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?