period of adjustment where Pinella has to learn who can do what and the players have to learn how to deal with him. It's just one more thing the Cubs have to deal with in 2007.

And your rebuttals to all of my points (except the bullpen) were essentially the same:

Payroll: They probably will go payroll crazy, or at least try - add payroll
Middle Infield: I would be surprised if it's those three all year - add new players/payroll
Starting pitching: The biggest problem, but if they can add two guys who show up every five days and put in something approximating a QS, it will be okay. - add new players/payroll
Bench: Remains to be seen. - add players/payroll

I started my remarks by saying *unless* they add a bunch of payroll, I don't think they have much chance. This sounds more like you agree with me than strongly disagree, because your counterarguments are all that the Cubs will spend a lot to improve the team.

I think the Cubs will *try* to spend a lot to improve the team. But there are just a handful of premium free agents out there, and a boatload of teams with money to burn. Prices are going to be through the roof.

It may turn out that the Cubs would be better off not signing players this offseason and using 2007 to evaluate their long-term needs than they would giving Beltran money to Soriano, or 5/$80M to Zito/Schmidt.

(As for the bullpen, right now you've got an incumbent with a huge contract who may have lost his job, an oft-injured starter, and a good setup guy all being mentioned as the next closer. It's a situation that often doesn't work itself out well, especially if the manager has an itchy trigger finger. Wood closes until he blows a couple, then Howry gets to close until he blows some, then they try Dempster again, and back and forth. As with the new manager, it's not about having the talent to do it - there's going to be a period of adjustment while everything sorts itself out. Maybe it all happens in spring training and it's not a big deal, but I think that's optimistic.)

I think the Cubs will *try* to spend a lot to improve the team. But there are just a handful of premium free agents out there, and a boatload of teams with money to burn. Prices are going to be through the roof.

It may turn out that the Cubs would be better off not signing players this offseason and using 2007 to evaluate their long-term needs than they would giving Beltran money to Soriano, or 5/$80M to Zito/Schmidt.

This is the key point for me. The 2007 Cubs could be contenders, but that basically would require some combination of the following: (1) nobody else in the NL Central to get much better, (2) Prior to play like he did in 2003, (3) Izturis to play like he did in 2004, and (4) Lee to play like he did in 2005. There's a non-zero chance of that, but the Cubs shouldn't be kidding themselves about how big that number is.

What the Cubs need to be doing is building toward maximizing their chances of winning in 2009 or so and that means not giving out big free-agent contracts to guys who will either (a) block better players three years from now (e.g., Juan Pierre vis-a-vis Felix Pie), (b) be too old to be contributing three years from now (e.g., Jason Schmidt), or (c) eat up so much payroll that the Cubs don't have the flexibility to add crucial pieces in 2007 and 2008 (e.g., Soriano if he's paid 7/$120).

I think the biggest hole that they should be looking to fill via free agency is a starting pitcher, but, again, they should be thinking about 2009 as the key year in terms of that move, too. In the middle infield, they've got a lot of guys with some potential - Izturis, Cedeno, Theriot, Patterson - just let them play it out and see what they've got (although I'd trade Izturis if the other team ate his salary). Let Murton be their full-time leftfielder, give him 150 games, 650 PAs, and see what he can do.

If they really believe that Pie is their centerfielder of the future (and I'm not convinced he is), then they should be looking for a stop-gap there (and if Pie isn't their CF of the future, they should be looking to trade him before he gets too old and/or fails at the major-league level). Find a platoon partner for Jones - ideally a young one who can gradually take more and more playing time from Jacque as he ages (although those don't exactly grow on trees), and let the 5th spot (and 4th if need be) in the rotation be a training ground for sorting out which of their kid pitchers can actually pitch.

That's what I'd do, but, hey, the Cubs aren't asking my opinion.

Two minor things: It was his second year that he got the ring. Also, he won 90 games this year, so while as a fan or owner, you are not going to be satisfied with that, in terms of performance evaluation, it's not like there was all that much difference between the two years...

Okay, I got sloppy with my fact checking due to time constraints. However, my point is that managers can hurt a team more than they can help it. Just because Ozzie won a WS title early on does not mean that his team will have continued success. Stating that any team will see a major improvement due to a managerial change is unlikely. I can't speak for the Cubs, but with the Rangers, players are more likely to stay (Young, Teixeira, etc.) becaue they were indeed tired of the then current manager.

The fact that the core players will not automatically look to bolt via free agency is good news for the Rangers, but they will only have as much success as the players allow. Perhaps this was part of the reason that Ramirez came back (no Dusty), but Pinella does not guarantee greater success. Hopefully Lou will set up the team for success (correct pitching changes, pinch hitting, etc) more than Dusty did, but he has no control over a pitcher hanging a breaking ball or hitters grounding into a double play, etc.

Perhaps this was part of the reason that Ramirez came back (no Dusty)

I doubt it. Dusty is the opposite of Showalter. I think the players liked playing for him, in large part because he never called them on any of their stupid/sloppy play.

New Manager: Why is this a problem? If anything, I see it as a plus.

Of course it's a plus. But there's almost always some period of adjustment where Pinella has to learn who can do what and the players have to learn how to deal with him. It's just one more thing the Cubs have to deal with in 2007.

I don't think the adjustment period is an issue.

I started my remarks by saying *unless* they add a bunch of payroll, I don't think they have much chance. This sounds more like you agree with me than strongly disagree, because your counterarguments are all that the Cubs will spend a lot to improve the team.

I strongly disagree with your conclusion that the Cubs have zero chance. Zero chance means that a team is so fundamentally lacking that they have, well, no chance, even if all the cards fall their way. The Cubs are not that fundamentally lacking. In fact, I think the Cubs would probably see a big boost if they kept their payroll right around where it was in 2006. The correlation between $ spent and results on the field isn't that strong, especially for this team.

(As for the bullpen, right now you've got an incumbent with a huge contract who may have lost his job, an oft-injured starter, and a good setup guy all being mentioned as the next closer. It's a situation that often doesn't work itself out well, especially if the manager has an itchy trigger finger. Wood closes until he blows a couple, then Howry gets to close until he blows some, then they try Dempster again, and back and forth.

Overthinking the bullpen in the off-season is generally a mistake. All you can do is amass talent. Howry and Eyre are both solid veterans. The problem with the assigned closer role is that if a team is doing poorly, the closer gets erratic work, and it may be that this hurt Dempster in '06. I didn't believe he is as good as he was in '05, but I don't believe he is as bad as he was for stretches in '06 either. Wood is a crapshoot, but he could contribute. Any of Wuertz, Aardsma and Ohman could again have good years, not to mention some of the others. Hendry will probably add at least one more guy. Seriously, the bullpen may be a problem again, but at this point there is nothing to indicate it.

As they usually do, the Cubs look to me like a mediocre team, but one that could stumble into the post-season if everything fell into place perfectly. That's why I say their chances are "significantly non-zero," in other words, >5%. It will depend on what happens in the off-season, of course, but I expect Diamond Mind sims to reflect that.

b) a full year of no Neifi

Not that he didn't hurt the squad, but he had only about 240 at bats. Replacing him with a normal utility infielder would amount to what? - one game maybe? I don't know what the normal batting lines for utility infielder are, but it can't be very good.

For no reason whatsoever, Cubs OPS by position last year:
C: 814
1B: 774
2B: 737
SS: 598
3B: 884
RF: 835
CF: 725
LF: 774

But there's almost always some period of adjustment where Pinella has to learn who can do what and the players have to learn how to deal with him.

Piniella's periods of adjustment:

First year in Tampa: team gets 7 1/2 games better. (Yes, it was a dead cat bounce, but stay tuned).

First year in Seattle: team gets 18 games better (from 64-98 to 82-80).

First year in Cincinnati: team gets 16 games better (from 75 wins to 91. Oh, and they won the Series).

I've checked -- that's the best improvement record any manager's had since the death of Billy Martin.

It isn't his entire career, though. He had a job before Martin died:

First year in the Bronx: drops 7 games, from 97 to 90 wins. The manager he replaced? Billy Martin.

Period of adjustment? Sometimes it's the initial kick in the rump that improves a team.

Oh yeah, I guess the Ramirez signing means the Cubs are officially not going after A-Rod.

As for the bullpen, right now you've got an incumbent with a huge contract who may have lost his job, an oft-injured starter, and a good setup guy all being mentioned as the next closer.

This is the second thread I've seen recently with a Cubs bullpen review like this. Did the team trade Eyre or something? They had two good middle relievers last year in Eyre and Howry.

Just a question, Dag Nabbit. what was the pythagorean of the teams the year before they had Piniella and the year he joined?
And were there any major acquisitions they made along with the manager?
Seems like it wouldn't be fair to judge a manager based on one year turnarounds..and I am too lazy to look it up ( will use being at work as an excuse !! )

Just a question, Dag Nabbit. what was the pythagorean of the teams the year before they had Piniella and the year he joined?

Of course, you have to recognize that Piniella joins the Cubs coming off a season where they came 4 wins short of their Pythagorean W/L.

This is the second thread I've seen recently with a Cubs bullpen review like this. Did the team trade Eyre or something? They had two good middle relievers last year in Eyre and Howry.

I'm not discounting Eyre, except that no one seems to be talking about him as a potential closer. It's all Wood, Dempster, and Howry. Eyre did a fine job setting up, and I suspect he'll be setting up again in 2007.

As they usually do, the Cubs look to me like a mediocre team, but one that could stumble into the post-season if everything fell into place perfectly.

Well hell, I agree with that. If everything breaks their way - injury-free and productive seasons from Wood, Prior, and Ramirez, steps forward from Murton and Cedeno, Lee stays healthy, whoever closes figures it out in spring training, Izturis doesn't suck, Hill pitches like he did in late 2006 and not like he did in 2005-early 2006, one of the AAA starters gives them 150 IP of league average starting in the 5th spot (or maybe 2 in the 4th/5th spots), Jones doesn't regress, Lee stays at the higher level he showed in 2005, whoever they get to play CF does a good job, the bench gets better, maybe Pie or someone else has a great year at AAA and contributes late in the season, maybe a deadline trade a la 2003 that adds a key part for the stretch drive - they'll win the Central. But that's far too many "what ifs" for a reasonable person to expect to come true. How many teams go through a season where everything breaks their way?

Zero chance means that a team is so fundamentally lacking that they have, well, no chance, even if all the cards fall their way. The Cubs are not that fundamentally lacking.

Yes, but they are lacking in fundamentals. :-)

Yes, but they are lacking in fundamentals. :-)

Only in Soviet Wrigley.

Because the Cubs are one of their few profitable units and they believe that adding payroll will make it more successful and attractive to a potential buyer?

Maybe so, but I'm not sure that making risky moves helps either their future profitability or their saleability. WSJ reported this morning that there have already been 2 bids to purchase Tribune Co., and I doubt that either potential buyer (Gannett and Hank Greenberg, formerly of AIG) has much interest in the Cubs other than selling them immeidately after a purchase. Putting more money into the team now won't necessarily help the bottom line, and having more flexibiltiy for new ownership to do what they want would seem to be more attactive and probably garner a bigger purchase price. Maybe the Tribune has been reporting that the Cubs are going to increase payroll, but today's events probably change things a bit, and also it's not as if the Board of Directors of Tribune Co. is reporting what latitude they're going to give the Cubs re: spending limits to people on the Tribune sports editorial staff, even if they are under the same general umbrella. The bigwigs have much more important things to worry about, and large corporations generally don't have that kind of horizontal communication in place.

Assume that the same kind of calamities hit the team as last year, along the lines of Pierre and Jones' April/May; the revolving door at 2B, Wood and Prior as cripples, a parade of inconsistent rookies in the 5 slot. Now, let's assume a few possible, if not likely, enhancements.

Starting from 65 wins:

+ full year of dlee: 5 wins
- dustyized lineups and strategerizing: 2 wins
+ full year of rich hill v3.0: 3 wins
+ half year post-ASB Murton: 2 wins
- cedeno and neifi's batting "contributions": 2 wins
+ two consistent, unspectacular, league-average starters in the 3/4 slots: 2 wins

That's 81 wins (w/ARam re-signed), without doing anything more spectacular than signing Randy Wolf and Miguel Batista. If they land Schmidt or somehow get above league-average production out of SS, 2B or CF, things get interesting.

I doubt that mid-80s wins will get it done. Milwaukee has more talent and a better GM. The Astros always figure out a way to contend. The Cardinals are World Series champs.

Well hell, I agree with that. If everything breaks their way - injury-free and productive seasons from Wood, Prior, and Ramirez, steps forward from Murton and Cedeno, Lee stays healthy, whoever closes figures it out in spring training, Izturis doesn't suck, Hill pitches like he did in late 2006 and not like he did in 2005-early 2006, one of the AAA starters gives them 150 IP of league average starting in the 5th spot (or maybe 2 in the 4th/5th spots), Jones doesn't regress, Lee stays at the higher level he showed in 2005, whoever they get to play CF does a good job, the bench gets better, maybe Pie or someone else has a great year at AAA and contributes late in the season, maybe a deadline trade a la 2003 that adds a key part for the stretch drive - they'll win the Central. But that's far too many "what ifs" for a reasonable person to expect to come true. How many teams go through a season where everything breaks their way?

If all that happens they'll run away and hide with the Central, not just win it.

Maybe the Tribune has been reporting that the Cubs are going to increase payroll, but today's events probably change things a bit, and also it's not as if the Board of Directors of Tribune Co. is reporting what latitude they're going to give the Cubs re: spending limits to people on the Tribune sports editorial staff, even if they are under the same general umbrella. The bigwigs have much more important things to worry about, and large corporations generally don't have that kind of horizontal communication in place.

I don't understand what you mean by today's events. Is it your belief that these bids for the Trib came in just today? If the Trib is getting sold, odds are they've known for slightly more than a few weeks, and odds are they had an idea that there might be some bidders out there.

Of course the board isn't communicating spending limits to Paul Sullivan, but one would certainly think John McDonough has had some conversations with Trib execs regarding how much money is available for the Cubs. He'd also be passing this news on to Jim Hendry and Lou Piniella, which happens to be where many sportswriters are getting their information.

I've checked -- that's the best improvement record any manager's had since the death of Billy Martin.

Actually, Dusty Baker's record is better. Quite a bit better.

This notion that Baker is the worst manager in the majors is pretty ridiculous. Yes, he's a poor judge of talent and a weak tactician. But there's more to a manager's job than that. Some people have this idea that players are basically APBA cards who will spit out a certaint stat line no matter what's going on around them. In one of the Girardi threads, someone said that he didn't deserve any credit for how well the Marlins played, because their success was all predicated on a bunch of young players playing well. Baker's clear strength was getting players to play well, and you can't disregard that in evaluating him as a manager.

Hopefully Lou will set up the team for success (correct pitching changes, pinch hitting, etc) more than Dusty did

Or, in other words, getting a .335/.418/.662 season out of Derrek Lee can make up for an awful lot of wrong pinch-hitting calls.

Here's the Cubs "rotation" from 2006 (with overall VORP, including relief appearances):

Zambrano: 52.8
Hill: 16.5
Maddux: 13.3
W.Miller: 2.7
Wood: 0.1 (yes, he was their 5th-best SP!)
Mateo: -0.2
Marshall: -0.9
Walrond: -1.2
Marmol: -1.7
Williams: -3.7
Prior: -9.7
Guzman: -9.9
Rusch: -12.6

Obviously, Prior is a complete wild card. But I don't think it takes drinking a pitcher of the kool-aid to envision something like this in 2007:
Zambrano: 50
Prior: 30
Hill: 30
(FA signing - Maddux maybe?): 20
W.Miller: 10
Marshall: 10
Others: 0

... and that's Zambrano+100 instead of Zambrano-10, or more than +100 VORP improvement in the rotation without counting on any big-ticket FA's.

The Cubs are not a true 96-loss team. They played last year with possibly the worst manager in the game making horrific personnel decisions, with a bad closer, and without Lee for most of the year.

Oh, well then it's a good thing they signed ARAM and Wood. That pair is sure to put them over the top. All they need now is Juanne Pierre, and you can pencil them in as pennant contenders.

I've checked -- that's the best improvement record any manager's had since the death of Billy Martin.

Actually, Dusty Baker's record is better. Quite a bit better.

Only two teams, though, so I marked off. For more, read the Phil Garner section here.

But there's more to a manager's job than that. Some people have this idea that players are basically APBA cards who will spit out a certaint stat line no matter what's going on around them. In one of the Girardi threads, someone said that he didn't deserve any credit for how well the Marlins played, because their success was all predicated on a bunch of young players playing well.

Agree completely.

Baker's clear strength was getting players to play well, and you can't disregard that in evaluating him as a manager.

Actually, last year he wasn't any good at that either, though. See the Dusty Baker comments in the link already given in this post for more on that.

Oh, well then it's a good thing they signed ARAM and Wood. That pair is sure to put them over the top. All they need now is Juanne Pierre, and you can pencil them in as pennant contenders.

Can't believe how fast the offseason went by. And Hendry's still sitting on the sidelines with 35M in his pockets. Shucks.

Actually, last year he wasn't any good at that either, though.

I don't really disagree, and as I said at one point last season, if Dusty's not going to work his magic on guys like Pierre and Jacque Jones, the Cubs are better off firing him.

I'm sticking with 75 wins until I see either a plus starting pitcher or plus offense contributing SS added to the roster.

I also think it's a mistake to just 'assume' that Lee returns to anywhere near his 2005 level. It's not like a wrist injury is something to just assume 'gets all better' -- there are plenty of guys who had careers wrecked by wrist injuries that don't heal well.... Take Willie Greene - granted, he had certainly never proved himself at the big league level --- but do you really think the Indianapolis/Cincy minor league medical staff is a lot worse than the Cubs medical staff?

Exactly what evidence do we have that any part of the Cubs medical and training staff would be able to help Lee get back to anywhere near what he was a year ago? Sure - lots of the work falls on the player himself, but I hesitate to find ANY seriously injured player under Cub contract where I would say "Boy did they do a good job getting him healthy." Scott Williamson? Wade Miller?

I hate to say -- but my bet is that D-Lee's numbers slide back to his Marlin days production. That's still good production... but it's not 6 years/70 mil (or whatever Lee's contract is) level production.

And even if Lee comes back to something close to 2005... that still doesn't solve the fact that the Cubs' run scoring troubles revolve around the fact that no one on this team likes hearing ball four. Hell, even Lee -- probably the most patient of Cub hitters -- has seen his BB numbers drop since donning Cubby blue.

Can't believe how fast the offseason went by. And Hendry's still sitting on the sidelines with 35M in his pockets. Shucks.

There isn't a whole lot out there that excites me. Schmidt? No thanks - given Cub luck, his shoulder finally implodes. Zito? I don't think he'll be worth the price he'll fetch. Soriano? Blech... I'm wishing whatever outlandish deal he signs on my worst enemy. Carlos Lee? We already have one named Jacque Jones.

I fear that this team is going to dump money on an overpriced 'tier 1' player -- and we're going to have Danny Jackson redux.

The smarter move -- I think there are some lower level bargains out there. Sit on the 25-30 mil leftover - so you can take on a big contract mid-season if all the breaks work out (Andruw Jones maybe?).

Ray Durham would be a good signing. Other than that, I think I'd be focusing on reclamation projects... Dotel, Kapler, etc... or folks that look like they might be bargains like a Craig Wilson or a Mark Redman. There's just seriously not much out there that I think justifies 25-30 mil... and the problem is -- none of them fit the key need of playing CF or SS and being an OBP machine. Can Loretta play a competent SS any more?

I'll trot this out again:

The 2002 Cubs won 67 games. The 2003 Cubs won 88, made the playoffs and nearly the WS. I'd probably prefer the core of the 2002 team.

The 2000 Cubs won 65 games. The 2001 Cubs won 88 games though missed the playoffs. I'll take the core of the 2006 team over the 2000 team.

The 1997 Cubs won 68 games. The 1998 Cubs won 90 games and made the playoffs. The core of the 1997 team was laughable; the talent of the 1998 team was laughable.

That's 3 times in the last decade the Cubs have had huge seasonal turnarounds. That doesn't mean it will happen again but it does point up how "easily" it can be done. The 2007 Cubs are a team with 4 potential AS (Lee, Ramirez, Zambrano, Barrett) and that's a lot of talent. They're also a team with a fair number of average-ish players (Murton, Jones, the bullpen) and some high-risk, high-reward guys (Prior, Wood, Hill). That's a perfectly fine albeit perfectly blah core of talent.

The fact is that a rotation of Zambrano, Hill, Prior, Miller, one of the lesser Japanese guys (or a Suppan type) with their various kids as 6th starters has the potential to be the best in the NL. With injuries (which are obviously pretty likely) and without the Japanese/Suppan addition, it could easily be as awful as last year. To me, that's the big question mark.

Kuroda, the Japanese pitcher the Cubs were rumored to be pursuing in lieu of Matsuzaka/Igawa, signed with Hiroshima. That means the Japanese pitching market is really only Igawa and the 38 year old Kuwata. I think there will be a lot of teams bidding on Igawa, since he seems to be a solid lefty and the market for even mediocre pitchers is thin. The Cubs are also rumored to be interested in Aaron Heilman and Ted Lilly, either of whom could be pretty good options.

Since they're fairly far along in the minors, I think Veal or Gallagher could force themselves into the picture by midseason. But even if they perform well, if the Cubs pick up another starter or two, they'd probably only be Miller/Prior injury insurance.

This notion that Baker is the worst manager in the majors is pretty ridiculous. Yes, he's a poor judge of talent and a weak tactician. But there's more to a manager's job than that... Baker's clear strength was getting players to play well, and you can't disregard that in evaluating him as a manager.

He not only seems to be losing that ability (if he ever actually had it- now Billy Martin- if a manager ever had that ability it was him)- but that aspect seems to be turning into a negative- leaving him with no apparent positives as a manager- but he's still gotta be better than Buddy bell

Or, you could have Mark DeRosa for 3/13.

but he's still gotta be better than Buddy bell -

I probably stayed hooked on the Dusty fairy dust longer than most Primer Cub fans (though I like to think I became as "born again" as the next) -- but I gotta agree.

Any talk about Baker as the "worst" manager is just silly. He's certainly not the worst manager with a job... and anyone that lived through Jim Essian knows there's a looonnnngggg way to go before you reach the point of worst manager in recent Cub history.

I'd still rank Dusty decidedly higher than Don Baylor -- whom I thought was as close one can come to disasters of Essian proportions.

Their moves consist of a new manager and re-signing 2 players from last year's 96-loss team. I guess their work is done! Sure a healthy Lee should be worth a few wins, but what "moves" did they make exactly besides wishful thinking? Upping the payroll isn't a move unless you actually sign players that are better than what you had. Paying ARam more money doesn't make him more productive.

but I hesitate to find ANY seriously injured player under Cub contract where I would say "Boy did they do a good job getting him healthy." Scott Williamson? Wade Miller?

Ryan Dempster.

I'd still rank Dusty decidedly higher than Don Baylor -- whom I thought was as close one can come to disasters of Essian proportions.

A long time ago, when Don Baylor and Hal McRae were both useful players, both were touted, relentlessly as future managerial material. My personal rule of thumb is that if an above average player is touted as a future manager- stay away- he will be a disaster. A player like that is touted by the media for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to manage people.

They are promoted as "leaders", they are "respected veterans"...
and when they become managers? they show absolutely no clue when it comes to talent evaluation or roster construction, they "prefer" veteran players- because they "know what to expect" from them, but they tend to get angry if a player is in a slump (even if said player is a veteran)- all their alleged "leadership" skills evaporate- they have a harder time relating to and communicating with younger players than 60 year old bench coaches do.

and after failing- usually spectacularly- they'll get 2nd and sometimes 3rd chances to manage.

Well it was only 1 year, but Girardi turned out pretty well for a guy constantly touted by the media as a future manager.