Chicago Pro Teams Prediction: Chicago and the playoffs

I'll try this new thing called "Chicago Pro Teams Prediction" because I like offering my predictions and seeing how right or wrong I was. Hopefully I will be right with this on.

I predict.......that at least one Chicago baseball team will be in the playoffs this October.

Really, I think both the Cubs and the White Sox will go to the playoffs, but I am certain that Chicago will be represented in the 2008 MLB Playoffs. As for the World Series, I'm not ready to make any predictions about that yet.

Did You Know: how the Cubs and White Sox got their names

This is kind of like what ESPN's Sportcenter's "Did You Know". The main differences in mine at times might be longer and it will be about Chicago teams instead of East Coast teams! Sorry, I couldn't resist. By the way, does Sportscenter still do "Did You Know". I can't remember now.

This hopefully will be the first in a series. I hope to do several "Did You Know"s in the future but we'll see I guess.

The first "Did You Know" or "DYK" as I might call is going to be how the Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox became the Cubs and Sox. Although it seems that has been their names forever, at one point they both had different names and they eventually got changed to Cubs and Sox. How did that happen? I'm going to tell you. The quotes are from Great Baseball Feats, Facts, & Firsts by David Nemec and Scott Flatow. According to the book, the Cubs were previously called the White Stockings, Colts, Orphans, Broncos, and Cowboys. The White Sox were previously called the Invaders after the American League "invaded" Chicago. The only reason the Cubs were the Colts was because their player-manager Cap Anson was in a play called Runaway Colt. When Anson left, that is when they started being called the Orphans. If they still named teams using that method, the Oakland A's would probably be called the Oakland Poormen because of their very low payroll.

First the Cubs:

"In 1901 Chicago sportwriters George Rice and Fred Hayner began referring to them as the Cubs because their roster was stocked with so many young players after the American League raids had depleted it."

That's kinda odd right? Sportswriters naming teams. Can you see that happening today? Imagine if a Pittsburgh sportswriter wrote, "The Pirates looked like a bunch of turtles out there the way they were reacting to plays." I really doubt the league would officially change the Pittsburgh Pirates to the Pittsburgh Turtles just because some sportswriter called them that.

And now, the White Sox:

The AL Chicago team changed their name to the White Stockings in 1901 "which had been discarded by its National League conterpart (the Cubs) in the late 1880s, but the sobriquet (meaning nickname...why couldn't they write that?) was immediately abbrviated to fit into sports page headlines."

So how about that? The Cubs are the Cubs because MLB really valued the opinions of sportwriters in the early 1900s and the White Sox are the White Sox because White Stockings was too long to fit in sports page headlines.

Interesting....did you know that?

Devin Hester Holdout

This is a little late but I wanted to talk about the Devin Hester holdout that ended recently. I feeling was that he deserved to ask for more money, but it was wrong of him to not attend camp. I'm glad he only missed two practices, so I forgive him. He's now a Chicago Bear through 2013, which is great because I would love to see Hester retire as a Bear someday.

I don't want to see Favre with the Bears

There is a possibility Brett Favre might be wearing Blue and Orange next year as a member of the Beloved Chicago Bears. I don't want to see that happen. It's not really because he is arguably Chicago's most hated opponent. It's also not really because I think Favre should retire as a Green Bay Packer like John Elway retired as a Denver Bronco, Dan Marino retired as a Miami Dolphin, and Troy Aikman retired as a Dallas Cowboy. Sure Favre was first with the Atlanta Falcons but Chicago Cubs great Ryne Sandberg started his career with the Philadelphia Phillies.

Those are just the other reasons. Here are the main reasons I don't want Favre to join the Bears:

1. He is no longer a young quarterback and he is past his prime. Favre is 38 years old and will turn 39 this October. He's not the same quarterback who led the Packers to two Super Bowls. Sure he had an impressive season last year. His 95.7 QB Rating was the highest season total for him since 1996, but can he do it again? I don't think he can. The Bears would be getting 2008 Favre not 1996 Favre. This would be like when the Washington Wizards got Michael Jordan or when the Boston Braves got Babe Ruth when Ruth was 40 years old. Brett Favre's best days are behind him now. Plus, everyone saw how bad he was in that Soldier Field game last December. That game he had a 40.2 QB rating and threw two interceptions. After the game, Favre said, “I’ve been playing 17 years, and that was the worst condition I’ve ever played in.” Now he might have to play there at least eight times next year? Do Bears fans really want to see that? Don't forget about his health. Sure, he has that long consecutive games played streak but he plays hurt. Call it heroic if you want but how heroic is he if he is throwing two interceptions in a game because his shoulder hurts? A healthy Rex Grossman or Kyle Orton is better than a banged up old Brett Favre. Playing hurt would be bad not to mention Favre would be pretty much insulting his teammates. He's basically saying, "A less than 100% Brett Favre is better than a healthy Rex Grossman." Helping the team isn't playing hurt. Helping the team is admitting you are too hurt to perform at your best. The Bears need a good and young QB not a QB who is too close to 40 and is towards the end of his career.
2. The Bears need a franchise quarterback, not a quarterback wanting to play one last season. The main reason the Packers want Favre to stay retired is because they want to finally start the Aaron Rodgers era. The Packers knew Favre wasn't going to play forever so they slowly developed Rodgers into their future franchise QB. The Packers don't want to wait anymore. They know Favre's best days are behind him. That is the same exact reason the Bears should avoid Favre. Hate them or love them, Grossman or Orton have a chance to become a solid starting QB for the next 10-15 years. Look what a franchise QB has done for teams like the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts. Those two teams have combined for four Super Bowl championships. Hell, five of the last seven Super Bowls have featured either the Colts or the Patriots. Thanks to Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, those two teams are Super Bowl contenders every season. I'm not saying Orton or Grossman could be as good as Brady or Manning but I do see the importance of having one QB for 10-15 years. They are still at an age in which one of them can become the Bears franchise QB. Adding Favre just delays the start of the Grossman era or the Orton era. They lose a year if Favre joins the Bears. Unless the Bears become instant Super Bowl contenders because of Favre, it is not worth it. Besides, what if Favre hints that he wants to return in 2009? Now, Orton and Grossman have to worry about a second year in a row being backup to Favre. Grossman is only signed for 2008. With Favre talking about playing in 2009, Grossman might consider trying to sign with another team. If Tavaris Jackson does bad, maybe the Minnesota Vikings will want Grossman as their starting QB in 2009. Grossman might not even wait for Favre to announce if he is going to play in 2009. What if Grossman signs with Minnesota and Favre later decides to retire? Now Orton is the starting QB by default. The Bears would have to hope that Orton ends up having a better career than Grossman because signing Favre led to the Bears losing Grossman to the Vikings. I don't want to see Grossman win a Super Bowl with the Vikings and have me thinking that he should have won it as a Chicago Bear. You think we have quarterback controversy now? Adding Favre just makes this mess even worse.

The good news is that it is highly unlikely Favre will join the Bears. The Packers do NOT want to trade Favre to a division rival let alone the hated Chicago Bears. If Favre did however somehow end up playing for a NFC North team other than the Packers, it would likely be the Vikings. It's not "too hot" which was the reason Favre will try to avoid playing for the Tampa Bay Bucs and Favre played better indoors last season than outdoors. The Vikings of course play home games in a dome. Favre probably still has nightmares about his last Soldier Field experience. Whatever scenerio happens, it won't have Favre joining the Chicago Bears.....at least I hope not.

Cubs pitchers have great All-Star Game!

A big reason for the Cubs success this year has been their pitching. Yesterday at the MLB All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium in New York, Cubs pitchers Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster, and Carlos Marmol showed why they were three of four Cubs pitchers selected to the All-Star Game (the other being Kerry Wood who missed the game due to a blister).

Here are the stats for their performances:

Zambrano: 2 IP 1 H 0 ER 0 BB 1 K

Dempster: 1 IP 0 H 0 ER 0 BB 3 K

Marmol: 1 IP 0 H 0 ER 0 BB 2 K

Combined?

4 IP 1 H 0 ER 0 BB 6 K

Amazing and this was against "All-Star" hitters! I can't remember Dempster striking out the side the whole season and Marmol rebounded nicely from his last game in which he allowed four earned runs on five hits and one walk. The Cubs hitters Geovany Soto, Aramis Ramirez, and Kosuke Fukudome were a disappointing 0 for 4 with two strikeouts and one walk combined but the pitchers made the Cubs organization proud. Any doubt that Dempster and Marmol belonged in the All-Star Game was erased last night.

MLB Playoffs Predictions!!

Eight teams will be fighting for the trophy you see at the beginning of this post, but which eight teams? It is still early but now that the season is officially half-way over, I will take a guess at the eight playoff teams in October.

Well here it goes:

AL CENTRAL: Chicago White Sox

Call me a homer but the Sox have a very good team. They already showed they have the pitching but now they have convinced me that their offense is elite too. If a team has a great combination of offense and pitching, they will be very hard to defeat. The big key is that guys like Jim Thome, Nick Swisher, and Mark Buehrle have put their struggles behind them and are playing great now.

Even Cubs manager Lou Piniella said, "The White Sox should win that division by a half-dozen games or more, to tell you the truth. They have everything you need. Everybody looks at the Cubs … look at the White Sox."

I agree. The Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, and Minnesota Twins are good teams, but I think the Sox are just simply better.

AL EAST: Boston Red Sox

The Tampa Rays have been impressive but the Red Sox are just more experienced. They may be in 2nd place now but by the end of the season, the BoSox should be in 1st place.

AL WEST: Los Angeles Angels

The Angels win the division because they are a good team but also because the rest of the division isn't that good. The Oakland A's are currently 3.5 games out of 1st place as I type this but I think they are overachieving. Then again, the A's always overachieve, but the Angels have great hitting and solid pitching. The Texas Rangers are getting better but I doubt they are still in the race by September. The Seattle Mariners never had a chance and they are now 17.5 games out of 1st place.

AL WILD CARD: Tampa Bay Rays

It has to be the Rays. They would win the division if it weren't for the Red Sox. The Rays should have no problem beating out the New York Yankees, Twins, Tigers, A's, and Rangers.

NL CENTRAL: Chicago Cubs

Can't call me a homer for this one. The Cubs are the best team in the NL and even though the NL Central St. Louis Cardinals have the NL's 2nd best record, the Cubs are still a better team than them. I don't see how the Cubs don't win the division.

NL EAST: Philadelphia Phillies

The Florida Marlins are making the race interesting but right now the Phillies are struggling and the Marlins are overachieving. The Phillies are probably more afraid of the New York Mets who will make it hard for the Phillies but the Mets will fall just short in the end.

NL WEST: Los Angeles Dodgers

The Arizona Diamondbacks are this year's Milwaukee Brewers (started 24-10 in 2007 and missed the playoffs). The Diamondbacks were 28-16 at one point this season and had the NL's best record. Now they are 42-41 and have seen their 6.5 game lead shrink to a 3.5 game lead. They peaked too early. Now instead of getting better, they are getting worse. That should give the Dodgers a chance to claim the division in the final weeks of the season if not earlier.

NL WILD CARD: New York Mets

I'm not very confident the Mets can all of a sudden start winning but I'm not very confident that the Cardinals or Brewers will keep winning either. I think there is still time for the Mets to turn their season around (like the Yankees did in 2007) and there is still time for the Cardinals to start struggling and miss the playoffs (like the Mets did in 2007).

Ok...come back in October and see if I'm right.