From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Maduux gone, Cubs alive?
Keywords: Cubs, Maddux
Date: 23 Nov 92 06:45:41 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov23.051347.15676@netcom.com> arrow@netcom.com (Les Arrow) writes:
>Personally, I think the Cubs are only a few players from having a darn good
>team. Your four man staff of Morgan, Castillo, Hibbard, and Harkey is good.

It's not bad.  If they're healthy.  But Hibbard is no Maddux.  And I doubt
that the Cubs will switch to a four-man rotation.  

The Cubs had a great pitching staff last season.  But Maddux was 25% of
the starters' innings.  You take him away, and the starting pitching is just
average.  It can blip back up to above average if they sign a strong
replacement for him, rather than a Bos[i]o, but with the Cubs' anemic offense,
it won't be enough.

>I like Hibbard and just have a feeling a change of scenery even to Wrigley
>Field could have a positve affect on his career. 

It will certainly have a positive effect on his ERA.  Though not having to
face DH's will help him.  I still see a 3.8 or so ERA for him, at least.

>If Harkey can stay out
>of injury trouble, that's a solid four. 

Big if.

>Now sign a #1 starter which it
>seems Himes is talking about doing, and the pitching staff is fine. 

Himes is talking about signing Bosio.  Bosio's not a #1 starter.  In fact,
the Cubs just gave up on the best #1 starter in the free agency market.

I disagree with your [deleted] assessment that the bullpen is fine.  The
bullpen lost 28 games and had a 3.82 ERA.

>As for offense, let Dawson go and attempt to sign someone who is worth
>his money. Dawson may be a great guy but 4 mil? No. 

Agreed.

>Dunston may hurt your
>OBP, but if his glove is back, I'd be happy to have him. So our big concern
>is bats. Needs include a leadoff hitter, a 4th hitter (someone to replace
>Dawson and a 5th hitter (rightfielder).
>
>I picture a lineup of:
>
>______
>Grace 1B
>Sandberg 2B
>_______
>_______
>Sosa CF
>Duunston SS
>Sanchez 3B
>Pitcher
>
>A few holes, but really not that far way. Let's see what happens.

A *few* holes????!?!?  The Cubs, by your own count, are missing:

a #1 starter ($5 million)
a leadoff-hitter ($3 million)
a cleanup-hitter ($6 million)
a power-hitting catcher ($3 million)

Heck, if you add that to *any* team, with the exception of maybe the Angels,
then they're "really not that far away."  Except, I think the Cubs are one of
those teams where four superstars won't be enough -- especially when they're
losing their best player.

That sounds like $17 million worth of holes.  And then they're still weak at
third base, and arguably short and center.

The Cubs finished 78-84.  Give them three more wins because of expansion.
That's 81-81.  Cut three wins due to the difference between Maddux and whoever
they replace him with.  That's 78-84.  Let's say they sign Bonds and Puckett
(unlikely) for an additional five wins.  And a strong catcher, for another
couple of wins.  Then, give them extra luck (no injuries, win lots of close
games) next year, for an additional five wins.  With all of the breaks, and
miracle free agent signings, they're up to 90-72, about ten wins short of what
they'll need to post post-expansion.

And no doubt the Cubs will go for a Joe Carter-type who will be an out sink,
rather than a Barry Bonds.

And we still have to deal with a manager whose leadoff hitters had an OPS of
615.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball