JIM CALLIS
I don't see how it's vastly improved at all this year. The Cubs spent a ton of money, and they still might not be a .500 team. I mean, Jason Marquis is your No. 3 starter? I must have missed the part about how the rest of the NL Central teams got a lot better.
This about sums it up for the cubbies.
Seriously though, I really don't get how the NL Central is called 'weak.' It's as strong as the other divisions. Am I wrong?
I mean i just think the NL Central really is lacking a dominant team this season, and that is the problem. Every team has tons and tons of holes. I mean the Astros lost 2 of their top starters and have the black holes of Ausmus, Everett and sometimes Biggio in the lineup. The Cubs have questions in their rotation (as per Marquis being a Number 3) and they have no closer. The Reds are going to have problems scoring runs, their bullpen (closer) is weak and they have questions in the back half of their rotation. The Brewers seem to have the least amount of questions, but nothing stands out about them. THe Pirates are just the pirates. They have filled some holes, but still arent ready to play with the top half of the league. And the Cardinals will have problems scoring runs, the back half of their bullpen is questionable without (or with) Izzy, and if the rotation doesnt pitch like they are right now there could be problems.
I know you could probably do this with most divisions, but it just seems there isnt a whole lot to like about most of the teams in the division.
JIM CALLIS
I don't see how it's vastly improved at all this year. The Cubs spent a ton of money, and they still might not be a .500 team. I mean, Jason Marquis is your No. 3 starter? I must have missed the part about how the rest of the NL Central teams got a lot better.
This about sums it up for the cubbies.
Seriously though, I really don't get how the NL Central is called 'weak.' It's as strong as the other divisions. Am I wrong?
I mean i just think the NL Central really is lacking a dominant team this season, and that is the problem. Every team has tons and tons of holes. I mean the Astros lost 2 of their top starters and have the black holes of Ausmus, Everett and sometimes Biggio in the lineup. The Cubs have questions in their rotation (as per Marquis being a Number 3) and they have no closer. The Reds are going to have problems scoring runs, their bullpen (closer) is weak and they have questions in the back half of their rotation. The Brewers seem to have the least amount of questions, but nothing stands out about them. THe Pirates are just the pirates. They have filled some holes, but still arent ready to play with the top half of the league. And the Cardinals will have problems scoring runs, the back half of their bullpen is questionable without (or with) Izzy, and if the rotation doesnt pitch like they are right now there could be problems.
I know you could probably do this with most divisions, but it just seems there isnt a whole lot to like about most of the teams in the division.
I hear you, but I don't see how the NL central is much worse then the other divisions.
Hungary Jack wrote:
I'll never understand the DeRosa signing beyond the "money is no object" approach suddenly adopted by the Cubs this offseason. They could have gotten Belliard to keep the keystone warm for Patterson for a fraction of what they gave to DeRosa.
I think you can probably pinpoint in a nutshell the difference between the Cards and Cubs over the past years with the DeRosa/Kennedy signing. Both teams went looking for a 2B, and the Cardinals get the better player for less money.
Hungary Jack wrote:
I'll never understand the DeRosa signing beyond the "money is no object" approach suddenly adopted by the Cubs this offseason. They could have gotten Belliard to keep the keystone warm for Patterson for a fraction of what they gave to DeRosa.
I think you can probably pinpoint in a nutshell the difference between the Cards and Cubs over the past years with the DeRosa/Kennedy signing. Both teams went looking for a 2B, and the Cardinals get the better player for less money.
I don't see how Kennedy is definitively the better player.
Hungary Jack wrote:
I'll never understand the DeRosa signing beyond the "money is no object" approach suddenly adopted by the Cubs this offseason. They could have gotten Belliard to keep the keystone warm for Patterson for a fraction of what they gave to DeRosa.
I think you can probably pinpoint in a nutshell the difference between the Cards and Cubs over the past years with the DeRosa/Kennedy signing. Both teams went looking for a 2B, and the Cardinals get the better player for less money.
I don't see how Kennedy is definitively the better player.
Though I agree with your point.
DeRosa had a great year last year, is that the real guy or are the Cubs paying a premium for a guy who started off redhot and tailed off?
PECOTA says Kennedy is has a WARP of 3.5, DeRosa 2.5. I know WARP overvalues defense some, but I would definitely take Kennedy over DeRosa for a 2B (DeRosa has some flexibility that has some value) at the same price.
Hungary Jack wrote:
I'll never understand the DeRosa signing beyond the "money is no object" approach suddenly adopted by the Cubs this offseason. They could have gotten Belliard to keep the keystone warm for Patterson for a fraction of what they gave to DeRosa.
I think you can probably pinpoint in a nutshell the difference between the Cards and Cubs over the past years with the DeRosa/Kennedy signing. Both teams went looking for a 2B, and the Cardinals get the better player for less money.
I don't see how Kennedy is definitively the better player.
Though I agree with your point.
DeRosa had a great year last year, is that the real guy or are the Cubs paying a premium for a guy who started off redhot and tailed off?
PECOTA says Kennedy is has a WARP of 3.5, DeRosa 2.5. I know WARP overvalues defense some, but I would definitely take Kennedy over DeRosa for a 2B (DeRosa has some flexibility that has some value) at the same price.
DeRosa, like Sarge Jr., parlayed a career year in Texas into a monstrous (for him) contract. Everything about his 2006 season screams "outlier"!
Hungary Jack wrote:DeRosa, like Sarge Jr., parlayed a career year in Texas into a monstrous (for him) contract. Everything about his 2006 season screams "outlier"!
Precisely. Before last year, DeRosa was a slightly-better Joe McEwing.
Don't get me wrong- Transmogrified is right in that if he's a utility guy, the dollars aren't prohibitive or anything. It wasn't a TERRIBLE move. It'll only be bad if they run him out there, every day, thinking he'll be what he was in Texas last year.
Hungary Jack wrote:
I'll never understand the DeRosa signing beyond the "money is no object" approach suddenly adopted by the Cubs this offseason. They could have gotten Belliard to keep the keystone warm for Patterson for a fraction of what they gave to DeRosa.
I think you can probably pinpoint in a nutshell the difference between the Cards and Cubs over the past years with the DeRosa/Kennedy signing. Both teams went looking for a 2B, and the Cardinals get the better player for less money.
I don't see how Kennedy is definitively the better player.
Though I agree with your point.
DeRosa had a great year last year, is that the real guy or are the Cubs paying a premium for a guy who started off redhot and tailed off?
PECOTA says Kennedy is has a WARP of 3.5, DeRosa 2.5. I know WARP overvalues defense some, but I would definitely take Kennedy over DeRosa for a 2B (DeRosa has some flexibility that has some value) at the same price.
Oh, I don't think Derosa is going to sustain his offensive production from last year (i expect something like 270/330/400), I just don't think Kennedy is better. They're similar offensively and defensively, but I do like having Derosa's versatility. I think his offensive upside is better than Kennedy's too, but we'll see about that.
