MLB Playoffs

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Delicious schadenfreude in today's USA Today.

The Compu-Fax!

[mu-rara]

Life is good today

You are, by far, my favorite Chicago sports fan.  Back in the day Sox fans never rooted for the Cubs.  And they liked it like that.

My Chicago cousins are (were) all cheering for the Cubs.  Half of them grew up Sox fans.  Just not right. 

Enjoy.

[wadesworld]

Did you accept that the Sox are and will continue to be irrelevant?  Good for you!

The White Sox have been much more relevant than the Cubs (and Brewers) have in this decade, millennium, and generation.

[GGGG]

The White Sox have been much more relevant than the Cubs (and Brewers) have in this decade, millennium, and generation.

In the past decade, the White Sox have made one post season, losing in the ALDS.

The Brewers have been to two post seasons during that same time frame and advanced to the NLCS once.

The Cubs have been to three post seasons during that same time frame and advanced to the NLCS once.

[wadesworld]

In the past decade, the White Sox have made one post season, losing in the ALDS.

The Brewers have been to two post seasons during that same time frame and advanced to the NLCS once.

The Cubs have been to three post seasons during that same time frame and advanced to the NLCS once.

Sorry, I included the White Sox's World Series from 2005 in the last decade.  The point remains, a Cubs fan calling the White Sox irrelevant is pretty funny.

[GGGG]

If you include the 2005 WS, then your statement is accurate until next Tuesday.  The Sox won the series on 10/26/05.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Sorry, I included the White Sox's World Series from 2005 in the last decade.  The point remains, a Cubs fan calling the White Sox irrelevant is pretty funny.

You have a strange sense of humor considering it's true.  The Cubs are no longer irrelevant and will be very good for the foreseeable future.  The past doesn't matter.  And aside from one postseason when they got hot, let's not act like the White Sox have a long history of success either.   

The White Sox are largely irrelevant in Chicago - they can't even draw fans when they have a decent team.  Not to mention they've been worse than the Cubs the past three years on the field as well, which is saying something considering how awful the Cubs have been until this year.   

I don't have any problem with Sox fans rooting against the Cubs - it's completely natural.  But those Sox fans who seem to care more about the Cubs losing than their own team winning, and there are a lot of them, deserve a little crap for it.   

[77ncaachamps]

It was their year to win it.

I'm glad the Cubs lost.

I wouldn't be able to take the 24/7 sports talk about their appearance in the Series.

#BlameMurphy

[wadesworld]

Murphy's Law.

[Pakuni]

The Cubs are no longer irrelevant and will be very good for the foreseeable future.

Said every Cubs fan in late October 2003.

[JWags85]

It was their year to win it.

I'm glad the Cubs lost.

I wouldn't be able to take the 24/7 sports talk about their appearance in the Series.

#BlameMurphy

Hold on, what?  Their year to win it?  Based on what?  Being in the NLCS?

Said every Cubs fan in late October 2003.

Night and Day, that was a window closing despite having 2 good young pitchers.  That team was anchored by 3 outfielders over the age of 35 in Sosa, Alou, and Lofton.  The only young offensive talent was Ramirez and Patterson (debatable).  Not to mention the strength of the farm system at the moment.

[JWags85]

It was their year to win it.

I'm glad the Cubs lost.

I wouldn't be able to take the 24/7 sports talk about their appearance in the Series.

#BlameMurphy

Hold on, what?  Their year to win it?  Based on what?  Being in the NLCS?

Said every Cubs fan in late October 2003.

Night and Day, that was a window closing despite having 2 good young pitchers.  That team was anchored by 3 outfielders over the age of 35 in Sosa, Alou, and Lofton.  The only young offensive talent was Ramirez and Patterson (debatable).  Not to mention the strength of the farm system at the moment.

[Pakuni]

Night and Day, that was a window closing despite having 2 good young pitchers.  That team was anchored by 3 outfielders over the age of 35 in Sosa, Alou, and Lofton.  The only young offensive talent was Ramirez and Patterson (debatable).  Not to mention the strength of the farm system at the moment.

Two good young pitchers?
Kerry Wood was 26.
Mark Prior was 22.
Carlos Zambrano was 22.
Juan Cruz - the guy Cubs fans insisted was the next Pedro Martinez - was 24.
Heck, Matt Clement was only 28.

It's funny you now claim Patterson was seen as a "debatable" talent. You're either very young or very forgetful of the hype that surrounded that guy as a surefire five-tool superstar, a guy Baseball America once ranked the top prospect in all baseball. And let's not forget 24-year-old Hee-Seop Choi, the guy the Cubs dumped Mark Grace for.
Yes, the Cubs lineup of 2003 was older than the Cubs lineup of 2015, but no one in their right mind chooses a stable of young, talented position players over a stable of young, dominant starters.
I mean, would you really rather have Bryant, Rizzo, Reed and Schwarber over deGrom, Harvey, Syndergard and Matz?

Look, my point here is sh-- happens in baseball. Guys get hurt. Guys regress (often). Career years never get repeated. Bad luck occurs. Assuming the Cubs are going to be "very good for the foreseeable future" is foolish. It's certainly a possibility. It's also possible they never win anything that matters.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Two good young pitchers?
Kerry Wood was 26.
Mark Prior was 22.
Carlos Zambrano was 22.
Juan Cruz - the guy Cubs fans insisted was the next Pedro Martinez - was 24.
Heck, Matt Clement was only 28.

It's funny you now claim Patterson was seen as a "debatable" talent. You're either very young or very forgetful of the hype that surrounded that guy as a surefire five-tool superstar, a guy Baseball America once ranked the top prospect in all baseball. And let's not forget 24-year-old Hee-Seop Choi, the guy the Cubs dumped Mark Grace for.
Yes, the Cubs lineup of 2003 was older than the Cubs lineup of 2015, but no one in their right mind chooses a stable of young, talented position players over a stable of young, dominant starters.
I mean, would you really rather have Bryant, Rizzo, Reed and Schwarber over deGrom, Harvey, Syndergard and Matz?

Look, my point here is sh-- happens in baseball. Guys get hurt. Guys regress (often). Career years never get repeated. Bad luck occurs. Assuming the Cubs are going to be "very good for the foreseeable future" is foolish. It's certainly a possibility. It's also possible they never win anything that matters.

Personally, I'd absolutely rather have Bryant, Rizzo, Russell (not Reed), and Schwarber over DeGrom, Harvey, Syndergaard and Matz.  And the young Cubs pitchers you mention earlier in your post are exactly why.  Good pitching beats good hitting but good hitting is much more sustainable and less prone to injury or breaking down than pitching.  Look at what happened to Wood and Prior. 

As for Corey Patterson, there was a ton of hype around him and he did have a lot of talent but Baseball America and other ranking services have made their fair share of mistakes.  Choi was also traded for Derrek Lee, which turned out pretty well. 

You are absolutely right to say that sh*t happens and nothing is guaranteed in baseball.  Career years are never repeated - that's why they are career years.  Two players on this team had career years this season - Jake Arrieta and Dexter Fowler.  Rizzo had an MVP-caliber season and can still get better.  If you think Bryant, Russell, Schwarber and Soler won't continue to improve I would strongly disagree with you.  This is a team with an immense amount of talent already in place, increasing payroll flexibility, a great manager, an excellent front office, and likely a top 5 system to fill in pieces or trade for proven talent, even after bringing up the players mentioned above.       

Assuming they should be very good for the foreseeable future is not foolish - it is an educated opinion.   Once you get to the playoffs it's a crapshoot but there's no reason to think they won't be annual contenders for the next five years. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Is the edit function not working?  Been trying to fix a typo in the last post with no luck. 

[Macallan 18]

Best sign of the night!

http://m.mlb.com/assets/images/4/0/0/155219400/cuts/102115_nym_murphy_goat_rjpm18s3_a9xw47vo.jpg

Guess the Cubs still can't overcome the Curse of the Billy Goat!!

[buckchuckler]

If you include the 2005 WS, then your statement is accurate until next Tuesday.  The Sox won the series on 10/26/05.

Ok, why on Earth would you not count that.  It was within the last 10 years.  I'm soaking it up for the next 5 days. 

[buckchuckler]

The White Sox are largely irrelevant in Chicago - they can't even draw fans when they have a decent team.  Not to mention they've been worse than the Cubs the past three years on the field as well, which is saying something considering how awful the Cubs have been until this year.   

Well a well.  A cub fan crowing about attendance.  That's really an original take.  Quick question, did you go to MU or Dayton?

All I know is that over my life the Sox (since 81) have been considerably better.  Over my lifetime the Sox have had 20 seasons of .500 or better ball.  Over that same period the Cubs have had 12.  I know, not exactly the measure of greatness, but still the Cubs are 12-20 in reaching .500 over my life.

It is also dangerous to say the Cubs are going to be really good for a long time.  It sure looks like it, but you never know.  The 2000 White Sox had some truly great core of young hitters, Konerko, Magglio, and C Lee.  With some highly touted prospects on the horizion.  But that group was never able to slug their way to a championship.  It was their young pitching that made more of an impact (Buehrle and Garland) Not too much of a point other than baseball can be a weird game.

I will say, I loved this series.  And no, not just because the Cubs lost.  For me it was the matchup.  The team that focused on building around young pitching vs the team that focused on young hitting.  Pretty good stuff.  It looks like they will be seeing more of each other in the playoffs, but I guess the Cards, Pirates, Giants, Dodgers, Dbacks etc all will have something to say about that. 

[buckchuckler]

On Inside Pitch (an MLB radio show) they were discussing the Cubs offseason, and brought up trading Schwarber.  Their logic was that he is basically a DH, and Bryant's future is likely in the OF.  So they were saying the Cubs could play Baez at 3b, Russell at SS, Castro at 1B, move Bryant to LF, find a CF (Eddy Martinez??? Really shady how they signed him btw), and keep Soler in RF. 

I know the Cub fans are probably protesting, but the trade they were hypothetically discussing was Schwarber for Sonny Gray.  What would you all think about that?

To me that still seems like enough offense, especially since all your best prospects are hitters, and a front 3 of Arrieta, Gray and Lester would be pretty dang strong. 

If I were Theo, I'd probably take that. 

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

On Inside Pitch (an MLB radio show) they were discussing the Cubs offseason, and brought up trading Schwarber.  Their logic was that he is basically a DH, and Bryant's future is likely in the OF.  So they were saying the Cubs could play Baez at 3b, Russell at SS, Castro at 1B, move Bryant to LF, find a CF (Eddy Martinez??? Really shady how they signed him btw), and keep Soler in RF. 

I know the Cub fans are probably protesting, but the trade they were hypothetically discussing was Schwarber for Sonny Gray.  What would you all think about that?

To me that still seems like enough offense, especially since all your best prospects are hitters, and a front 3 of Arrieta, Gray and Lester would be pretty dang strong. 

If I were Theo, I'd probably take that.

On the score they were just talking about the opposite, how Schwarber is Maddons and Epsteins guy and how he is the last one that is gonna be traded.

[Pakuni]

Personally, I'd absolutely rather have Bryant, Rizzo, Russell (not Reed), and Schwarber over DeGrom, Harvey, Syndergaard and Matz.  And the young Cubs pitchers you mention earlier in your post are exactly why.  Good pitching beats good hitting but good hitting is much more sustrightble and less prone to injury or breaking down than pitching.  Look at what happened to Wood and Prior. 

It's a mistake to think progress is inevitable for a young hitter with potential. Fact is, Kris Bryant and Addison Russell may be as good as they're ever going to be.
As a Cubs fan, you out of all people ought to know this.
See: Jerome Walton
See: Starlin Castro
See: Mel Hall
See: Geovany Soto

Yes, the risk of injury is greater with a pitcher. Said risk is much greater when your manager allows them to tack up ridiculous pitch counts (Hi, Dusty!). But starting pitching is so much more valuable than any other part of the game - and much harder to replace. I'm still wholly convinced 10 out of 10 MLB GMs would take the Mets' rotation over the Cubs' lineup. I mean, did the last five days teach us nothing?

[Pakuni]

On the score they were just talking about the opposite, how Schwarber is Maddons and Epsteins guy and how he is the last one that is gonna be traded.

Schwarber = Pete Incaviglia.

[buckchuckler]

On the score they were just talking about the opposite, how Schwarber is Maddons and Epsteins guy and how he is the last one that is gonna be traded.

John Paxon syndrome eh?  To me he seems like a natural to be traded, since he doesn't have a position.  I suppose next season will tell.  If he shows he can play a passable LF, that changes.  But if he doesn't get better, he needs to be Manny Ramirez good (at least) to support that defense.  I mean, he made Dayan Viciedo look like Alex Gordon.

[NavinRJohnson]

Theo today said again they plan to have Schwarber catch, but also play the outfield. The dude is not going to catch. He is destined for the OF, and can probably be ok. The problem as I see it, is that I think Bryant is going to end up in the OF  as well. I think the run the risk of having a very bad defensive outfield. Whatever, they're smart people. they'll figure it out, but I too think they would be wise to seriously consider offers for Schwarber. They need to improve rotation depth, find a bullpen arm or two, get better defensively, and round out their bench.

[jesmu84]

Theo today said again they plan to have Schwarber catch, but also play the outfield. The dude is not going to catch. He is destined for the OF, and can probably be ok. The problem as I see it, is that I think Bryant is going to end up in the OF  as well. I think the run the risk of having a very bad defensive outfield. Whatever, they're smart people. they'll figure it out, but I too think they would be wise to seriously consider offers for Schwarber. They need to improve rotation depth, find a bullpen arm or two, get better defensively, and round out their bench.

Thing is, there are so many top level pitchers and hitters out there this off season in free agency that they can fill most of those spots without a trade. I think the only way they take a trade is if it balances their way