Obviously as a Cubs fan you have to have an opinion on the signing of Alfonso Soriano. The expectation of how one might react is probably either (a) unbridled optimism or (b) complete despair. Needless to say, I fall pretty much square in the middle.
Things I Like About the Alfonso Soriano Signing
* It signals a willingness to spend money. You don't have to spend to win, but it usually helps.
* It signals a willingness to chase the big prize. This is a team that, historically, has not done much to go after premium free agents, even when they were entering free agency as Cubs (the Greg Maddux fiasco in 1992). Between Ramirez's re-signing and Soriano, the Cubs are showing the fans that the new goal is to chase the top of the free agent class.
* It's a power bat in an outfield corner (or possibly center field, where power bats are typically lacking, save Griffey), something lacking since Alou and Sosa left town.
* Soriano is pretty close to a five-tool guy, and although it was a rich contract, you never know - in five years it could seem like a bargain.
* Along the lines of the first one, other players might be more willing to sign with the Cubs if they think the team is desperate to win.
Things I Don't Like About the Alfonso Soriano Signing
* A willingness to spend money is nice, but 17 million a year on one guy comes dangerously close to breaking the bank, and this is with no new starting pitchers yet signed.
* The team that wins the big prize isn't always the big winner. Witness Texas landing Alex Rodriguez in 2000. Their problem was not having enough money left for pitching either.
* It could seem like a bargain in five years - but on the other hand, in five years Soriano will be approaching 36 and the deal could seem like an albatross. Not every player is going to be Bar- well, let's stick with someone clean and say Hank Aaron. The typical drop-off point for a clean player seems to be 34 or 35; Soriano's contract will only be half-over at that point. Even if you assume that he can duplicate last season for four more years, are the remaining four going to be worth it?
My guess as to the eight years is that other teams were offering seven for 17 each - Beltran money - and Soriano said to the Cubs, "I'll sign with you if you up it to 8." I suppose if you're opening the purse to win now, what's 17 million bucks in 2014? Cubs brass probably figure that an aging, salary-crippled team in seven years isn't going to matter to anyone if the Cubs can win a title or two before that, and of course they're completely right. That said, we need to see what happens with the pitching before we anoint the Cubs NL favorites, or even NL Central favorites.
The one thing I think is interesting is that Derrek Lee signed this huge extension early in the '06 season, which at the time was semi-unprecedented for the Cubs... and since then he's become only the third-best paid player on the team, and once Zambrano either signs an extension or files for free agency, Lee could drop to fourth. This for a guy who nearly won the Triple Crown in 2005! He seems like a guy who doesn't really care about the money, though, so hopefully the exploding salaries aren't going to turn the clubhouse into the Bronx West. I'm a little worried, though. I've expended so much energy railing at the Yankees for their destructive-to-the-sport salary practices, and yet how can I complain when the Cubs are willing to do similar? I think it's safe to say the Tribune payroll is never going to be pushing 200 million dollars in a single season, so at least there's always that to fall back on.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Monday, October 02, 2006
Dust in the wind
It's been all but assured since the middle of the season that Baker wasn't going to be back. The Andy MacPhail thing was surprising, but then, is there any reason to really be disappointed about that? MacPhail ran the Cubs for twelve years after winning two World Series in Minnesota, and the Cubs only made the playoffs twice. Meanwhile, they had five 90-loss seasons, including this year (a whopping 96), and just one 90-win season (and even then, it took 163 games to get there). For those keeping score at home, the Twins rebuilt for a few years after MacPhail's departure, but are currently in a string of six straight winning seasons, with 90 wins and a division title in four of the last five. The Cubs, of course, haven't put together that many merely winning seasons in a row since Leo Durocher was managing, and have won 90 games more than once in the same five-year span just once (1984 and 1989) since World War II broke out.
Enough depressing stats. The questions are, what needs to be done to fix the Cubs, and what to do about the players who may be on the way out?
1. Who's the next manager? Speculation has centered on Joe Girardi, as he has demonstrated the ability to get the most out of young players (though there exists the possibility that Florida's youngsters just have a crapload of talent) and appears to be on the way out in Miami even though he could win NL Manager of the Year. Girardi is an Illinois native, Northwestern grad, and longtime former Cub, so he seems like a perfect fit, but aside from the hometown hero aspect, his qualifications aren't deep, and hometown heroes rarely seem to pan out at most levels of sport. Much like US Soccer's search for a new coach, I think the Cubs need a bigger hire, and someone who has shown they can handle the hot seat (Girardi's one year having come in Florida where it doesn't matter if you win since no one shows up until the NLCS anyway). Lou Piniella is a possibility; since 1990 he has six times as many 90-win seasons under his belt as the Cubs do, and for several different teams. He's definitely only as good as the talent around him, though; he may have led the underdog Reds to the Series in 1990, but he couldn't coax more than 70 wins out of the Devil Rays in three years there. He also may not want to unretire. Neither may Jack McKeon, who has done his share of spinning straw into gold. Frank Robinson and Felipe Alou were both just let go by their teams and both have long histories in the game, but between them they have a single playoff appearance in 30 seasons (though Alou was robbed of one in 1994). Bob Brenly, currently in the Cubs' booth, has a World Series title and two 90-win seasons in four years (three and a half really) in Arizona, but that team was an assemblage of veteran talent; whether he could develop young players as the Cubs will likely need to do is questionable.
Really, the Cubs should put out a personal ad looking for the following:
(a) Must work well with young players (Baker seemed to resent playing young guys, even throwing Rich Hill under the bus despite the fact that he supports veteran players throughout the worst of slumps)
(b) Must value on-base percentage (the Cubs have been lousy on this count for years, but Baker didn't help that with his statements that walks and singles "clog up the bases." What?? If you ask me he should have been fired immediately for saying something so idiotic)
(c) Must be willing to put blame where it's due (perhaps the biggest problem of the Baker tenure was the way he walked on eggshells for veterans, even making excuses for them that they wouldn't make for themselves, as when he explained away a poor Greg Maddux outing due to cold weather, followed by Maddux saying that the weather wasn't a factor and he just hadn't pitched well. Maybe his time in San Francisco with Bonds taught Baker a lesson about the necessity of coddling big egos, but this wasn't what this Cubs team needed)
Who fits that description and is available is anyone's guess.
2. Is Hendry going to get it together? All the new managers in the world won't make a difference if there isn't some improvement in the roster. Too many of Hendry's moves lately have been cosmetic, trading minor-league talent for a flashy "impact player," only to see the move blow up in his face, the Juan Pierre deal being the biggest. I still think Hendry is a decent to good GM - his moves for Aramis Ramirez and Derrek Lee rank among the best the Cubs have made in their history - but his recent failings have only been magnified by the Cubs' struggles.
3. What do you do with Juan Pierre? I'm really torn on this one. On the one hand, even in what wasn't a great season for him, he was good for 200 hits. On the other hand, he failed to show up until June, doing the bulk of his damage long after it was much too late for the team to get anything useful out of it. Being a leadoff hitter, he'll command a salary disproportionate to what his actual value to the Cubs seems to have been this year, and he's even stated a desire to play on the South Side. But you can't just let this guy go - you traded three young pitchers to get him (pitchers who've been doing just fine in Florida, by the way). If you're going to mortgage your future like that, you have to have the guy for more than one year. On the other hand, if you sign him to a four-year deal and he keeps doing what he did this year (only showing up when it doesn't matter, not the 200 hits part), what good is that?
4. What do you do with Aramis Ramirez? All of the above, really. He's going to command a hefty salary in the open market, which he seems determined to test. And he was nowhere to be found this season when Lee went down and we needed his bat, like Pierre being mostly absent until June or even later, at which point the abysmal May had long since sunk the season. Sure, he's a 30-100 guy, but what good is that if he can't be counted on when necessary? That said, he fills a position that had been a real bugaboo for the Cubs for nearly three decades, and who are you going to get who's really any better?
5. Who do you go after on the free agent market? The Cubs must have tons of money, yet they rarely seem willing to spend it, except sometimes on their own players. Who's been the biggest free-agent signing of the Baker era, Michael Barrett? Not that he hasn't been good, but that's not nearly good enough. Where is a front-line pitcher (Maddux doesn't count)? Where's a big outfield bat (Jeromy Burnitz doesn't count)? The Cubs need to go after guys like Barry Zito and Carlos Lee, or maybe even Alfonso Soriano. I love Matt Murton and Jacque Jones, but do they really seem like starters on a World Series champion to you? There needs to be more talent. Also, now that I think about it, boot Pierre out and sign someone who can get on base to hit leadoff.
If all this seems like too much to ask, that's probably because it is. But one gets the feeling that there's finally some serious pressure to win on the North Side. Hendry has two years at most to win or he's out, and like MacPhail and Baker, I think he really, really wants to be the guy who brings the trophy to Wrigley. Of course, they both ended up leaving without doing so, but maybe, just maybe, he'll go out and do the right things to, if not fix the club this coming year, get the ball much more rolling than it was for this disastrous campaign.
Obviously a lack of crippling injuries would help too.
Enough depressing stats. The questions are, what needs to be done to fix the Cubs, and what to do about the players who may be on the way out?
1. Who's the next manager? Speculation has centered on Joe Girardi, as he has demonstrated the ability to get the most out of young players (though there exists the possibility that Florida's youngsters just have a crapload of talent) and appears to be on the way out in Miami even though he could win NL Manager of the Year. Girardi is an Illinois native, Northwestern grad, and longtime former Cub, so he seems like a perfect fit, but aside from the hometown hero aspect, his qualifications aren't deep, and hometown heroes rarely seem to pan out at most levels of sport. Much like US Soccer's search for a new coach, I think the Cubs need a bigger hire, and someone who has shown they can handle the hot seat (Girardi's one year having come in Florida where it doesn't matter if you win since no one shows up until the NLCS anyway). Lou Piniella is a possibility; since 1990 he has six times as many 90-win seasons under his belt as the Cubs do, and for several different teams. He's definitely only as good as the talent around him, though; he may have led the underdog Reds to the Series in 1990, but he couldn't coax more than 70 wins out of the Devil Rays in three years there. He also may not want to unretire. Neither may Jack McKeon, who has done his share of spinning straw into gold. Frank Robinson and Felipe Alou were both just let go by their teams and both have long histories in the game, but between them they have a single playoff appearance in 30 seasons (though Alou was robbed of one in 1994). Bob Brenly, currently in the Cubs' booth, has a World Series title and two 90-win seasons in four years (three and a half really) in Arizona, but that team was an assemblage of veteran talent; whether he could develop young players as the Cubs will likely need to do is questionable.
Really, the Cubs should put out a personal ad looking for the following:
(a) Must work well with young players (Baker seemed to resent playing young guys, even throwing Rich Hill under the bus despite the fact that he supports veteran players throughout the worst of slumps)
(b) Must value on-base percentage (the Cubs have been lousy on this count for years, but Baker didn't help that with his statements that walks and singles "clog up the bases." What?? If you ask me he should have been fired immediately for saying something so idiotic)
(c) Must be willing to put blame where it's due (perhaps the biggest problem of the Baker tenure was the way he walked on eggshells for veterans, even making excuses for them that they wouldn't make for themselves, as when he explained away a poor Greg Maddux outing due to cold weather, followed by Maddux saying that the weather wasn't a factor and he just hadn't pitched well. Maybe his time in San Francisco with Bonds taught Baker a lesson about the necessity of coddling big egos, but this wasn't what this Cubs team needed)
Who fits that description and is available is anyone's guess.
2. Is Hendry going to get it together? All the new managers in the world won't make a difference if there isn't some improvement in the roster. Too many of Hendry's moves lately have been cosmetic, trading minor-league talent for a flashy "impact player," only to see the move blow up in his face, the Juan Pierre deal being the biggest. I still think Hendry is a decent to good GM - his moves for Aramis Ramirez and Derrek Lee rank among the best the Cubs have made in their history - but his recent failings have only been magnified by the Cubs' struggles.
3. What do you do with Juan Pierre? I'm really torn on this one. On the one hand, even in what wasn't a great season for him, he was good for 200 hits. On the other hand, he failed to show up until June, doing the bulk of his damage long after it was much too late for the team to get anything useful out of it. Being a leadoff hitter, he'll command a salary disproportionate to what his actual value to the Cubs seems to have been this year, and he's even stated a desire to play on the South Side. But you can't just let this guy go - you traded three young pitchers to get him (pitchers who've been doing just fine in Florida, by the way). If you're going to mortgage your future like that, you have to have the guy for more than one year. On the other hand, if you sign him to a four-year deal and he keeps doing what he did this year (only showing up when it doesn't matter, not the 200 hits part), what good is that?
4. What do you do with Aramis Ramirez? All of the above, really. He's going to command a hefty salary in the open market, which he seems determined to test. And he was nowhere to be found this season when Lee went down and we needed his bat, like Pierre being mostly absent until June or even later, at which point the abysmal May had long since sunk the season. Sure, he's a 30-100 guy, but what good is that if he can't be counted on when necessary? That said, he fills a position that had been a real bugaboo for the Cubs for nearly three decades, and who are you going to get who's really any better?
5. Who do you go after on the free agent market? The Cubs must have tons of money, yet they rarely seem willing to spend it, except sometimes on their own players. Who's been the biggest free-agent signing of the Baker era, Michael Barrett? Not that he hasn't been good, but that's not nearly good enough. Where is a front-line pitcher (Maddux doesn't count)? Where's a big outfield bat (Jeromy Burnitz doesn't count)? The Cubs need to go after guys like Barry Zito and Carlos Lee, or maybe even Alfonso Soriano. I love Matt Murton and Jacque Jones, but do they really seem like starters on a World Series champion to you? There needs to be more talent. Also, now that I think about it, boot Pierre out and sign someone who can get on base to hit leadoff.
If all this seems like too much to ask, that's probably because it is. But one gets the feeling that there's finally some serious pressure to win on the North Side. Hendry has two years at most to win or he's out, and like MacPhail and Baker, I think he really, really wants to be the guy who brings the trophy to Wrigley. Of course, they both ended up leaving without doing so, but maybe, just maybe, he'll go out and do the right things to, if not fix the club this coming year, get the ball much more rolling than it was for this disastrous campaign.
Obviously a lack of crippling injuries would help too.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Lies, damn lies, and statistics
In what has to become a leading contender for Non-Story of the Year, Red Eye (that bastion of investigative journalism) reports that a recent survey shows the White Sox are just a few percentage points behind the Cubs in popularity, "popularity" being defined by how many people attend and/or watch the team's games. Red Eye wondered, "Is Chicago becoming a Sox town?" The answer, obviously, is no. Shouldn't the real story here be "How is it that a World Series champion is still less popular than its fifth-place rival?"
I would hope that the Sox got more popular after winning the World Series, because if they couldn't even do that, that would be pretty pathetic. But lost here is how the Sox were hovering in the high 30s to low 40s, a good 15-20 points behind the Cubs every single year. Even after winning the World Series, the Sox couldn't completely close the gap, and that's with, according to the data, 71% of announced Cubs fans saying that they watched at least one Sox game this year. You think that's going to happen when the Sox are sitting at home in October again?
Ken Williams appears to have started something of a renaissance, and good for him; if only Jim Hendry could say the same. But the Sox aren't going to win forever; their success of last year owed to a dominant pitching staff, most of which has already regressed to the mean, and while their offense is pretty impressive, its biggest booster this year is already in his late 30s. This isn't really the new Yankees (although, considering their recent propensity for signing aging guys to overly-long deals, maybe it is).
But all this really gets away from the point. Everyone in Chicago - Cubs and Sox fans alike - knows that this is really a Cubs town, at least baseball-wise. When (if) the Cubs win the World Series, the explosion will be ten times what it was in 2005. Bet on it. I imagine that's why the Sox fans are desperately trying to get their licks in now; when the Cubs are on top of the baseball world, there won't be more than a few thousand Sox fans. (The other thing is that while I think the bulk of Cubs fans want a World Series more than anything, I'm betting that the majority of Sox fans would trade their title if it meant the Bears could win the Super Bowl. That's the demographic that a lot of Sox fans are in - the working class South Siders who care more about football than anything. Yet another reason why the Sox only draw when bandwagon fans are flocking to the park; you can't go to a lot of Sox games if you're saving up for Bears tickets.)
So, good for the Sox, I suppose; enjoy it while you can. But remember: if you're one of the best teams in baseball, and you still can't top a lousy Cubs team in popularity... well, you're not more popular than the Cubs and you're never going to be. Sorry.
I would hope that the Sox got more popular after winning the World Series, because if they couldn't even do that, that would be pretty pathetic. But lost here is how the Sox were hovering in the high 30s to low 40s, a good 15-20 points behind the Cubs every single year. Even after winning the World Series, the Sox couldn't completely close the gap, and that's with, according to the data, 71% of announced Cubs fans saying that they watched at least one Sox game this year. You think that's going to happen when the Sox are sitting at home in October again?
Ken Williams appears to have started something of a renaissance, and good for him; if only Jim Hendry could say the same. But the Sox aren't going to win forever; their success of last year owed to a dominant pitching staff, most of which has already regressed to the mean, and while their offense is pretty impressive, its biggest booster this year is already in his late 30s. This isn't really the new Yankees (although, considering their recent propensity for signing aging guys to overly-long deals, maybe it is).
But all this really gets away from the point. Everyone in Chicago - Cubs and Sox fans alike - knows that this is really a Cubs town, at least baseball-wise. When (if) the Cubs win the World Series, the explosion will be ten times what it was in 2005. Bet on it. I imagine that's why the Sox fans are desperately trying to get their licks in now; when the Cubs are on top of the baseball world, there won't be more than a few thousand Sox fans. (The other thing is that while I think the bulk of Cubs fans want a World Series more than anything, I'm betting that the majority of Sox fans would trade their title if it meant the Bears could win the Super Bowl. That's the demographic that a lot of Sox fans are in - the working class South Siders who care more about football than anything. Yet another reason why the Sox only draw when bandwagon fans are flocking to the park; you can't go to a lot of Sox games if you're saving up for Bears tickets.)
So, good for the Sox, I suppose; enjoy it while you can. But remember: if you're one of the best teams in baseball, and you still can't top a lousy Cubs team in popularity... well, you're not more popular than the Cubs and you're never going to be. Sorry.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Goodbye again
Most of the talking heads are raving about what a great deal this was for the Cubs - they get rid of a future Hall of Famer, but nonetheless a future Hall of Famer who was having a great deal of trouble getting people out over the last two months, and they upgrade their middling infield defense at the same time. And I guess from that standpoint it does make sense.
Except that the Cubs aren't going anywhere this season, and Cesar Izturis - a pretty good fielder with the bat of Bucky Dent - isn't doing anything to change that, even if he doubled and scored in his first at-bat as a Cub. The infield may indeed have needed upgrading, but Greg Maddux isn't just a spare part, even at his age. The Cubs made a terrible mistake letting him go once. Obviously it's pretty much impossible for the same thing to happen again, short of the Dodgers winning the World Series this year (and even then, it's not like keeping Maddux would have made the Cubs this year's world champs), but from a fan's perspective, I still think it was a mistake. The pundits kept saying how the Cubs owed it to Maddux to trade him to a contender. Why? The guy has a ring, and future HOFers retire without championships all the time. There was no reason Maddux had to leave Chicago, and after all the heartache caused by his initial departure and subsequent success, there was going to be something cleansing about him finishing his career at Wrigley Field. And now that won't happen. Sure, he's going into the Hall with an A on his cap no matter what else happens, but we could have had him retire as a Cub, the same way he started. It was going to work. And then it didn't.
I suppose I should really blame the team for being so bad that Maddux - and, oh yeah, Todd Walker - "had" to be dealt. There needs to be an overhaul of that pitching staff in the offseason - one columnist suggested the Cubs go after Barry Zito, and that probably wouldn't be the worst idea since they need an impact pitcher of some sort to go along with Zambrano, and it might as well be a lefthander - and the addition of another bat to the lineup before this team can prepare for possible contention in 2007. For all the griping about injuries and bad luck, when you look at this year's team, does it really seem like a pennant winner on paper? Probably not. But only a handful of changes are really required to make that leap, as long as everyone currently there stays healthy. (Snicker.)
Wait till next year.
Except that the Cubs aren't going anywhere this season, and Cesar Izturis - a pretty good fielder with the bat of Bucky Dent - isn't doing anything to change that, even if he doubled and scored in his first at-bat as a Cub. The infield may indeed have needed upgrading, but Greg Maddux isn't just a spare part, even at his age. The Cubs made a terrible mistake letting him go once. Obviously it's pretty much impossible for the same thing to happen again, short of the Dodgers winning the World Series this year (and even then, it's not like keeping Maddux would have made the Cubs this year's world champs), but from a fan's perspective, I still think it was a mistake. The pundits kept saying how the Cubs owed it to Maddux to trade him to a contender. Why? The guy has a ring, and future HOFers retire without championships all the time. There was no reason Maddux had to leave Chicago, and after all the heartache caused by his initial departure and subsequent success, there was going to be something cleansing about him finishing his career at Wrigley Field. And now that won't happen. Sure, he's going into the Hall with an A on his cap no matter what else happens, but we could have had him retire as a Cub, the same way he started. It was going to work. And then it didn't.
I suppose I should really blame the team for being so bad that Maddux - and, oh yeah, Todd Walker - "had" to be dealt. There needs to be an overhaul of that pitching staff in the offseason - one columnist suggested the Cubs go after Barry Zito, and that probably wouldn't be the worst idea since they need an impact pitcher of some sort to go along with Zambrano, and it might as well be a lefthander - and the addition of another bat to the lineup before this team can prepare for possible contention in 2007. For all the griping about injuries and bad luck, when you look at this year's team, does it really seem like a pennant winner on paper? Probably not. But only a handful of changes are really required to make that leap, as long as everyone currently there stays healthy. (Snicker.)
Wait till next year.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
So close and yet so far
What a game for Zambrano. 4 RBI - including one of the most impressive home runs you'll ever see a pitcher hit, I think - and a no-hitter into the eighth (only to have it broken up by a guy who once struck out 187 times in a season and who had struck out earlier in the game). And then after giving up the hit and suddenly having two men on and just one out, he strikes out the next two guys.
Also good games: well, everyone. Womack was the only starter who didn't get a hit. Jones continued his torrid pace, going 2-for-4 with his 11th home run and 2 RBI. Cedeno was 2-for-4 and scored twice; ditto for Walker. Ramirez had a run-scoring double. Pierre got on base three times out of five and stole two bases, though he didn't cross the plate. Ohman pitched a perfect ninth. And would you believe that this Cubs lineup suddenly has four everyday players hitting over .300? Walker .312, Jones .310, Cedeno .307, Barrett .301. If you include Womack (though considering his limited sample size, you really can't), it's five.
The downside, if there has to be one: even though Len and Bob talked all night about how economical Zambrano was being with his pitches, he still ended up throwing 126 in 8 innings. Then again, it's hard to be a strikeout pitcher and not throw fairly high pitch counts, and you can't really complain after a game like that - but it's hard to watch Zambrano and not feel like if he could just find another level of control he would be unstoppable. Not that he hasn't pitched great over the last month or so, but I'm talking transcedentally good. Best-Cubs-pitcher-since-Three-Finger-Brown good. Because you see some of his stuff and it is just nasty, and you know no one can hope to hit it. And then he has a little breakdown and starts throwing balls like crazy. Pitchers with tempers have succeeded, but he could stand a more even keel. And I know he probably won't ever have that and I should stop thinking about it... but damn, he could be amazing if he could just settle down a bit.
Wood and Marshall the next two games. It may be overconfident to say it, but the way these two teams are playing right now, there's very little excuse for the Cubs not to get their first sweep since games 3, 4, and 5 of the season, over the Cardinals at Wrigley. These games are, it should not even need to be said, the most important of all - games against division rivals, and ones currently ahead of you at that. The Cubs aren't going to leapfrog three to four teams without beating them head-to-head, and with Houston down as they've been and still pre-Clemens, the Cubs must, must, must take advantage.
Also good games: well, everyone. Womack was the only starter who didn't get a hit. Jones continued his torrid pace, going 2-for-4 with his 11th home run and 2 RBI. Cedeno was 2-for-4 and scored twice; ditto for Walker. Ramirez had a run-scoring double. Pierre got on base three times out of five and stole two bases, though he didn't cross the plate. Ohman pitched a perfect ninth. And would you believe that this Cubs lineup suddenly has four everyday players hitting over .300? Walker .312, Jones .310, Cedeno .307, Barrett .301. If you include Womack (though considering his limited sample size, you really can't), it's five.
The downside, if there has to be one: even though Len and Bob talked all night about how economical Zambrano was being with his pitches, he still ended up throwing 126 in 8 innings. Then again, it's hard to be a strikeout pitcher and not throw fairly high pitch counts, and you can't really complain after a game like that - but it's hard to watch Zambrano and not feel like if he could just find another level of control he would be unstoppable. Not that he hasn't pitched great over the last month or so, but I'm talking transcedentally good. Best-Cubs-pitcher-since-Three-Finger-Brown good. Because you see some of his stuff and it is just nasty, and you know no one can hope to hit it. And then he has a little breakdown and starts throwing balls like crazy. Pitchers with tempers have succeeded, but he could stand a more even keel. And I know he probably won't ever have that and I should stop thinking about it... but damn, he could be amazing if he could just settle down a bit.
Wood and Marshall the next two games. It may be overconfident to say it, but the way these two teams are playing right now, there's very little excuse for the Cubs not to get their first sweep since games 3, 4, and 5 of the season, over the Cardinals at Wrigley. These games are, it should not even need to be said, the most important of all - games against division rivals, and ones currently ahead of you at that. The Cubs aren't going to leapfrog three to four teams without beating them head-to-head, and with Houston down as they've been and still pre-Clemens, the Cubs must, must, must take advantage.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
I'll take two
Phil Nevin's first Cub home run. An Aramis grand slam. Five solid innings from Rusch. Novoa throwing three scoreless and hitting an RBI double (!). And a series won in St. Louis (a place the Cubs struggled mightily over much of the last decade). Even if they don't win the third game - we'll see how Maddux looks and if he's rebounded from May, and it'll help if Pujols continues to be out - you have to consider this series a success. Although it's worth noting that the Cubs needed a lot of help to win these games. They had a ton of hits in both games, but the real breakthroughs in both came thanks to errors. Sure, you need some luck along the way too, but if Gold Glover Rolen doesn't make one each day, we could conceivably be staring at a three-game losing sweep tomorrow. A bit too close for comfort, don't you think?
I love that Jones is over .300 now. The right-field bleachers should make a big "Sorry we booed you like crazy" sign for the next home game. And why has Jones been so much the object of derision with leadoff savior Pierre hitting around 40 points worse than Corey Patterson? Pierre does have 17 stolen bases - putting him on pace for more than 50. He'd be the first Cub since Eric Young stole 54 in 2000 to even top 40, and in fact just the second in 20 years to do so - Ryne Sandberg stole 54 in 1985 (and a 40-year-old Davey Lopes stole 47 in just 99 games that same year - Pierre would be the first Cubs OF since Lopes to top 40). History indicates that Baker teams don't do much running, but it may just be that he hasn't really had the personnel for it. On the other hand, the current team has a pretty decent amount of speed and yet only Pierre has as many as ten attempts (and only two other guys have more than four).
Really, I'd be happy if they just keep winning. Rebound a little bit before Lee and Prior come back, then hopefully rebound a lot at that point. There's no way this team shouldn't be better than last year's sub-.500 squad. Two out of every three games the rest of the way would get them to around 93 wins, which would be good enough for the playoffs, I would expect. Of course, that's probably a little unrealistic ("a little"). Even Houston only got to 89 last year from the 20-32 spot. But you know what they say - you gotta believe.
I love that Jones is over .300 now. The right-field bleachers should make a big "Sorry we booed you like crazy" sign for the next home game. And why has Jones been so much the object of derision with leadoff savior Pierre hitting around 40 points worse than Corey Patterson? Pierre does have 17 stolen bases - putting him on pace for more than 50. He'd be the first Cub since Eric Young stole 54 in 2000 to even top 40, and in fact just the second in 20 years to do so - Ryne Sandberg stole 54 in 1985 (and a 40-year-old Davey Lopes stole 47 in just 99 games that same year - Pierre would be the first Cubs OF since Lopes to top 40). History indicates that Baker teams don't do much running, but it may just be that he hasn't really had the personnel for it. On the other hand, the current team has a pretty decent amount of speed and yet only Pierre has as many as ten attempts (and only two other guys have more than four).
Really, I'd be happy if they just keep winning. Rebound a little bit before Lee and Prior come back, then hopefully rebound a lot at that point. There's no way this team shouldn't be better than last year's sub-.500 squad. Two out of every three games the rest of the way would get them to around 93 wins, which would be good enough for the playoffs, I would expect. Of course, that's probably a little unrealistic ("a little"). Even Houston only got to 89 last year from the 20-32 spot. But you know what they say - you gotta believe.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Phil 'er up
As you may have heard, the Cubs acquired Phil Nevin from the Rangers for Jerry Hairston. Shame about Hairston, I guess, but he was pretty much a bust in Chicago (which makes him equal to the man he was traded for, Sammy Sosa, in his new digs - at least Hairston is still in baseball). Nevin was slumping in Texas, which was why he was relatively cheap (in fact, Texas is paying the difference between the two players' salaries, meaning Nevin was had by the Cubs for under a million).
You can't help but think this will turn out like last year's Matt Lawton deal, another case of too little, too late. Even if Nevin has an immediate impact, Derrek Lee should be back within a handful more weeks at the most, and first base is Nevin's best position. Third is also filled (even if Ramirez's BA is still in the toilet right now, especially since he historically improves in the summer months), and it would be a shame if Matt Murton, who it seems to me has been an excellent left fielder, had to be sat down half the time for Nevin, who may have power that Murton lacks but assuredly has none of Big Red's speed.
As dumb as it would have been to have traded two or three times as much for Nevin when Lee was first hurt, did it make any more sense to trade for him now that he's a three-week rental instead of a two-month rental? I suppose one might hope that he displays some flashes on the North Side and could possibly be rolled over in a month or two for a piece the Cubs could find more use for. Or maybe he'll be quietly discarded like Lawton effectively was.
Part of the value of this trade really depends on your opinion of the Cubs' chances to get anything resembling back into a race. The Astros have been cited as recent comeback kids, and they were 20-32 on June 1 last year (after taking two of three from the Reds in a home series... spoooooky); they also had no player with more than three total at-bats hit .300 on the season (even the Cubs might do better than that). Yet this team went to the World Series!
Oh yeah, they had three starters with ERAs under 3.00 and three bullpen guys under 3.50, and the aforementioned starters - the Big Three of Clemens, Pettitte and Oswalt - won 50 games total. Meanwhile, only two 2006 Cubs have ERAs under 3 - relievers Scott Eyre and Bobby Howry. The Big Three SPs, innings-wise, are Zambrano, Marshall, and Maddux, who are on pace to win 40 if they're lucky. Wood, Prior, and Miller might add something... but they also might not.
Yes, the comparison to last year's Astros helps keep me from wanting to abandon this team for good. And yes, it's totally superficial and I should know better. But I don't. Last year's Astros were just one game over .500 at the All-Star break. The Cubs can't possibly climb up to that level if they start playing better?
Please?
You can't help but think this will turn out like last year's Matt Lawton deal, another case of too little, too late. Even if Nevin has an immediate impact, Derrek Lee should be back within a handful more weeks at the most, and first base is Nevin's best position. Third is also filled (even if Ramirez's BA is still in the toilet right now, especially since he historically improves in the summer months), and it would be a shame if Matt Murton, who it seems to me has been an excellent left fielder, had to be sat down half the time for Nevin, who may have power that Murton lacks but assuredly has none of Big Red's speed.
As dumb as it would have been to have traded two or three times as much for Nevin when Lee was first hurt, did it make any more sense to trade for him now that he's a three-week rental instead of a two-month rental? I suppose one might hope that he displays some flashes on the North Side and could possibly be rolled over in a month or two for a piece the Cubs could find more use for. Or maybe he'll be quietly discarded like Lawton effectively was.
Part of the value of this trade really depends on your opinion of the Cubs' chances to get anything resembling back into a race. The Astros have been cited as recent comeback kids, and they were 20-32 on June 1 last year (after taking two of three from the Reds in a home series... spoooooky); they also had no player with more than three total at-bats hit .300 on the season (even the Cubs might do better than that). Yet this team went to the World Series!
Oh yeah, they had three starters with ERAs under 3.00 and three bullpen guys under 3.50, and the aforementioned starters - the Big Three of Clemens, Pettitte and Oswalt - won 50 games total. Meanwhile, only two 2006 Cubs have ERAs under 3 - relievers Scott Eyre and Bobby Howry. The Big Three SPs, innings-wise, are Zambrano, Marshall, and Maddux, who are on pace to win 40 if they're lucky. Wood, Prior, and Miller might add something... but they also might not.
Yes, the comparison to last year's Astros helps keep me from wanting to abandon this team for good. And yes, it's totally superficial and I should know better. But I don't. Last year's Astros were just one game over .500 at the All-Star break. The Cubs can't possibly climb up to that level if they start playing better?
Please?
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Ashes to ashes, Dusty to dust
On May 1, the Cubs beat the Pirates 2-1 to move to 14-10 on the season, and 5-5 in ten games without the injured Derrek Lee. Greg Maddux was 5-0; Ryan Dempster had just recorded his seventh save in as many chances and his team record 26th straight since 2005.
On June 1, the Cubs could potentially be as many as 16 games under .500. They have played 22 games in the past 23 days and have put up a record of 4-18 - and of the team's four wins, the resurgent Carlos Zambrano has three. Maddux is 0-4 in his last five starts, suddenly looking every day of 40. Dempster's save chances have been few and far between, but he has still blown two of his last three, including in a 5-4 loss to Florida on Tuesday. In the 22 games, the anemic Cubs offense has managed more than four runs just four times, while absorbing five shutouts.
There's a school of thought that says when a team doesn't have all its players healthy, it simply isn't fair to blame the manager for the team's poor performance. But Lee is the only player who started the season with the Cubs who isn't there now, and despite his Triple Crown-worthy stats last year, it defies logic to think that one player's absence can turn a team from division contenders into one of the two or three worst clubs in the entire league. (At present, three teams have worse records than the Cubs - Kansas City, Florida, and Pittsburgh - but as one of those three just swept the Cubs, it hardly seems unfair to suggest that the Cubs are worse, at least as of right now.) And what changed from those first ten games after Lee's injury, when the Cubs managed to play .500 ball even with Lee on the sidelines?
Sure, many of the players seem to be having bad seasons all at the same time. Juan Pierre, brought in to be the leadoff hitter the Cubs didn't have with Corey "Swing first, ask questions later" Patterson, is hitting .235, and his OBP is lower than Glendon Rusch's. (He's also got more than twice as many strikeouts as walks, and even though he wasn't brought in for power, 2 RBI is pretty sad.) Aramis Ramirez has 9 home runs and is tied for the team lead with 21 RBI, but he's still hitting just .232. Michael Barrett, whose .879 OPS leads the non-Lee contingent of the team by nearly 100 points, certainly faces at least a week's suspension sometime soon, and his backup Henry Blanco is hitting .051 - worse than almost every pitcher on the roster.
Either because or in spite of all this, reports run wild that Dusty Baker is on the hot seat, and they're probably not going to go away while the Cubs are losing like this, even as Jim Hendry - clearly a Baker guy - insists that Dusty is not in trouble and may even be extended as soon as the ship is righted. (Attach a big "if" on the front of that, though.)
Baker and Hendry have seemingly resigned themselves to the losing, however. I can appreciate that they avoided mortgaging the farm system further for a two-month first base rental, especially when the options were all mediocre, but the starting pitching has been a pretty consistent problem, with only Sean Marshall displaying any real chops among the rookies who have been tasked to start in lieu of attempting to pick up a veteran. Management continues to find every excuse in the book for why the team is failing except to look Baker's way.
Perhaps the key skirmish in this campaign came at NotComiskey on Saturday. Following Michael Barrett's admittedly ill-chosen punch of A.J. Pierzynski, it appears that not a single Cub was willing to defend Barrett in the press (with most of them simply explaining that they ran onto the field because everyone else did, as though Barrett's right hook had escaped their vision completely) with the exception of Rich Hill, who was promptly lambasted not just by tactless-as-ever Ozzie Guillen but by Baker and Hendry as well, and subsequently sent back to AAA. (To be fair, his pitching likely merited that move on its own, but no amount of insistence to the contrary can convince me that Hill's comments had nothing to do with the timing.)
Baker not only took Hill down, but he failed to come to Barrett's defense as well. I don't mean to suggest that Barrett should have punched Pierzynski - although if you think about it, it's kind of hard to blame him considering how obnoxious Pierzynski is - but how do you not back your guy up even a little bit if you're the manager? Even if it was a totally clean play (and regardless of whether it was or not, I can't help but feel that if Barrett had bowled over Pierzynski, Guillen would be backing up his guy and killing Barrett), it seems like it's Baker's responsibility to at least try and stand behind Barrett, something he could do without condoning his actions. Instead, Baker basically threw Barrett under the bus.
And sure enough, following an emotional win in the series finale, the Cubs promptly lost three in Florida. Maybe these were just "come-down losses" - but a sweep at the hands of the worst team in the NL? 9 runs allowed in two of the three games, and a ninth-inning blown save in the third?
I refuse to believe that this team can't win. Even with Lee out, even with Pierre and Ramirez not hitting very well, this team went 5-5 in their first ten games without him. They can win. I'm really starting to think, though, that they don't want to. Baker's tenure is starting to look more like Maury Wills' in Seattle in 1980-81 - 26-56 over parts of two seasons, unpopularity, and player hatred to the point where after a win one Mariner was heard to comment, "Hell, we screwed up - we won."
Do the Cubs players really want Baker fired? I don't know. He is a "player's manager," supposedly, although it bears noting that a lot of guys with that distinction never win crap because they can't ever be tough on their players. And as long as Hendry seems to be in his corner, nothing is going to change. But maybe something should change. We're in Year Four of the Baker Era now, and it's starting to become pretty clear that things peaked in Year One. If the Cubs finish the season in their current spot in the division, it'll be a worse finish every year under Baker - from 1 to 3 to 4 to 5. And we're going to talk contract extension?
Sure, in 2003 Baker took the Cubs as far as any manager since Charlie Grimm. In 1945, Grimm, too, was in his first full season as Cubs manager. The next year, the Cubs finished third. In 1947, sixth. In 1948, eighth. In 1949, they were on their way to another eighth place finish when Grimm was relieved of his duties.
That was Year Five of the Grimm Era. If Dusty Baker's tenure as Cubs manager is going to take a similar path, and especially if the players really have quit on him, there's no way he should be allowed to make it past Year Four.
On June 1, the Cubs could potentially be as many as 16 games under .500. They have played 22 games in the past 23 days and have put up a record of 4-18 - and of the team's four wins, the resurgent Carlos Zambrano has three. Maddux is 0-4 in his last five starts, suddenly looking every day of 40. Dempster's save chances have been few and far between, but he has still blown two of his last three, including in a 5-4 loss to Florida on Tuesday. In the 22 games, the anemic Cubs offense has managed more than four runs just four times, while absorbing five shutouts.
There's a school of thought that says when a team doesn't have all its players healthy, it simply isn't fair to blame the manager for the team's poor performance. But Lee is the only player who started the season with the Cubs who isn't there now, and despite his Triple Crown-worthy stats last year, it defies logic to think that one player's absence can turn a team from division contenders into one of the two or three worst clubs in the entire league. (At present, three teams have worse records than the Cubs - Kansas City, Florida, and Pittsburgh - but as one of those three just swept the Cubs, it hardly seems unfair to suggest that the Cubs are worse, at least as of right now.) And what changed from those first ten games after Lee's injury, when the Cubs managed to play .500 ball even with Lee on the sidelines?
Sure, many of the players seem to be having bad seasons all at the same time. Juan Pierre, brought in to be the leadoff hitter the Cubs didn't have with Corey "Swing first, ask questions later" Patterson, is hitting .235, and his OBP is lower than Glendon Rusch's. (He's also got more than twice as many strikeouts as walks, and even though he wasn't brought in for power, 2 RBI is pretty sad.) Aramis Ramirez has 9 home runs and is tied for the team lead with 21 RBI, but he's still hitting just .232. Michael Barrett, whose .879 OPS leads the non-Lee contingent of the team by nearly 100 points, certainly faces at least a week's suspension sometime soon, and his backup Henry Blanco is hitting .051 - worse than almost every pitcher on the roster.
Either because or in spite of all this, reports run wild that Dusty Baker is on the hot seat, and they're probably not going to go away while the Cubs are losing like this, even as Jim Hendry - clearly a Baker guy - insists that Dusty is not in trouble and may even be extended as soon as the ship is righted. (Attach a big "if" on the front of that, though.)
Baker and Hendry have seemingly resigned themselves to the losing, however. I can appreciate that they avoided mortgaging the farm system further for a two-month first base rental, especially when the options were all mediocre, but the starting pitching has been a pretty consistent problem, with only Sean Marshall displaying any real chops among the rookies who have been tasked to start in lieu of attempting to pick up a veteran. Management continues to find every excuse in the book for why the team is failing except to look Baker's way.
Perhaps the key skirmish in this campaign came at NotComiskey on Saturday. Following Michael Barrett's admittedly ill-chosen punch of A.J. Pierzynski, it appears that not a single Cub was willing to defend Barrett in the press (with most of them simply explaining that they ran onto the field because everyone else did, as though Barrett's right hook had escaped their vision completely) with the exception of Rich Hill, who was promptly lambasted not just by tactless-as-ever Ozzie Guillen but by Baker and Hendry as well, and subsequently sent back to AAA. (To be fair, his pitching likely merited that move on its own, but no amount of insistence to the contrary can convince me that Hill's comments had nothing to do with the timing.)
Baker not only took Hill down, but he failed to come to Barrett's defense as well. I don't mean to suggest that Barrett should have punched Pierzynski - although if you think about it, it's kind of hard to blame him considering how obnoxious Pierzynski is - but how do you not back your guy up even a little bit if you're the manager? Even if it was a totally clean play (and regardless of whether it was or not, I can't help but feel that if Barrett had bowled over Pierzynski, Guillen would be backing up his guy and killing Barrett), it seems like it's Baker's responsibility to at least try and stand behind Barrett, something he could do without condoning his actions. Instead, Baker basically threw Barrett under the bus.
And sure enough, following an emotional win in the series finale, the Cubs promptly lost three in Florida. Maybe these were just "come-down losses" - but a sweep at the hands of the worst team in the NL? 9 runs allowed in two of the three games, and a ninth-inning blown save in the third?
I refuse to believe that this team can't win. Even with Lee out, even with Pierre and Ramirez not hitting very well, this team went 5-5 in their first ten games without him. They can win. I'm really starting to think, though, that they don't want to. Baker's tenure is starting to look more like Maury Wills' in Seattle in 1980-81 - 26-56 over parts of two seasons, unpopularity, and player hatred to the point where after a win one Mariner was heard to comment, "Hell, we screwed up - we won."
Do the Cubs players really want Baker fired? I don't know. He is a "player's manager," supposedly, although it bears noting that a lot of guys with that distinction never win crap because they can't ever be tough on their players. And as long as Hendry seems to be in his corner, nothing is going to change. But maybe something should change. We're in Year Four of the Baker Era now, and it's starting to become pretty clear that things peaked in Year One. If the Cubs finish the season in their current spot in the division, it'll be a worse finish every year under Baker - from 1 to 3 to 4 to 5. And we're going to talk contract extension?
Sure, in 2003 Baker took the Cubs as far as any manager since Charlie Grimm. In 1945, Grimm, too, was in his first full season as Cubs manager. The next year, the Cubs finished third. In 1947, sixth. In 1948, eighth. In 1949, they were on their way to another eighth place finish when Grimm was relieved of his duties.
That was Year Five of the Grimm Era. If Dusty Baker's tenure as Cubs manager is going to take a similar path, and especially if the players really have quit on him, there's no way he should be allowed to make it past Year Four.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Sweepless wonders
On Sunday, the White Sox wore 1906 throwback uniforms. Knowing the White Sox's general attitude towards the Cubs, I can only assume that this was an attempt to stick it to the North Siders by reminding us of a time when not only were the Sox the World Champions (for the first of three total times) but they had gone through what was supposed to be a greatly superior Cubs team to do it. The '06 Cubs, in the first season of one of the most dominant five-year runs in the history of the game, went 116-36; the White Sox had won just 93 games (for a winning percentage nearly 150 points lower) and were dubbed the "Hitless Wonders" for batting .230 as a team during the regular season. The Cubs had Tinker, Evers, Chance, and Mordecai Brown's 26 wins and 1.04 ERA. In fact, the Cubs' team ERA was 1.75. On paper it was a mismatch.
But in the World Series, the teams were pretty much even - particularly in the batting column, where the Sox hit .198 and the Cubs a mere .196. Oddly, the Sox had just 11 hits in the first four games, yet won two of them; they proceeded to suddenly explode for 8 runs in each of the last two games on 26 total hits to win the Series in six. Then, of course, the Cubs won the next two World Series, the Sox won in 1917, and until 2005, the teams were tied at two titles each.
The funny thing about this weekend's series is that the Sox - despite being the much better hitting team so far this season, with three regulars over .300 to the Cubs' none - sort of turned back into the Hitless Wonders, and yet, as in '06, they were able to get it done. But this time it wasn't necessarily because the Cubs didn't hit, just that they didn't score.
Consider the following:
Game One: Cubs - 1 run on 2 hits; White Sox - 6 runs on 10 hits
Game Two: Cubs - 0 runs on 9 hits; White Sox - 7 runs on 6 hits
Game Three: Cubs - 7 runs on 10 hits; White Sox - 4 runs on 5 hits
All right, so the first game makes sense. But look at the next two! The White Sox put up just 11 hits over the two games, yet 11 runs crossed the plate; meanwhile, the Cubs got 20 hits - more than one per inning - and plated just seven runs, all in Game Two.
Of course, Hill did walk five guys, and Zambrano enjoyed giving up solo home runs today, so I guess that sort of thing will happen. It continues to be annoying how mediocre, and generally inconsistent, the Cubs' offense is, however. Even today, they had just four hits through the first seven innings - and were trailing 4-2 before suddenly showing up in the eighth.
But that's this team lately, isn't it? And it's not even the lack of hits so much as the lack of runs. Through May 1, Michael Barrett and Matt Murton had 34 RBI between them; since then, they've had a total of three, and that includes Barrett finally getting his 20th today. Heck, Jacque Jones is up to 19 now (and he's suddenly hitting .273!).
I've said it before and I'll say it again - how can one guy make that big a difference? Sure, Barrett hit right behind Lee, and Lee was on base a lot - a .448 OBP in the 14 games he played. But other guys have been on base, even if not as much. Todd Walker, who has filled the 3 hole, is second on the team in OBP, after all.
Maybe Lee will come back and everything will be fine. On the other hand, he doesn't get back for at least another couple weeks - and as much as we miss the guy, I hope he doesn't come back too soon - and the Cubs are already seven games under. Maybe this is just destined to be yet another year in the long Cubs history where they seem to have potential and end up failing to seriously contend. Last year's team was pretty similar and it finished under .500 (it's hard to believe that the Cubs haven't been able to string together a mere three straight winning seasons since a run from '67 to '72, though even then they squandered Jenkins, Santo, and Williams to the tune of three second-place finishes but no division titles); this year's team has a true leadoff guy, but then what's Pierre done since getting here?
We'll see if Lee comes back healthy, and Wood gets in a groove, and Maddux rebounds, and Prior and Miller come back solid. But unless all those things happen... this is probably a .500 team. And I can't help but feel like that's a ridiculous underachievement. How do you fix a team where all the players should be great and most of them are just okay?
But in the World Series, the teams were pretty much even - particularly in the batting column, where the Sox hit .198 and the Cubs a mere .196. Oddly, the Sox had just 11 hits in the first four games, yet won two of them; they proceeded to suddenly explode for 8 runs in each of the last two games on 26 total hits to win the Series in six. Then, of course, the Cubs won the next two World Series, the Sox won in 1917, and until 2005, the teams were tied at two titles each.
The funny thing about this weekend's series is that the Sox - despite being the much better hitting team so far this season, with three regulars over .300 to the Cubs' none - sort of turned back into the Hitless Wonders, and yet, as in '06, they were able to get it done. But this time it wasn't necessarily because the Cubs didn't hit, just that they didn't score.
Consider the following:
Game One: Cubs - 1 run on 2 hits; White Sox - 6 runs on 10 hits
Game Two: Cubs - 0 runs on 9 hits; White Sox - 7 runs on 6 hits
Game Three: Cubs - 7 runs on 10 hits; White Sox - 4 runs on 5 hits
All right, so the first game makes sense. But look at the next two! The White Sox put up just 11 hits over the two games, yet 11 runs crossed the plate; meanwhile, the Cubs got 20 hits - more than one per inning - and plated just seven runs, all in Game Two.
Of course, Hill did walk five guys, and Zambrano enjoyed giving up solo home runs today, so I guess that sort of thing will happen. It continues to be annoying how mediocre, and generally inconsistent, the Cubs' offense is, however. Even today, they had just four hits through the first seven innings - and were trailing 4-2 before suddenly showing up in the eighth.
But that's this team lately, isn't it? And it's not even the lack of hits so much as the lack of runs. Through May 1, Michael Barrett and Matt Murton had 34 RBI between them; since then, they've had a total of three, and that includes Barrett finally getting his 20th today. Heck, Jacque Jones is up to 19 now (and he's suddenly hitting .273!).
I've said it before and I'll say it again - how can one guy make that big a difference? Sure, Barrett hit right behind Lee, and Lee was on base a lot - a .448 OBP in the 14 games he played. But other guys have been on base, even if not as much. Todd Walker, who has filled the 3 hole, is second on the team in OBP, after all.
Maybe Lee will come back and everything will be fine. On the other hand, he doesn't get back for at least another couple weeks - and as much as we miss the guy, I hope he doesn't come back too soon - and the Cubs are already seven games under. Maybe this is just destined to be yet another year in the long Cubs history where they seem to have potential and end up failing to seriously contend. Last year's team was pretty similar and it finished under .500 (it's hard to believe that the Cubs haven't been able to string together a mere three straight winning seasons since a run from '67 to '72, though even then they squandered Jenkins, Santo, and Williams to the tune of three second-place finishes but no division titles); this year's team has a true leadoff guy, but then what's Pierre done since getting here?
We'll see if Lee comes back healthy, and Wood gets in a groove, and Maddux rebounds, and Prior and Miller come back solid. But unless all those things happen... this is probably a .500 team. And I can't help but feel like that's a ridiculous underachievement. How do you fix a team where all the players should be great and most of them are just okay?
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Meet the new Wood, same as the old Wood
As much as I like Kerry Wood, it's quite possible that few guys in the history of baseball have been paid more for doing less. Sure, he was a steal at $170,000 in 1998, but the guy's made 17.5 million dollars over the last two seasons while making just 32 starts and going 11-13. He's never won more than 14 games in a season, he's never had an ERA under 3.20... he's had a couple nice K years (266 in 2003 being his high, which led baseball that year), but he's just on the shelf so much (including missing the entire 1999 season). I can't begrudge him his injuries, I guess, but that's a ton of money.
And then he comes back and gives up three home runs to a Nationals team that had scored precisely zero runs off Zambrano and Marshall in the two games prior. The good news is he didn't give up that many hits (five in five innings isn't great, but it's not horrendous) and he didn't walk anyone; he also struck out six. The signs for a possible return to 2003 or 1998 form are there. But can he stay healthy long enough for that to happen? God, I hope so.
At least the Cubs won the series. If they win two of every three for the rest of the way, they should be in good shape. Why don't I just hold my breath for that one?
And then he comes back and gives up three home runs to a Nationals team that had scored precisely zero runs off Zambrano and Marshall in the two games prior. The good news is he didn't give up that many hits (five in five innings isn't great, but it's not horrendous) and he didn't walk anyone; he also struck out six. The signs for a possible return to 2003 or 1998 form are there. But can he stay healthy long enough for that to happen? God, I hope so.
At least the Cubs won the series. If they win two of every three for the rest of the way, they should be in good shape. Why don't I just hold my breath for that one?
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Warming up?
They say every cloud has a silver lining. In this case, the cloud is the Cubs' current losing streak. The silver lining is that Aramis Ramirez may, finally, be starting to get hot. After going 2-for-4 in today's 6-3 loss in San Diego, Ramirez has his average up to .220. His two-hit games yesterday and today were just his third and fourth of the season, and he homered in each game (he now has six). Note: Petco Park is one of the least homer-friendly parks in the league.
Obviously this hardly ends the offensive woes. Even with three runs today (the first time the Cubs have scored even that many since April 28), it's just five over the current six-game losing streak. Even if Ramirez does get hot, almost no one else is hitting.
Reports say that help may be on the way. The Cubs are apparently talking with new favorite trading partners Baltimore about obtaining either Kevin Millar or Jeff Conine. Neither one is hitting very well yet this year (.217 for Millar, .222 for Conine). Conine has had a better career than Millar, but he's also five years older. Either way, neither is going to be anything approaching Lee. It almost barely seems worth it to bother with such a deal (especially since we don't need to mortgage the farm system even further just for a rental).
Yet it would seem like something has to happen. I just don't know what would really help. There's precedent for teams starting poorly and coming back, even just within the division - the Astros seem to do it every year. And I did feel, at the beginning of the year, that this team was resilient. But with the Cardinals in the division, the Reds hacking away, the Brewers improved... it just seems dangerous to fall too far behind. But I know - what are you gonna do?
Obviously this hardly ends the offensive woes. Even with three runs today (the first time the Cubs have scored even that many since April 28), it's just five over the current six-game losing streak. Even if Ramirez does get hot, almost no one else is hitting.
Reports say that help may be on the way. The Cubs are apparently talking with new favorite trading partners Baltimore about obtaining either Kevin Millar or Jeff Conine. Neither one is hitting very well yet this year (.217 for Millar, .222 for Conine). Conine has had a better career than Millar, but he's also five years older. Either way, neither is going to be anything approaching Lee. It almost barely seems worth it to bother with such a deal (especially since we don't need to mortgage the farm system even further just for a rental).
Yet it would seem like something has to happen. I just don't know what would really help. There's precedent for teams starting poorly and coming back, even just within the division - the Astros seem to do it every year. And I did feel, at the beginning of the year, that this team was resilient. But with the Cardinals in the division, the Reds hacking away, the Brewers improved... it just seems dangerous to fall too far behind. But I know - what are you gonna do?
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Let's get some runs
Work has ramped up a bit lately (especially now that I'm on the precipice of being hired full-time), so I haven't gotten much chance to watch the Cubs. Based on the box scores, though, I'm clearly not missing much. Let's recap the seven games since Greg Maddux's last win, the one that took him to 5-0:
Seven games
Six losses
Four shutouts
Five total runs scored
When you're averaging less than a run per game over a seven-game span, the only question is, how on earth is this team not 0-7 in that period? Thank God for Sean Marshall, who against all odds seems rapidly to be turning into the staff ace. Zambrano finally had a good game, so of course the Cubs didn't score a single run for him in a 1-0 eleven-inning loss to San Diego on Friday night. Maddux finally lost, but for reasons that escape me he has a horrid career record against Arizona, so let's not sound the alarm on him just yet.
Still, the starting pitching has been really inconsistent. And I guess we all knew this was going to be the case, but the gambles of calling up Guzman and Hill didn't seem to work (Hill, depressingly, just doesn't seem to cut it in the majors - over two seasons, he's now 0-3 with an ERA over 9, giving up 29 runs in 28.2 innings), and Rusch has not even been serviceable, really, and we can only hope Maddux and Marshall keep it going and Zambrano finally figures it out.
The real problem, though, is the hitting. Obviously. When you score five runs in seven games, the problem is the hitting. The Cubs shouldn't be losing 8-0 to the worst team in the division even if arch-nemesis Zach Duke - by the way, younger than I am - was the pitcher, but Guzman could have tossed a gem and it probably wouldn't have mattered because this team cannot score right now. In the current four-game skid, three of the losses have been shutouts, which is humiliating. Lee is great, but was he seriously so responsible for this team's success that they can't even push a run across without him there?
Well, maybe not. Check out the BAs: Pierre, .259; Jones, .253 (though considering he was barely over .200 ten days ago, it's hard to argue he's been their hottest hitter of late); Ramirez, .198. Even Walker is down to .318, when ten days ago he was still around .380.
Really, all the evidence you need of the Cubs' offensive woes is Chan Ho Park's line from last night: 9 IP, 2 H, 0 R. If Chan Ho Park is throwing a two-hitter on you - a "complete game" two-hitter no less (though of course the game actually went 11 and Park got no decision) - you really need help.
But help doesn't seem to be on the way. On the one hand, it's understandable. You can't exactly go out and get someone at this point in the season, because few teams are looking to deal - in addition to which, you're not replacing Lee regardless. And you don't want to spend too much money on some guy you're going to either bench or cut loose as soon as Lee does return.
On the other hand, if this team doesn't start scoring, they're going to be 15 games out of first by the time Lee returns and the whole argument is going to be pretty well moot.
Sigh. I'm not even sure I can stand to watch this team right now. Maybe if they score more than three runs in consecutive games I'll buy back in.
Seven games
Six losses
Four shutouts
Five total runs scored
When you're averaging less than a run per game over a seven-game span, the only question is, how on earth is this team not 0-7 in that period? Thank God for Sean Marshall, who against all odds seems rapidly to be turning into the staff ace. Zambrano finally had a good game, so of course the Cubs didn't score a single run for him in a 1-0 eleven-inning loss to San Diego on Friday night. Maddux finally lost, but for reasons that escape me he has a horrid career record against Arizona, so let's not sound the alarm on him just yet.
Still, the starting pitching has been really inconsistent. And I guess we all knew this was going to be the case, but the gambles of calling up Guzman and Hill didn't seem to work (Hill, depressingly, just doesn't seem to cut it in the majors - over two seasons, he's now 0-3 with an ERA over 9, giving up 29 runs in 28.2 innings), and Rusch has not even been serviceable, really, and we can only hope Maddux and Marshall keep it going and Zambrano finally figures it out.
The real problem, though, is the hitting. Obviously. When you score five runs in seven games, the problem is the hitting. The Cubs shouldn't be losing 8-0 to the worst team in the division even if arch-nemesis Zach Duke - by the way, younger than I am - was the pitcher, but Guzman could have tossed a gem and it probably wouldn't have mattered because this team cannot score right now. In the current four-game skid, three of the losses have been shutouts, which is humiliating. Lee is great, but was he seriously so responsible for this team's success that they can't even push a run across without him there?
Well, maybe not. Check out the BAs: Pierre, .259; Jones, .253 (though considering he was barely over .200 ten days ago, it's hard to argue he's been their hottest hitter of late); Ramirez, .198. Even Walker is down to .318, when ten days ago he was still around .380.
Really, all the evidence you need of the Cubs' offensive woes is Chan Ho Park's line from last night: 9 IP, 2 H, 0 R. If Chan Ho Park is throwing a two-hitter on you - a "complete game" two-hitter no less (though of course the game actually went 11 and Park got no decision) - you really need help.
But help doesn't seem to be on the way. On the one hand, it's understandable. You can't exactly go out and get someone at this point in the season, because few teams are looking to deal - in addition to which, you're not replacing Lee regardless. And you don't want to spend too much money on some guy you're going to either bench or cut loose as soon as Lee does return.
On the other hand, if this team doesn't start scoring, they're going to be 15 games out of first by the time Lee returns and the whole argument is going to be pretty well moot.
Sigh. I'm not even sure I can stand to watch this team right now. Maybe if they score more than three runs in consecutive games I'll buy back in.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
In attendance
Today was the coldest day in weeks, so of course it was the game Drew and I had tickets for. Fortunately, the following things were true:
(a) It was a Cubs win (most important)
(b) Marshall pitched well
(c) It was over in not much more than two hours (not as important as the win, but pretty nice)
I was almost surprised by how confident Marshall seemed. He gave up a couple hot shots, and possibly if the wind hadn't been blowing in he could have given up a homer somewhere, and sure it was the Marlins, but the bottom line is he gave up just two hits and two walks in seven innings, with seven strikeouts. He didn't allow a run and brought his ERA all the way down to 4.22, and if he keeps pitching like this, I think there's a very good chance that he could hang around as a fifth starter even after everyone comes back.
(I mean, say Prior, Wood, and Miller are all back by the end of May - but say that Marshall is something like 6-1 with a 3.25 ERA at that point. You'd really send him to the bullpen or Iowa? I sure wouldn't. Not that a six-man rotation would be the worst thing in the world either, especially with half the starters coming off of injuries.)
Three runs on five hits isn't tremendously impressive, but this team seems to be finding ways to win in a lot of its games (usually only failing to do so when the starting pitching seriously falters). Yeah, it's only the Marlins, but you have to love Murton's big hits, and the squeeze play in the seventh was a ballsy call that paid off. (You can't always tell that well from the bleachers, but the Cubs' runners seemed to be just safe in at least three cases today, that being one of them.) I may have said it before, but I love - love - that this team has speed now, and I like that Baker actually appears to be using it. (I never thought he'd call a squeeze.)
Oddly, Baker appears to have taken past criticisms of his managing style to heart. The Cubs are stealing bases - you could argue that this is due to finally having some personnel with speed, of course, but Baker's teams have never been that big on the stolen base - he hasn't managed a team that finished in the top half of the NL in swipes since the 1998 Giants, back when Barry Bonds was still a 30/30 guy. (In what is most likely not any kind of coincidence, the '01 Giants finished dead last.)
Plus, early in the season he was yanking starters at the first sign of trouble. The middle relief is much improved, but if Dusty was worried about gassing the starters, it seemed for a while that the relief corps had equal potential to be worn down too soon. Fortunately, Cubs starters have now gone at least seven in three straight games, which you'd like to see more of. (With Guzman taking the mound tomorrow just after being called up, I don't know if that streak will last, but let's hope it does.) Though it is of course richly ironic that just after this team finally starts to gain some pitching consistency, their best hitter goes down. Grr.
(a) It was a Cubs win (most important)
(b) Marshall pitched well
(c) It was over in not much more than two hours (not as important as the win, but pretty nice)
I was almost surprised by how confident Marshall seemed. He gave up a couple hot shots, and possibly if the wind hadn't been blowing in he could have given up a homer somewhere, and sure it was the Marlins, but the bottom line is he gave up just two hits and two walks in seven innings, with seven strikeouts. He didn't allow a run and brought his ERA all the way down to 4.22, and if he keeps pitching like this, I think there's a very good chance that he could hang around as a fifth starter even after everyone comes back.
(I mean, say Prior, Wood, and Miller are all back by the end of May - but say that Marshall is something like 6-1 with a 3.25 ERA at that point. You'd really send him to the bullpen or Iowa? I sure wouldn't. Not that a six-man rotation would be the worst thing in the world either, especially with half the starters coming off of injuries.)
Three runs on five hits isn't tremendously impressive, but this team seems to be finding ways to win in a lot of its games (usually only failing to do so when the starting pitching seriously falters). Yeah, it's only the Marlins, but you have to love Murton's big hits, and the squeeze play in the seventh was a ballsy call that paid off. (You can't always tell that well from the bleachers, but the Cubs' runners seemed to be just safe in at least three cases today, that being one of them.) I may have said it before, but I love - love - that this team has speed now, and I like that Baker actually appears to be using it. (I never thought he'd call a squeeze.)
Oddly, Baker appears to have taken past criticisms of his managing style to heart. The Cubs are stealing bases - you could argue that this is due to finally having some personnel with speed, of course, but Baker's teams have never been that big on the stolen base - he hasn't managed a team that finished in the top half of the NL in swipes since the 1998 Giants, back when Barry Bonds was still a 30/30 guy. (In what is most likely not any kind of coincidence, the '01 Giants finished dead last.)
Plus, early in the season he was yanking starters at the first sign of trouble. The middle relief is much improved, but if Dusty was worried about gassing the starters, it seemed for a while that the relief corps had equal potential to be worn down too soon. Fortunately, Cubs starters have now gone at least seven in three straight games, which you'd like to see more of. (With Guzman taking the mound tomorrow just after being called up, I don't know if that streak will last, but let's hope it does.) Though it is of course richly ironic that just after this team finally starts to gain some pitching consistency, their best hitter goes down. Grr.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Eight is enough
For seven innings, it was a pretty lousy game for the Cubs, but the middle relief kept them in the game (who could have foreseen that this would suddenly turn into one of the team's strengths after being a major hindrance for so long?) and the eighth was just awesome. In the car, I turned the radio on just as the Marlins were changing pitchers, so I heard Walker's walk, Ramirez's chopper (3-1), Barrett's K, Murton's single (3-3), and Jones' homer (6-3!) as well as the rest of the eighth and another smooth ninth for Dempster. Obviously you'd love to see the Cubs win every game 10-0, but you have to win games like this and in other years the Cubs might not have. I happen to think that this year's team is pretty resilient. We'll see.
Figures my tickets would be for a Dontrelle Willis game. I guess it's mildly exciting to see a game in which the Marlins' only two players of any note will be playing (if your manager is at worst the third-most famous player on your team, that's probably not a good sign - I'm looking at you, Nationals), but Willis scares me to death, mostly because the Cubs rarely hit him. At least I thought so until I looked up the stats, showing that Willis is 2-2 with a 4.64 ERA vs. the Cubs in the last three years, and the Cubs hit nearly .300 off him. In fact, the only NL teams against which Willis has done worse in that span are the Dodgers (1-3, 8.50) and Giants (0-3, 7.83). So maybe this is a good sign after all. Still, tonight's game is the kind that leaves you sorry you weren't there, and hoping it doesn't qualify as a near miss.
I have to go see Maddux pitch sometime this year. Hopefully in the next few weeks.
Rumors hold that the Cubs are looking into Tony Clark. You know, if the guy can't start for the Diamondbacks, maybe that should be kind of a warning sign.
Figures my tickets would be for a Dontrelle Willis game. I guess it's mildly exciting to see a game in which the Marlins' only two players of any note will be playing (if your manager is at worst the third-most famous player on your team, that's probably not a good sign - I'm looking at you, Nationals), but Willis scares me to death, mostly because the Cubs rarely hit him. At least I thought so until I looked up the stats, showing that Willis is 2-2 with a 4.64 ERA vs. the Cubs in the last three years, and the Cubs hit nearly .300 off him. In fact, the only NL teams against which Willis has done worse in that span are the Dodgers (1-3, 8.50) and Giants (0-3, 7.83). So maybe this is a good sign after all. Still, tonight's game is the kind that leaves you sorry you weren't there, and hoping it doesn't qualify as a near miss.
I have to go see Maddux pitch sometime this year. Hopefully in the next few weeks.
Rumors hold that the Cubs are looking into Tony Clark. You know, if the guy can't start for the Diamondbacks, maybe that should be kind of a warning sign.
Streak-stopper
Greg Maddux has now won his first four starts for the first time in his entire career. This includes 1994 and 1995, both awesome seasons for him. Unreal. I don't know what this guy ate in the offseason but I hope it has a few more months in it. Can you imagine if he won 20+ games and the Cy Young? I probably should stop saying stuff like that.
The Cubs demoted Jerome Williams and brought up Angel Guzman from Iowa. Because really, 1-2 with a 6.61 ERA against Triple-A hitting is way more impressive than 0-2 with a 7.30 ERA against major-league hitting. And didn't Williams pitch pretty well against the Pirates and just have the bad luck that the team couldn't hit Duke that day? Seriously, what? It seems a bit early in the year to give up on the guy after one bad outing (against, you know, the best team in the league, more or less). I wonder if the Lee injury just has the front office more panicked about any bad play and more willing to shake things up. I guess that really isn't such a bad thing in the long run. Still, bit of an odd move. But let's hope Guzman pitches well.
The Cubs demoted Jerome Williams and brought up Angel Guzman from Iowa. Because really, 1-2 with a 6.61 ERA against Triple-A hitting is way more impressive than 0-2 with a 7.30 ERA against major-league hitting. And didn't Williams pitch pretty well against the Pirates and just have the bad luck that the team couldn't hit Duke that day? Seriously, what? It seems a bit early in the year to give up on the guy after one bad outing (against, you know, the best team in the league, more or less). I wonder if the Lee injury just has the front office more panicked about any bad play and more willing to shake things up. I guess that really isn't such a bad thing in the long run. Still, bit of an odd move. But let's hope Guzman pitches well.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Just kill me.
Peter Gammons on Mike & Mike this morning:
"Derrek had told me [during the Cardinals series at Wrigley], basically that his deal was done, his contract extension. And I gave him the usual New York/Boston line, why wouldn't you wait, go out on the free agent market and wait for the Yankees and Red Sox to bid? And he said, 'First of all, I love playing here, and second, how do I know I won't break my wrist two weeks from now?'"
Unbelievable.
"Derrek had told me [during the Cardinals series at Wrigley], basically that his deal was done, his contract extension. And I gave him the usual New York/Boston line, why wouldn't you wait, go out on the free agent market and wait for the Yankees and Red Sox to bid? And he said, 'First of all, I love playing here, and second, how do I know I won't break my wrist two weeks from now?'"
Unbelievable.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
It figures.
Call it "Cubbies' Law": Anything that can go wrong for the Cubs, will go wrong for the Cubs. Today we had the most recent and one of the best examples to date of this phenomenon: Derrek Lee has Rafael Furcal run into him at first during a game and ends up breaking two bones in his wrist. Lee's out at least 8-10 weeks. The Cubs' season? Likely out with him.
This phenomenon most recently reared its head in 2003, of course - Mark Prior collided with Marcus Giles on the basepaths and missed nearly a month during a key part of the season (July into August). Of course, Prior came back in August and went 10-1 with an ERA around 2.00 in his last 11 starts. Cubbies' Law was saving its coup de grace that season, of course - it waited for That Game, to borrow Bill Simmons' term for another disastrous Game Six.
We can't allow ourselves to wallow in misery, however. Prior, Wood and Miller are supposedly almost back (another couple weeks), and if they play well this team could at least hold the fort down until the All-Star break. Remember, the 2003 Cubs were 46-46 when Prior went down in July, and they still won the division. Cautious optimism? Reckless optimism? Outright stupidity?
The question is this: with whom do you replace Lee? It's probably too early to swing any kind of major trade, if indeed such a trade is to be had, and anyway it's not like Lee's dead - there's no reason to mortgage the future in any way for a two-month rental who you don't plan to start for the whole season. Various minor leaguers have been bandied about, but they're not exactly big names - Ryan Theriot? Brandon Sing? Michael Restovich? John Mabry is a possibility, but that thins out the bench (and you still have to call up someone). Walker could move to first and give Hairston or Perez an everyday job at second.
That's acceptable enough, I guess, but it sure doesn't make a division winner. Then again, would anyone? You don't exactly replace .335/46/107, even if Lee wasn't going to repeat those numbers to the hit.
And with that, a series at New Busch, or whatever they're calling it. Great time to have that one.
This phenomenon most recently reared its head in 2003, of course - Mark Prior collided with Marcus Giles on the basepaths and missed nearly a month during a key part of the season (July into August). Of course, Prior came back in August and went 10-1 with an ERA around 2.00 in his last 11 starts. Cubbies' Law was saving its coup de grace that season, of course - it waited for That Game, to borrow Bill Simmons' term for another disastrous Game Six.
We can't allow ourselves to wallow in misery, however. Prior, Wood and Miller are supposedly almost back (another couple weeks), and if they play well this team could at least hold the fort down until the All-Star break. Remember, the 2003 Cubs were 46-46 when Prior went down in July, and they still won the division. Cautious optimism? Reckless optimism? Outright stupidity?
The question is this: with whom do you replace Lee? It's probably too early to swing any kind of major trade, if indeed such a trade is to be had, and anyway it's not like Lee's dead - there's no reason to mortgage the future in any way for a two-month rental who you don't plan to start for the whole season. Various minor leaguers have been bandied about, but they're not exactly big names - Ryan Theriot? Brandon Sing? Michael Restovich? John Mabry is a possibility, but that thins out the bench (and you still have to call up someone). Walker could move to first and give Hairston or Perez an everyday job at second.
That's acceptable enough, I guess, but it sure doesn't make a division winner. Then again, would anyone? You don't exactly replace .335/46/107, even if Lee wasn't going to repeat those numbers to the hit.
And with that, a series at New Busch, or whatever they're calling it. Great time to have that one.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Cy Old
Possible alternate title for this entry: "40 and Fabulous." Maddux didn't miss a beat in tonight's start, what with the eight innings of three-hit ball, one run, no walks, and six strikeouts. He gave up a few long outs, but the Dodgers never significantly threatened; the four runs were more than enough, especially with Dempster slamming the door once more. I've decided I need to see Maddux pitch in person at least once this year... and maybe a Maddux jersey. If there's one guy where I wouldn't be thinking, "Well, what if he gets traded or leaves," it would be Maddux. Plus, future Hall of Famer (even if, as I noted in the main blog, he's going in as a Brave).
Even though Pierre hasn't found his hitting touch yet, I love that this team finally has speed. Pierre, Cedeno, Murton, Pagan when healthy, even Lee - finally we're seeing a Dusty Baker team do a good job of manufacturing runs on the basepaths.
Tonight's game lasted 1:59. Under two hours! To say Maddux was locked in would be underestimating it; he threw just 87 pitches in 8 IP. I know fans like to see home runs, but it really is a pleasure watching a game this well-pitched. Anyone who can't appreciate that shouldn't bother with baseball.
The rumor was that the Cubs might bring up Felix Pie to take Pagan's spot in the clubhouse, but it went to David Aardsma instead. I'm fine with that. No need to rush Pie (although can he play right? Jones is now hitting .091), and I'll take all the bullpen assistance the Cubs can bring in.
I'm curious to see how Zambrano does tomorrow. He's certainly looked a bit flaky at times this season, but this Dodgers team has been offensively challenged in recent games. Maybe that'll give him a jump-start.
Even though Pierre hasn't found his hitting touch yet, I love that this team finally has speed. Pierre, Cedeno, Murton, Pagan when healthy, even Lee - finally we're seeing a Dusty Baker team do a good job of manufacturing runs on the basepaths.
Tonight's game lasted 1:59. Under two hours! To say Maddux was locked in would be underestimating it; he threw just 87 pitches in 8 IP. I know fans like to see home runs, but it really is a pleasure watching a game this well-pitched. Anyone who can't appreciate that shouldn't bother with baseball.
The rumor was that the Cubs might bring up Felix Pie to take Pagan's spot in the clubhouse, but it went to David Aardsma instead. I'm fine with that. No need to rush Pie (although can he play right? Jones is now hitting .091), and I'll take all the bullpen assistance the Cubs can bring in.
I'm curious to see how Zambrano does tomorrow. He's certainly looked a bit flaky at times this season, but this Dodgers team has been offensively challenged in recent games. Maybe that'll give him a jump-start.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Rusch job
I didn't see much of today's game (like I'm getting up for a 12:30 start on a Sunday!), but from the stats and the highlights, it looked like Rusch did pretty well. Six innings, five hits, five Ks - 3 earned runs, but those were all on the same hit, so at least he wasn't just giving up hit after hit there. Rusch is a flyball pitcher; he's going to give up home runs sometimes. At least it was only one and not four like in his last start. Also, the Cubs were up 7-0 already when Wilson went deep, and the relievers handled things - three innings, two hits, no runs. It was good to see that Novoa pitched well - 1.2 IP, one hit, one walk, just 16 pitches. Given that they sent Wuertz down to bring Novoa up, it's good that he started off with a nice outing. More importantly, the Cubs got the series win - that's four series so far and just one loss (although just two wins thanks to the 1-1 season opener in Cincy). The Cubs have owned the Pirates at PNC recently, though.
Although the Cubs lost - it figures - I was also glad to see that Jerome Williams had a good game on Saturday. We really need a solid third starter to emerge in the absence of Wood, Prior, and Miller; Rusch still might be it if Sunday's game was indicative of him settling down, and Marshall's been decent but I don't want to have to lay that on a rookie if it can be helped. Let's see if Williams can keep it up.
Maddux goes tomorrow in the first game against the Dodgers. Night game; 9 PM out here, so I'm definitely watching that one. Hopefully it doesn't go too late.
Although the Cubs lost - it figures - I was also glad to see that Jerome Williams had a good game on Saturday. We really need a solid third starter to emerge in the absence of Wood, Prior, and Miller; Rusch still might be it if Sunday's game was indicative of him settling down, and Marshall's been decent but I don't want to have to lay that on a rookie if it can be helped. Let's see if Williams can keep it up.
Maddux goes tomorrow in the first game against the Dodgers. Night game; 9 PM out here, so I'm definitely watching that one. Hopefully it doesn't go too late.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Marshall law
Right now this pitching staff has me really, really worried. Three home runs in four batters? Not great. Marshall did look pretty good through five - I wasn't a fan of the bases-loaded, no-out jam in the fourth, but the fact that he was able to get out of it allowing just two runs says tons about his composure. Drew and I are looking into seeing a game on the 25th which, by my calculations, Marshall would start if the rotation holds.
The kid looks to have decent stuff. His fastball doesn't break 92, but coming down from that 6'7" frame helps, as does the fact that he's a lefty, and he has a nice sweeping curve that he used several times to good effect. That said, he hardly looks unhittable; the Pirates went down quickly the first time through the order, but they handled him a little better after that. It also would have been nice if he could have gone more than five. That's nine games this season and Cubs starters have yet to go even seven innings. Yeah, it's early, and yeah, it's a patchwork rotation at the moment. But the last thing this team needs is a gassed bullpen come late summer. Anyway, congrats to Marshall on his first win (and first Cubs win), as well as his first hit and RBI. Way to help your own cause!
Much more pleased with the hitting, as you'd expect. I love Walker; it's a shame this guy can't be an everyday player, but at least he's making his statement when he gets up. Murton also continues to get me excited - nice double, nicer triple. Amazing that he ends up being the only real value we got from the Garciaparra trade and yet I still feel like we made out better than anyone involved, long-term. Okay, Boston got the World Series out of it. But other than that. (Cabrera and Mientkiewicz are no longer with Boston; Justin Jones has yet to play in the majors; Alex Gonzalez didn't even finish that season with Montreal; Brendan Harris and Francis Beltran have made no big-league noise yet. In other words, there were four teams and eight players involved in that deal and Murton is the only guy starting for the team to which he was traded, a year and a half later. I'll take it.)
I'm not quite as happy with Juan Pierre, who teased us with a 3-for-6 opening day and hasn't had more than one hit in a game since. Right now he's the ghost of CP in center, at least at the plate. He's not, historically, this slow a starter, not even last year (his worst overall). But this is a new team for him, and all that. You have to think the hits will come. Still, right now it just doesn't seem like he's making great contact; rather than hitting line drives and flares, spraying hits like he has in the past, he's hitting a lot of weak grounders. I think he'll figure it out. He'd better, anyway - didn't we trade three pitchers to get this guy? We could use those freaking pitchers right about now.
The kid looks to have decent stuff. His fastball doesn't break 92, but coming down from that 6'7" frame helps, as does the fact that he's a lefty, and he has a nice sweeping curve that he used several times to good effect. That said, he hardly looks unhittable; the Pirates went down quickly the first time through the order, but they handled him a little better after that. It also would have been nice if he could have gone more than five. That's nine games this season and Cubs starters have yet to go even seven innings. Yeah, it's early, and yeah, it's a patchwork rotation at the moment. But the last thing this team needs is a gassed bullpen come late summer. Anyway, congrats to Marshall on his first win (and first Cubs win), as well as his first hit and RBI. Way to help your own cause!
Much more pleased with the hitting, as you'd expect. I love Walker; it's a shame this guy can't be an everyday player, but at least he's making his statement when he gets up. Murton also continues to get me excited - nice double, nicer triple. Amazing that he ends up being the only real value we got from the Garciaparra trade and yet I still feel like we made out better than anyone involved, long-term. Okay, Boston got the World Series out of it. But other than that. (Cabrera and Mientkiewicz are no longer with Boston; Justin Jones has yet to play in the majors; Alex Gonzalez didn't even finish that season with Montreal; Brendan Harris and Francis Beltran have made no big-league noise yet. In other words, there were four teams and eight players involved in that deal and Murton is the only guy starting for the team to which he was traded, a year and a half later. I'll take it.)
I'm not quite as happy with Juan Pierre, who teased us with a 3-for-6 opening day and hasn't had more than one hit in a game since. Right now he's the ghost of CP in center, at least at the plate. He's not, historically, this slow a starter, not even last year (his worst overall). But this is a new team for him, and all that. You have to think the hits will come. Still, right now it just doesn't seem like he's making great contact; rather than hitting line drives and flares, spraying hits like he has in the past, he's hitting a lot of weak grounders. I think he'll figure it out. He'd better, anyway - didn't we trade three pitchers to get this guy? We could use those freaking pitchers right about now.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Reds 8, Cubs 3
My dad, for about as long as I can remember, has been saying that the Cubs need to blow up Wrigley Field, his main reason for that theory being that the ballpark has a tendency to turn pop flies into home runs (at least when the wind is blowing out, which seems to be eight times out of ten). The bigger problem as I see it is not that Wrigley does this but that the Cubs, for reasons which defy all conventional logic, never seem to profit from it as much as visiting teams do.
Take this Reds series. For all three games, the wind was blowing out pretty steadily. The one game the Cubs won was a 4-1 win in which no home runs were hit by either side, and in fact three of the Cub runs in that game were helped by five Cincinnati errors in the first three innings. The other two games, the Reds won by a combined score of 17-5. In those two games, Cincinnati outhomered the Cubs by a margin of 8-2. 8-2! This despite the fact that the Cubs were facing a pitcher on Thursday who gave up 83 home runs over the last two seasons and whose ERA in 2005 was 6.47.
To be fair, Thursday's lineup for the Cubs featured minimal power apart from Derrek Lee (Aramis is still out, Jones [ha!] is still out, and Barrett was out because Blanco was catching Zambrano). Lee saw almost no pitches to hit if the Gamecast was any indication, which is probably because he had Matt Murton hitting behind him. Murton, to his credit, drove in all three Cub runs, including the only homer of the game for the home team (a solo shot in the fourth). I like this kid, but still, Ramirez he is not.
But still. Eric Milton was on the mound and the wind was blowing out. And the Cubs could only score three runs?
I guess I shouldn't be complaining that much. They're still 5-3 with that sweep of the Cardinals, and any sweep in a series is a good thing. I guess I'm just annoyed because there should be more. I expect the Reds to score some runs; they're a homer-happy team. But their pitching is not good. Bronson Arroyo and Eric Milton are probably running neck-and-neck for ace duties, which is embarrassing. On the other hand, Milton just outdueled our supposed ace (the maddeningly inconsistent Zambrano, who followed up both home runs he allowed by ending those innings immediately with a combined three strikeouts, and also surrendered a balk of all things).
So, yeah, right now this rotation is being held together with hot glue and hair ties. And I've said all along that staying competitive until May is the big key. But it would be nice to see some more consistency from the offense - sure, 16 runs is an obvious fluke, but going from 8 in the third St. Louis game to nine in three games against the pitching-challenged Reds? Woof. Fair play to the Reds, but this is a team we have to be beating if we plan on winning the division (or even the wild-card). It's like an NCAA Tournament résumé - sure, it looks good if you beat a #1 team, but you also need to beat those teams you're supposed to beat. And as arrogant as it may sound, the Reds are a team that, all things being equal, I think we're supposed to beat. Yet so far we've had quite a time of it.
Take this Reds series. For all three games, the wind was blowing out pretty steadily. The one game the Cubs won was a 4-1 win in which no home runs were hit by either side, and in fact three of the Cub runs in that game were helped by five Cincinnati errors in the first three innings. The other two games, the Reds won by a combined score of 17-5. In those two games, Cincinnati outhomered the Cubs by a margin of 8-2. 8-2! This despite the fact that the Cubs were facing a pitcher on Thursday who gave up 83 home runs over the last two seasons and whose ERA in 2005 was 6.47.
To be fair, Thursday's lineup for the Cubs featured minimal power apart from Derrek Lee (Aramis is still out, Jones [ha!] is still out, and Barrett was out because Blanco was catching Zambrano). Lee saw almost no pitches to hit if the Gamecast was any indication, which is probably because he had Matt Murton hitting behind him. Murton, to his credit, drove in all three Cub runs, including the only homer of the game for the home team (a solo shot in the fourth). I like this kid, but still, Ramirez he is not.
But still. Eric Milton was on the mound and the wind was blowing out. And the Cubs could only score three runs?
I guess I shouldn't be complaining that much. They're still 5-3 with that sweep of the Cardinals, and any sweep in a series is a good thing. I guess I'm just annoyed because there should be more. I expect the Reds to score some runs; they're a homer-happy team. But their pitching is not good. Bronson Arroyo and Eric Milton are probably running neck-and-neck for ace duties, which is embarrassing. On the other hand, Milton just outdueled our supposed ace (the maddeningly inconsistent Zambrano, who followed up both home runs he allowed by ending those innings immediately with a combined three strikeouts, and also surrendered a balk of all things).
So, yeah, right now this rotation is being held together with hot glue and hair ties. And I've said all along that staying competitive until May is the big key. But it would be nice to see some more consistency from the offense - sure, 16 runs is an obvious fluke, but going from 8 in the third St. Louis game to nine in three games against the pitching-challenged Reds? Woof. Fair play to the Reds, but this is a team we have to be beating if we plan on winning the division (or even the wild-card). It's like an NCAA Tournament résumé - sure, it looks good if you beat a #1 team, but you also need to beat those teams you're supposed to beat. And as arrogant as it may sound, the Reds are a team that, all things being equal, I think we're supposed to beat. Yet so far we've had quite a time of it.
Just like starting over
"Long-time" readers will recall that I tried this last year, but I started at right around the same time the Cubs began to fade for good, and as a result, I quickly lost interest.
New year, new attitude. I've rediscovered, or in some cases just discovered, my sports fandom in the past year or so, and it's time I did the same for the Cubs. They've always been my favorite sports team, since baseball is my favorite sport, but I think not growing up in Chicago stifled my growth as a fan. It was all too easy to simply tune the Cubs out during mediocre or bad seasons, of which there were plenty during my youth; there was never the same suffering as if I lived in Chicago. And since the only local team I followed at the time was the Devils, and since the Bulls were America's Team during their title runs, I got spoiled - the teams I got to watch were teams that won.
2003 changed everything, but it was still my first moment of true suffering in a lifetime of being a fan. And since I haven't been to Wrigley since May of that season, despite living so close since September of 2004, you could argue that I didn't learn anything at all.
No longer. This team drives me crazy in both good and bad senses of the word, and this is, henceforth, a place to get that out, come hell or high water, come the World Series or a 155-game losing streak to end this season. Call it a blog version of an exposure exercise, as my girlfriend would say - I can't keep feeling like writing about the Cubs, one of the few things I really want to do all baseball season, causes them to lose. And I can't keep clogging up my main blog with huge Cubs posts, lest everyone stop showing up. So here goes nothing.
New year, new attitude. I've rediscovered, or in some cases just discovered, my sports fandom in the past year or so, and it's time I did the same for the Cubs. They've always been my favorite sports team, since baseball is my favorite sport, but I think not growing up in Chicago stifled my growth as a fan. It was all too easy to simply tune the Cubs out during mediocre or bad seasons, of which there were plenty during my youth; there was never the same suffering as if I lived in Chicago. And since the only local team I followed at the time was the Devils, and since the Bulls were America's Team during their title runs, I got spoiled - the teams I got to watch were teams that won.
2003 changed everything, but it was still my first moment of true suffering in a lifetime of being a fan. And since I haven't been to Wrigley since May of that season, despite living so close since September of 2004, you could argue that I didn't learn anything at all.
No longer. This team drives me crazy in both good and bad senses of the word, and this is, henceforth, a place to get that out, come hell or high water, come the World Series or a 155-game losing streak to end this season. Call it a blog version of an exposure exercise, as my girlfriend would say - I can't keep feeling like writing about the Cubs, one of the few things I really want to do all baseball season, causes them to lose. And I can't keep clogging up my main blog with huge Cubs posts, lest everyone stop showing up. So here goes nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)