The Chicago Cubs are expected to announce the signing of outfielder/crazy guy/great hitter Milton Bradley sometime next week; and with the trade of Mark DeRosa to the Cleveland Indians for three pitching prospects, it should be universally accepted that they are looking at resuming talks with the Padres about Jake Peavy.
With two additions like that, it is easy to see how one could call the Cubs the best heading into 2009.
But apparently, adding Bradley and Peavy only cements the Cubs as… second best.
By the end of this month, the Cubs could be the second-best team “on paper” in Major League Baseball. And in a short best-of-seven World Series, they might be able to beat the New York Yankees.
If all goes well for Richie and the legions of other long-suffering Chicago Cubs fans, Jake Peavy and Milton Bradley could be members of the team within weeks.
We’ll take that comparison on, after the jump.
Wait, wait, wait. Excuse me. Is this writer suggesting that after adding the guy who was the best hitter in the American League last year, and after adding a 27 year old former Cy Young winner to a team that was miles ahead of all others in the NL last year, that the Cubs would only be the second best on paper in baseball?
To the Yankees?!
Forgive me, but spending the gross domestic product of Paraguay in an offseason does not a great team make. With the addition of Peavy, the Cubs would have the most ridonkulous rotation I have *ever* seen. Hell, I don’t even know how to order the rotation because there would be FOUR number 1’s:
By comparison, the Yankee rotation next year will look something like:
- Joba Chamberlain (or is he headed back to the pen?)
- Phil Hughes/Ian Kennedy
I mean look at it. I can’t even tell you conclusively who the back-end starters are. Those two rotations are not even remotely close. As for the lineups, similarly, I’ll take the Cubs, though it’s closer. I suppose depending on who ends up playing 1st and DH’ing for the Yanks, their lineup could pass the Cubs, but it won’t be by much. And the bullpens are, at best, a wash.
How could any writer have suggested that AFTER adding those two superstars that the Cubs would be clearly behind the Yankees? Where’s that article from anyway?