A division winner that loses in the first round of the playoff should always be looking to make some changes in the offseason, especially when you're the Cubs and you limped to an 85-win division title in baseball's worst division despite a historic spending spree in the 2006 offseason. There's still quite a ways to go in the 2007 offseason, of course, but it looks like the Cubs' biggest move has probably already been made, so let's look back and take stock on what's gone on so far.
November 3: Cubs exercise 2008 mutual option on Daryle Ward, decline options on Cliff Floyd and Steve Trachsel.
Good moves all around. Ward proved to be a surprisingly valuable bat off the bench in 2007, with a .436 OBP in 110 at-bats. He should continue to be a solid PH bat plus occasional fill-in for Derrek Lee or perhaps in right field. Floyd never lived up to expectations; due to injuries he racked up a mere 282 at-bats, and while his OBP was a pretty decent .373, he never really flashed the power you want out of a corner OF bat. Trachsel was a panic trade to begin with and probably has no business playing baseball ever again.
November 12: Cubs trade Jacque Jones to Detroit for Omar Infante and cash.
Despite spending a lot of early 2007 suffering through a logjam in the infield, the Cubs finally dumped Jones - whom they were prepared to give away for zero cents on the dollar in July - but received Infante in return, an average infield glove with a career OBP under .300. Shows you how much we wanted to show Jones the door, doesn't it?
November 13: Cubs trade Craig Monroe to Minnesota for PTBNL.
Even though the 2007 season ended with a second-half charge and playoff berth, little to none of that can be attributed to Hendry's in-season moves. Monroe was one of those guys who just didn't work out; he hit .204 as a Cub, showing none of the hits-lefties-well pop for which he was acquired but all of the getting-on-base problems he'd already displayed in Detroit, leading the Tigers to push him out the door. Good riddance.
November 26: Cubs sign Kerry Wood to one-year contract.
Wood apparently had better offers elsewhere but chose to stay in Chicago, which in my opinion is the difference between him and Mark Prior (about whom more anon). The one-year deal is nice for both sides; it keeps the Cubs from over-committing to Wood, while it lets Wood show he can stay healthy for a full season (if he can), which I'm not sure has ever happened. Hopefully he's a decent bullpen arm and possibly even challenges for the closer's job.
December 4: Cubs trade Omar Infante and Will Ohman to Atlanta for Jose Ascanio.
I hope Infante hadn't spent much time house-hunting. In effect, the Cubs rid themselves of the two most hated players on the roster - Jacque Jones and Ohman - for a single 22-year-old relief pitcher who sucked in 16 innings for the Braves last year and who's probably headed for Iowa anyway. Really it was just a matter of addition by subtraction. Ohman had been a career Cub (he made his first big league appearance in 2000!) despite never being very good - even his sub-3.00 ERA in 2005 really doesn't tell you the full story, and seeing him come into the game never failed to give me the shakes. Good luck, Atlanta.
December 6: Cubs acquire Tim Lahey from Tampa Bay for cash.
Whatever. Lahey was picked from Minnesota in the Rule V draft and the Cubs bought him off Tampa. He had a solid if unspectacular AA campaign at New Britain last year. Wa-hoo.
December 12: Cubs non-tender Mark Prior.
Prior made more than $3.5 million last year to do absolutely nothing, and a similar amount in 2006 to do practically nothing. For more than $7 million in the last two years, the Cubs got one win, six losses, and a 7.21 ERA out of Prior, and due to arbitration rules would have been forced to offer him a deal worth no less than $2.9 million or so for 2007, despite not knowing when he would be major-league ready or even if he would be major-league ready. Reportedly the Cubs offered to non-tender him, then offer a lower-paying deal with lots of performance incentives, which Prior wasn't too keen on.
Which kind of pisses me off. Here's a guy who the Cubs stuck by, letting him take his time with injuries, paying him millions for a lost 2007 season, and all they ask him is to take less up-front money in 2008, and make his money on the field. And guess what? He didn't want to do that. Frankly, this baffles me, because I'm not sure who's going to sign Prior to a contract of more than a year and more than maybe $1.5 million. Even the optimistic forecast says he won't be back until May, and it remains to be seen whether he can regain his 2005 form (11-7, 3.67), let alone his 2003 form (18-6, 2.43). I wasn't sitting at the table during the negotiations, but unless the Cubs suggested he play for free, walking away from the Cubs at this point in Prior's career just seems petty and selfish on his part. I wanted the Cubs to give him one more shot in 2008 because I was afraid he'd figure it out with some other team, but really, why should the Cubs pay him for another season that might end up being lost? It's time to do what columnists have been suggesting for years now and just move on. Thanks for 2003, Mark - except the last inning of it - and I'm sorry what Dusty Baker did to your arm, but don't let the Under Armour doors hit you on the way out.
December ?? - Cubs sign Kosuke Fukudome.
This one's not official pending a physical, but PECOTA projects a .401 OBP for him in 2008. Finally, a guy who can fucking get on base.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Saturday, October 06, 2007
The worst situational hitting in baseball history
In the regular season, the Cubs hit .271, but hit .281 with men on and .278 with RISP.
In the postseason, I believe - though I'm not looking this up - that they hit .104, and .037 with RISP. Whatever it was, it was terrible.
The Cubs played like it was May all over again. They played like a team that looked demoralized, that couldn't buy a hit or a break, like a team that won 45 of its 85 games against the five other teams from the NL Central. They looked, in a word, pathetic. They gave up 16 runs in three games to a team that averaged less than four and a half in the regular season. They got killed by Chris Young and Stephen Drew, who between them didn't even hit .240. They hit into approximately 74 double plays in three games. They looked abominable. The 1998 team put up more of a fight than this. It made me embarrassed to be a Cubs fan.
In the days or weeks to come, I'll talk about what I want to see from the 2008 team, the team burdened with the responsibility of stopping a century-long World Series drought. But for now I think I'm done with this team for a little bit.
In the postseason, I believe - though I'm not looking this up - that they hit .104, and .037 with RISP. Whatever it was, it was terrible.
The Cubs played like it was May all over again. They played like a team that looked demoralized, that couldn't buy a hit or a break, like a team that won 45 of its 85 games against the five other teams from the NL Central. They looked, in a word, pathetic. They gave up 16 runs in three games to a team that averaged less than four and a half in the regular season. They got killed by Chris Young and Stephen Drew, who between them didn't even hit .240. They hit into approximately 74 double plays in three games. They looked abominable. The 1998 team put up more of a fight than this. It made me embarrassed to be a Cubs fan.
In the days or weeks to come, I'll talk about what I want to see from the 2008 team, the team burdened with the responsibility of stopping a century-long World Series drought. But for now I think I'm done with this team for a little bit.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Game 2: Absolute disaster
Pessimist: Good thing Lou pulled Zambrano for Marmol last night to save him for Game Four. Is "Game Four" the name of the 16-inch softball league team he'll be pitching for on Sunday?
Optimist: Rough outing for Lilly, I know. But the bats woke up a little.
P: Great. Maybe by April they'll actually be ready to win a game.
O: 0-2 is hardly an insurmountable hole. Boston started 0-2 at Oakland in 2003, then won the next three games, including Game Five in Oakland.
P: Great. It's happened four times ever out of 48 divisional series. I'm brimming with confidence.
O: I'm picking up a little sarcasm here.
P: Oh, you think? Let's see: the supposed stopper looks like shit and gets shelled by a team that hit .251 collectively during the season. The lineup, once again, barely hits. Ramirez was beyond useless. They teased us in the late innings only to end up going down swinging yet again. And I had to watch all those fucking fairweather fans wave their fucking pompoms. You know you're dealing with a shitty baseball town when the stadium is full of idiots holding some toy like a pompom or a rumble stick, wearing some jersey they probably bought in the gift shop an hour earlier. They probably sold it out by putting tickets in every other issue of the Arizona Republic.
O: You done?
P: No, I'm not fucking done. If I have to hear Dick Stockton say how Augie Fucking Ojeda is "haunting his ex-teammates" one more time - never mind that Ojeda last played for the Cubs in 2003, meaning he was teammates with exactly three guys currently on the roster - I'm going to fucking lose it. Watching that ball ricochet off his skull in the ninth was a little satisfying, at least, but not nearly good enough. The worst thing about the D-Bags is they're a team full of those "scrappy, gritty players" that the sports press just loves to fellate. Never mind that none of them can hit worth a lick - if they suck at the plate and luckily manage to outperform their expected win total, they must be gritty! I hope Eric Byrnes' ACL rips in half in Game 3, whether we win or not.
O: Classy.
P: See if I care. I'm fucking pissed off right now. I don't care if the Diamondbacks won 90 games. Look at the stats! They're a fucking shitty team! They won 90 games based on luck and occasional good pitching. It's gotta run out sooner or later.
O: You actually sound a little optimistic there.
P: Fuck off. It probably won't matter in this series since the Cubs can't hit for shit anyway. But I'm looking forward to seeing the Rockies fucking smoke them. That and I get to concentrate my energy on the Yankees losing.
O: Would you at least concede that this series isn't over yet?
P: Of course it's fucking over. Have you even been watching these games? They can't hit, they can't pitch.
O: They've had some bad luck too, though. Yeah, lots of strikeouts, but they've hit a lot of solid balls that have just found gloves.
P: Is that supposed to cheer me up?
O: It should, a little. That's the sort of thing that tends to even out. Likewise, the Diamondbacks seem to be finding a lot of gaps right now. Their BABIP for the series is probably enormous. That can't possibly last.
P: They only need it to last for one more game. Probably not that difficult. And if you thought the Cubs were pressing in Game One, wait until you see them in front of a despondent home crowd with their backs against the wall! Oh yeah, that'll be fun. Can you even give me a reason to watch that game?
O: Rich Hill, 2007: 4-0, 0.96 ERA on six or more days of rest. Six days going into Saturday.
P: And at least there won't be any fucking pompoms.
Optimist: Rough outing for Lilly, I know. But the bats woke up a little.
P: Great. Maybe by April they'll actually be ready to win a game.
O: 0-2 is hardly an insurmountable hole. Boston started 0-2 at Oakland in 2003, then won the next three games, including Game Five in Oakland.
P: Great. It's happened four times ever out of 48 divisional series. I'm brimming with confidence.
O: I'm picking up a little sarcasm here.
P: Oh, you think? Let's see: the supposed stopper looks like shit and gets shelled by a team that hit .251 collectively during the season. The lineup, once again, barely hits. Ramirez was beyond useless. They teased us in the late innings only to end up going down swinging yet again. And I had to watch all those fucking fairweather fans wave their fucking pompoms. You know you're dealing with a shitty baseball town when the stadium is full of idiots holding some toy like a pompom or a rumble stick, wearing some jersey they probably bought in the gift shop an hour earlier. They probably sold it out by putting tickets in every other issue of the Arizona Republic.
O: You done?
P: No, I'm not fucking done. If I have to hear Dick Stockton say how Augie Fucking Ojeda is "haunting his ex-teammates" one more time - never mind that Ojeda last played for the Cubs in 2003, meaning he was teammates with exactly three guys currently on the roster - I'm going to fucking lose it. Watching that ball ricochet off his skull in the ninth was a little satisfying, at least, but not nearly good enough. The worst thing about the D-Bags is they're a team full of those "scrappy, gritty players" that the sports press just loves to fellate. Never mind that none of them can hit worth a lick - if they suck at the plate and luckily manage to outperform their expected win total, they must be gritty! I hope Eric Byrnes' ACL rips in half in Game 3, whether we win or not.
O: Classy.
P: See if I care. I'm fucking pissed off right now. I don't care if the Diamondbacks won 90 games. Look at the stats! They're a fucking shitty team! They won 90 games based on luck and occasional good pitching. It's gotta run out sooner or later.
O: You actually sound a little optimistic there.
P: Fuck off. It probably won't matter in this series since the Cubs can't hit for shit anyway. But I'm looking forward to seeing the Rockies fucking smoke them. That and I get to concentrate my energy on the Yankees losing.
O: Would you at least concede that this series isn't over yet?
P: Of course it's fucking over. Have you even been watching these games? They can't hit, they can't pitch.
O: They've had some bad luck too, though. Yeah, lots of strikeouts, but they've hit a lot of solid balls that have just found gloves.
P: Is that supposed to cheer me up?
O: It should, a little. That's the sort of thing that tends to even out. Likewise, the Diamondbacks seem to be finding a lot of gaps right now. Their BABIP for the series is probably enormous. That can't possibly last.
P: They only need it to last for one more game. Probably not that difficult. And if you thought the Cubs were pressing in Game One, wait until you see them in front of a despondent home crowd with their backs against the wall! Oh yeah, that'll be fun. Can you even give me a reason to watch that game?
O: Rich Hill, 2007: 4-0, 0.96 ERA on six or more days of rest. Six days going into Saturday.
P: And at least there won't be any fucking pompoms.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Game 1: Not what you like to see
I know this is campy and has been done to death, but here's the optimist and pessimist in me battling it out after the opening 3-1 loss.
Optimist: All right, disappointing start. I'm not going to sugarcoat it. But you have to be encouraged by the fact that the Diamondbacks clearly have no offense. If the Cubs hit at all, how do they not win any game not being started by Webb? He can't start more than two; ergo, Cubs win.
Pessimist: They could keep swinging at just about every pitch, for one thing. I know Webb's good, but is he really that ridiculously deceptive? He made Lee look terrible (and Lee knew it) - I swear Derrek swung at something like five pitches that might have hit him if he didn't foul them off. And how many first pitch outs were there? At least a handful. Way to make the guy work.
O: All right, they didn't look as good as they could have at the plate. But when they made contact, they hit the ball pretty well a lot of the time, and just had a few bad breaks. Ramirez flew out twice to the warning track - in Wrigley he probably has two homers. Anyway, win tomorrow and you still take home-field advantage away from Arizona.
P: Well, Lilly has been the stopper, but the Cubs haven't done great against Doug Davis historically - they only hit .235 off him, and we all know they struggle against lefties.
O: Ah, they hit .263 off lefties. Could have been better but it could have been a lot worse, really. And they have beaten Davis five times in twelve decisions; he hasn't been completely dominant against them or anything.
P: Whatever. And what was up with taking Zambrano out? The guy was coasting! That move lost the game, right there.
O: It did, but it might have won the series. Lou already announced his intention to start Zambrano on short rest in Game Four...
P: You've gotta get to Game Four first! You can't gamble like that in the playoffs, you have to take your chance to win!
O: With the way the offense was going, would it have mattered that much if Zambrano had thrown 30 more pitches?
P: You're starting to sound like me.
O: You get my point. I mean, you're telling me that when Marmol came in you thought he was going to blow up? Even you had to think the seventh inning was pretty safe.
P: Yeah, I'll be honest, if I expected anyone to blow up it would have been Dempster, or maybe if Lou had brought Eyre in. Not Marmol so much.
O: It only looks like a bad move in retrospect. This isn't leaving Pedro Martinez in to face Jorge Posada; Marmol was lights-out all year and Lou trusted him in that spot. He had a bad inning; it happens to the best of them.
P: Yeah, well, it was a pretty bad time for it to happen to the best of them.
O: Sure. But still, I think with Webb out of the way, you have to like the Cubs' chances in these next two games. Arizona isn't going to be able to win this series scoring three runs a game. I'd bet on that, if I gambled.
P: They don't have to face top-form Z over the next couple games, either.
O: You know as well as I do that Lilly's been about as good as Zambrano this year, and Hill is 4-0 with a 0.96 ERA in his four starts this year that came after 6 or more non-start days - and he'll have had six off days when he goes on Saturday.
P: Well... can we at least agree that Soriano gave the Cubs nothing tonight?
O: Well, yeah. He sucked.
Optimist: All right, disappointing start. I'm not going to sugarcoat it. But you have to be encouraged by the fact that the Diamondbacks clearly have no offense. If the Cubs hit at all, how do they not win any game not being started by Webb? He can't start more than two; ergo, Cubs win.
Pessimist: They could keep swinging at just about every pitch, for one thing. I know Webb's good, but is he really that ridiculously deceptive? He made Lee look terrible (and Lee knew it) - I swear Derrek swung at something like five pitches that might have hit him if he didn't foul them off. And how many first pitch outs were there? At least a handful. Way to make the guy work.
O: All right, they didn't look as good as they could have at the plate. But when they made contact, they hit the ball pretty well a lot of the time, and just had a few bad breaks. Ramirez flew out twice to the warning track - in Wrigley he probably has two homers. Anyway, win tomorrow and you still take home-field advantage away from Arizona.
P: Well, Lilly has been the stopper, but the Cubs haven't done great against Doug Davis historically - they only hit .235 off him, and we all know they struggle against lefties.
O: Ah, they hit .263 off lefties. Could have been better but it could have been a lot worse, really. And they have beaten Davis five times in twelve decisions; he hasn't been completely dominant against them or anything.
P: Whatever. And what was up with taking Zambrano out? The guy was coasting! That move lost the game, right there.
O: It did, but it might have won the series. Lou already announced his intention to start Zambrano on short rest in Game Four...
P: You've gotta get to Game Four first! You can't gamble like that in the playoffs, you have to take your chance to win!
O: With the way the offense was going, would it have mattered that much if Zambrano had thrown 30 more pitches?
P: You're starting to sound like me.
O: You get my point. I mean, you're telling me that when Marmol came in you thought he was going to blow up? Even you had to think the seventh inning was pretty safe.
P: Yeah, I'll be honest, if I expected anyone to blow up it would have been Dempster, or maybe if Lou had brought Eyre in. Not Marmol so much.
O: It only looks like a bad move in retrospect. This isn't leaving Pedro Martinez in to face Jorge Posada; Marmol was lights-out all year and Lou trusted him in that spot. He had a bad inning; it happens to the best of them.
P: Yeah, well, it was a pretty bad time for it to happen to the best of them.
O: Sure. But still, I think with Webb out of the way, you have to like the Cubs' chances in these next two games. Arizona isn't going to be able to win this series scoring three runs a game. I'd bet on that, if I gambled.
P: They don't have to face top-form Z over the next couple games, either.
O: You know as well as I do that Lilly's been about as good as Zambrano this year, and Hill is 4-0 with a 0.96 ERA in his four starts this year that came after 6 or more non-start days - and he'll have had six off days when he goes on Saturday.
P: Well... can we at least agree that Soriano gave the Cubs nothing tonight?
O: Well, yeah. He sucked.
One for the road
There is always a choice between optimism and pessimism when it comes to being a Cubs fan, especially on those rare occasions when the team makes the playoffs. You can either believe, optimistically, that this is our year, or you can believe, pessimistically, that if the Cubs haven't done it by now they never will, that Durham and Bartman are proof this team can't win, blah blah blah cursecakes. During the regular season I found myself leaning rather heavily toward the pessimistic end of the spectrum - in spite of the fact that I tried very hard to keep my expectations low entering the season, I found myself increasingly frustrated by the team's poor play through early June (driven to the edge by the season-high six-game losing streak from May 27 to June 2), only to be sucked back in by the run the Cubs made shortly thereafter, including the season-high seven-game winning streak from June 22 to June 29 that was punctuated by the single most exciting moment of the Cubs' season (which we'll discuss more in a little bit). From then on the season was something of a roller coaster, with the renewed optimism occasionally tainted by inconsistent play, such as losing series to bad teams (scroll down a couple entries to see how crazy the Marlins sweep made me, for example).
Ultimately, however, there is a strong case to be made that this could be the third-best Cubs team since 1945, behind just 1984 and the unlucky 1969 team, and furthermore that unlike in many past years, the Cubs definitely have as good a chance to come out of the NL this year as anyone does. The 2003 Marlins had a surprisingly strong across-the-board combination of hitting, power hitting, speed, and pitching, which made them not a very good matchup for the Cubs. No team in the NL really has that this year; the Diamondbacks and Phillies have speed, the Phillies and Rockies have hitting and power hitting; the Diamondbacks have pitching (although beyond Webb their rotation is a bit iffy). No one really has all of them, which means there is no truly awful matchup for the Cubs. (Also, the Cubs have a ton more postseason experience than any other team - the Rockies and Diamondbacks have almost none, and the Phillies' key players have very little in total - but of course it's debatable how much of a difference this actually makes. The other teams also have much lower fanbase expectations, with the possible exception of the Phillies.) And yes, I know the Cubs only won 85 games, but since dropping to 22-31 on June 2, they've actually been playing .577 ball, which is 94 wins over a full season. And that's with the sub-.500 August.
The point is, I'm choosing to be optimistic and you can't stop me. This may change if they start looking terrible, of course, but why not be optimistic? Sure, I guess I'd rather be pessimistic and have the Cubs win than be optimistic and have them lose, but it's kind of ridiculous to think that my personal feelings on their chances of winning actually affect said chances, so I might as well try to be optimistic so that if they do win, I'll actually enjoy it. Is it going to be fun if the Cubs win the World Series and I'm spending the entire time watching through my hands, thinking "What new way are they going to figure out to mess with me now?" Not really.
There's a couple things I wanted to get out of the way before the first game, so let's do those.
The playoff roster
Here's your final roster for the NLDS:
SP: Zambrano, Lilly, Hill, Marquis
RP: Dempster, Eyre, Hart, Howry, Marmol, Wood, Wuertz
C: Kendall, Soto
IF: Lee, DeRosa, Theriot, Ramirez, Cedeno, Fontenot, Ward
OF: Soriano, Jones, Floyd, Murton, Pie
No real surprises here, I'd say. You have to take Marquis, even though Lou has announced his intention to start Zambrano on short rest in Game Four - which I don't especially like, but Marquis was god-awful down the stretch (6.21 ERA in September with opponents hitting .309 off him) and excused his brutal performance in Sunday's meaningless finale by saying he was "out of his normal role." I should be fair here - Marquis had some decent starts in September (9/1, 2 ER on 5 H in 6.2 IP, W; 9/6, 2 ER on 4 H in 7 IP, in line for the W until Dempster blew up in the ninth; 9/16, 1 ER on 5 H in 6.1 IP, W) and his ERA was inflated by two particularly heinous outings (7 ER in 2.2 IP vs. Pittsburgh on 9/21, a game the Cubs won anyway, and the 4 ER in 0.2 IP in that meaningless Reds game to end the season). That said, I wouldn't trust him much further than I could throw him.
Hart is a minor surprise, but he's pitched really well, and who else do you take? Ohman? (Thank God they left him off; my optimism would've turned dark in a hurry.) There are few surprises in the infield or outfield either. I know not everyone would have taken Cedeno, but you need backups and Fontenot isn't as capable at short and third as Cedeno would be (also, Cedeno hit .391 in September in limited action while Fontenot has really done nothing since his June explosion). And in the outfield, Murton's bat has been on fire down the stretch (.326 and a .979 OPS in September), plus he's been killing lefty pitching all year (.319, .892). So there's no one else you could really take there. And Pie's necessary for pinch-running and defense, and he's a slightly better bat than Fuld (not saying much). So yeah, I think the NLDS roster is about as good as could be expected.
The eleven best single moments of the 2007 Cubs season
Why eleven? Because that's how many wins are left.
11. June 23: The Squeeze
After losing four out of five to the Padres and Rangers, the Cubs dropped to their largest division deficit of the year, 8½ games. On this day, the middle game of a series with the White Sox that the Cubs would sweep, Rich Hill pitched well but Javier Vazquez pitched even better, and the score was tied at 1-1 going into the ninth inning. To preserve the tie, Ozzie Guillen brought in Bobby Jenks, who was perhaps the only reliable reliever the Sox had in 2007. Cliff Floyd singled with one out, and Daryle Ward followed with a pinch-hit single to left, sending Floyd's pinch-runner Angel Pagan to third. With runners at the corners, Ryan Theriot came up and executed a perfect squeeze play, bringing Pagan home with the winning run as Jenks' only play was to first. The Cubs won 2-1 to maintain their 8½-game deficit, and the next day they began their climb.
10. June 14: Izturis beats Mariners
It was looking like one of those games the Cubs found a way to lose. After jumping to a 3-0 lead in the first inning, they were unable to score again off Jeff Weaver, whose ERA was well over 10. Then the Mariners scored four in the sixth using just a single hit (Jason Marquis walked two and hit the pitcher Weaver, plus one man reached on an error). So with just three hits on the day, the Mariners led 4-3, and now the Cubs were stuck facing one of the better bullpens in baseball. Mark DeRosa and Mike Fontenot walked to start the eighth, however, and after Koyie Hill bunted them into scoring position, Cesar Izturis lashed a double down the left field line, scoring both and giving the Cubs a 5-4 lead, which would be the final score.
9. August 21: Lincecum collapses
Giants wunderkind Tim Lincecum had cruised through eight innings, with the Cubs recording just two hits, both singles. But the Giants' 1-0 lead was tenuous, and in the ninth, the Cubs obliterated it. Theriot opened the inning with a double - becoming the first Cub to reach second all day - then moved to third on a Jacque Jones single and scored on Derrek Lee's single. After Aramis Ramirez was walked to load the bases, Floyd singled to right, scoring two and putting the Cubs 3-1. They would tack on two more, improbably winning a game in which they'd appeared to have nothing at the plate, and stayed tied with Milwaukee atop the division.
8. September 14: Ward clears the bases
Carlos Zambrano had pitched well, allowing one run on four hits in eight innings, but the Cubs were clinging to a slim 2-1 lead in the top of the ninth at St. Louis. Felix Pie doubled off Jason Isringhausen with one out and moved to third on a DeRosa groundout; looking to force Piniella to take Zambrano out of the game, Tony LaRussa had Isringhausen walk both Jones and Jason Kendall, loading the bases for pinch-hitter Daryle Ward. Ward made LaRussa pay by driving a double to deep left-center, clearing the bases and giving the Cubs a 5-1 lead, which they would need to survive Ryan Dempster's adventures in the bottom of the ninth.
7. May 19: Lee's pinch-hit grand slam
The Cubs trailed 6-5 to the White Sox entering the bottom of the eighth on a day when runs were pretty easy to come by. The Cubs took a 7-6 lead after Theriot tripled, Alfonso Soriano singled and Ramirez followed with another triple, but such a slim lead did not look safe. An intentional walk of Ward and an infield single from Michael Barrett loaded the bases, and Piniella pinch hit Derrek Lee - then coming off an injury - for the struggling Jacque Jones. Lee sent Boone Logan's 3-1 pitch into the seats in right-center for a grand slam to boost the lead to 11-6, the eventual final, giving the pre-June Cubs their high point (soon to be overshadowed as the Cubs dropped ten of the next 12, unfortunately).
6. September 2: Lee HR beats Houston
The Astros held a 5-4 lead on the Cubs going into the bottom of the eighth, and Lee came up with two outs and Soriano on first. After fouling off the first pitch, Lee sent a moon shot to left field that found the basket, giving the Cubs the 6-5 win and maintaining their slim 1½-game division lead.
5. August 30: Murton and Soriano go back to back
It was the final meeting between the Cubs and Brewers all year, with the Cubs up by a game and a half coming in. The game was tied 3-3 in the bottom of the sixth with Chris Capuano pitching; he'd been relegated to the bullpen due to his struggles as a starter, but had held the Cubs through two innings thus far. With two outs, Matt Murton - who had entered the game on defense in the top of the inning - came to the plate. On a 3-2 pitch, Murton parked one in the seats in left-center, then was followed by Soriano, who hit Capuano's second pitch out to left. The Cubs took a 5-3 lead and held on to win 5-4, leaving their final series with Milwaukee with a 2½-game lead in the Central.
4. August 1: Murton comes home
Murton ended August by winning a game for the Cubs, the same way he had begun it. The Cubs took a 4-1 lead on the Phillies, then gave it back when Rich Hill couldn't get out of the fifth. The Cubs loaded the bases in the eighth but failed to score; the Phillies did the same in the top of the ninth. The Cubs loaded them again in the bottom of the ninth, when Murton doubled and advanced to third on a wild pitch. Cedeno walked and Jones was walked intentionally to load them up; after a Jason Kendall strikeout for the first out, Brett Myers uncorked his second wild pitch of the inning before Floyd could even take the bat off his shoulder. Murton raced home with the winning run and the Cubs, for the first time all season, moved into a tie for first place with Milwaukee.
3. September 17: DeRosa's fifth beats Reds
The Cubs trailed 6-4 going into the bottom of the ninth with their slim one-game lead in the Central on the line. But David Weathers, usually pretty strong against the Cubs, couldn't even record an out. After a Theriot walk and a Lee single, Ramirez hit one to right center that just eluded a diving Norris Hopper, who had robbed Ramirez of extra bases in the fifth. Theriot and Lee scored to tie the game, and after Ward was intentionally walked, DeRosa - who was already 4-for-4 - hit a shot up the middle that deflected off Weathers' glove for an infield single. Sam Fuld, pinch-running for Ramirez, dashed home from third and the Cubs' division lead was safe for the day.
2. June 25: Soriano beats Rockies
If any proof was needed that the 2007 Cubs were doing their darnedest to reverse karma, this game - the kind that most Cubs teams, and maybe most teams period, lose - was it. The Cubs appeared to be coasting, entering the top of the ninth with an 8-3 lead. Scott Eyre - then in the throes of his mid-season struggles - had gotten through 1.1 innings with minimal problems so far, but in the ninth he lost it, giving up a single to Kaz Matsui, walking Matt Holliday, and then allowing a Todd Helton double to make it 8-4. Eyre was pulled for Bob Howry with men at second and third, and Howry - otherwise very solid all year - apparently didn't like pitching from the stretch, as he allowed two straight run-scoring singles and a three-run homer to rookie Troy Tulowitzki. Just like that, the Cubs were down 9-8, a turn of events so horrifying it actually led a fan to run onto the field and charge Howry, yelling at him, "What are you doing??" as he was tackled by security. The bases clear, Howry apparently relaxed, inducing two groundouts to short and striking out Cory Sullivan to end the inning. Still, the damage had been done, or so it seemed. But in the bottom of the ninth, everything broke right. After DeRosa singled and Pagan struck out, Rob Bowen grounded a tailor-made double play ball to first - but Rockies then-closer Brian Fuentes failed to cover first in time and the slow-footed Bowen made it to first without even a return throw from second. Koyie Hill then pinch-hit and laced a single to left, advancing Bowen to second. Theriot hit a ball to second that should also have ended the game, but it ate up Matsui and everyone was safe, though Jones, pinch-running for Bowen, nearly overran third. Soriano came up with the bags full and smacked a single into right center, scoring Jones and Hill and giving the Cubs the improbable 10-9 win.
1. June 29: Ramirez walk-off
Perhaps no single at-bat was more emblematic of the Cubs' 2007 campaign. The Cubs entered the series opener with Milwaukee at Wrigley riding a six-game winning streak, alone in second place in the division (7½ back), and looking to reach .500 for the first time since May 10. Rich Hill got pounded for five runs in the top of the first, however, and the Cubs played from behind all day. They scratched back two runs in the fourth and one in the seventh, but still trailed 5-3 entering the bottom of the ninth against Francisco Cordero, who had been virtually unhittable for the Brewers to that point in the season. Theriot opened the inning with a popout to second, but Soriano singled and Mike Fontenot's single sent him to third. Lee hit a sac fly to right to cut the score to 5-4, bringing Ramirez up with one on and two outs. He swung at the first pitch, and Len Kasper's call on WGN TV (warning: make sure your speakers aren't turned up too loud) pretty much sums up how every Cubs fan watching felt.
So there you go - eleven things that made being a Cubs fan pretty awesome this year. Let's hope tonight is the start of eleven more. Go Cubs.
Ultimately, however, there is a strong case to be made that this could be the third-best Cubs team since 1945, behind just 1984 and the unlucky 1969 team, and furthermore that unlike in many past years, the Cubs definitely have as good a chance to come out of the NL this year as anyone does. The 2003 Marlins had a surprisingly strong across-the-board combination of hitting, power hitting, speed, and pitching, which made them not a very good matchup for the Cubs. No team in the NL really has that this year; the Diamondbacks and Phillies have speed, the Phillies and Rockies have hitting and power hitting; the Diamondbacks have pitching (although beyond Webb their rotation is a bit iffy). No one really has all of them, which means there is no truly awful matchup for the Cubs. (Also, the Cubs have a ton more postseason experience than any other team - the Rockies and Diamondbacks have almost none, and the Phillies' key players have very little in total - but of course it's debatable how much of a difference this actually makes. The other teams also have much lower fanbase expectations, with the possible exception of the Phillies.) And yes, I know the Cubs only won 85 games, but since dropping to 22-31 on June 2, they've actually been playing .577 ball, which is 94 wins over a full season. And that's with the sub-.500 August.
The point is, I'm choosing to be optimistic and you can't stop me. This may change if they start looking terrible, of course, but why not be optimistic? Sure, I guess I'd rather be pessimistic and have the Cubs win than be optimistic and have them lose, but it's kind of ridiculous to think that my personal feelings on their chances of winning actually affect said chances, so I might as well try to be optimistic so that if they do win, I'll actually enjoy it. Is it going to be fun if the Cubs win the World Series and I'm spending the entire time watching through my hands, thinking "What new way are they going to figure out to mess with me now?" Not really.
There's a couple things I wanted to get out of the way before the first game, so let's do those.
The playoff roster
Here's your final roster for the NLDS:
SP: Zambrano, Lilly, Hill, Marquis
RP: Dempster, Eyre, Hart, Howry, Marmol, Wood, Wuertz
C: Kendall, Soto
IF: Lee, DeRosa, Theriot, Ramirez, Cedeno, Fontenot, Ward
OF: Soriano, Jones, Floyd, Murton, Pie
No real surprises here, I'd say. You have to take Marquis, even though Lou has announced his intention to start Zambrano on short rest in Game Four - which I don't especially like, but Marquis was god-awful down the stretch (6.21 ERA in September with opponents hitting .309 off him) and excused his brutal performance in Sunday's meaningless finale by saying he was "out of his normal role." I should be fair here - Marquis had some decent starts in September (9/1, 2 ER on 5 H in 6.2 IP, W; 9/6, 2 ER on 4 H in 7 IP, in line for the W until Dempster blew up in the ninth; 9/16, 1 ER on 5 H in 6.1 IP, W) and his ERA was inflated by two particularly heinous outings (7 ER in 2.2 IP vs. Pittsburgh on 9/21, a game the Cubs won anyway, and the 4 ER in 0.2 IP in that meaningless Reds game to end the season). That said, I wouldn't trust him much further than I could throw him.
Hart is a minor surprise, but he's pitched really well, and who else do you take? Ohman? (Thank God they left him off; my optimism would've turned dark in a hurry.) There are few surprises in the infield or outfield either. I know not everyone would have taken Cedeno, but you need backups and Fontenot isn't as capable at short and third as Cedeno would be (also, Cedeno hit .391 in September in limited action while Fontenot has really done nothing since his June explosion). And in the outfield, Murton's bat has been on fire down the stretch (.326 and a .979 OPS in September), plus he's been killing lefty pitching all year (.319, .892). So there's no one else you could really take there. And Pie's necessary for pinch-running and defense, and he's a slightly better bat than Fuld (not saying much). So yeah, I think the NLDS roster is about as good as could be expected.
The eleven best single moments of the 2007 Cubs season
Why eleven? Because that's how many wins are left.
11. June 23: The Squeeze
After losing four out of five to the Padres and Rangers, the Cubs dropped to their largest division deficit of the year, 8½ games. On this day, the middle game of a series with the White Sox that the Cubs would sweep, Rich Hill pitched well but Javier Vazquez pitched even better, and the score was tied at 1-1 going into the ninth inning. To preserve the tie, Ozzie Guillen brought in Bobby Jenks, who was perhaps the only reliable reliever the Sox had in 2007. Cliff Floyd singled with one out, and Daryle Ward followed with a pinch-hit single to left, sending Floyd's pinch-runner Angel Pagan to third. With runners at the corners, Ryan Theriot came up and executed a perfect squeeze play, bringing Pagan home with the winning run as Jenks' only play was to first. The Cubs won 2-1 to maintain their 8½-game deficit, and the next day they began their climb.
10. June 14: Izturis beats Mariners
It was looking like one of those games the Cubs found a way to lose. After jumping to a 3-0 lead in the first inning, they were unable to score again off Jeff Weaver, whose ERA was well over 10. Then the Mariners scored four in the sixth using just a single hit (Jason Marquis walked two and hit the pitcher Weaver, plus one man reached on an error). So with just three hits on the day, the Mariners led 4-3, and now the Cubs were stuck facing one of the better bullpens in baseball. Mark DeRosa and Mike Fontenot walked to start the eighth, however, and after Koyie Hill bunted them into scoring position, Cesar Izturis lashed a double down the left field line, scoring both and giving the Cubs a 5-4 lead, which would be the final score.
9. August 21: Lincecum collapses
Giants wunderkind Tim Lincecum had cruised through eight innings, with the Cubs recording just two hits, both singles. But the Giants' 1-0 lead was tenuous, and in the ninth, the Cubs obliterated it. Theriot opened the inning with a double - becoming the first Cub to reach second all day - then moved to third on a Jacque Jones single and scored on Derrek Lee's single. After Aramis Ramirez was walked to load the bases, Floyd singled to right, scoring two and putting the Cubs 3-1. They would tack on two more, improbably winning a game in which they'd appeared to have nothing at the plate, and stayed tied with Milwaukee atop the division.
8. September 14: Ward clears the bases
Carlos Zambrano had pitched well, allowing one run on four hits in eight innings, but the Cubs were clinging to a slim 2-1 lead in the top of the ninth at St. Louis. Felix Pie doubled off Jason Isringhausen with one out and moved to third on a DeRosa groundout; looking to force Piniella to take Zambrano out of the game, Tony LaRussa had Isringhausen walk both Jones and Jason Kendall, loading the bases for pinch-hitter Daryle Ward. Ward made LaRussa pay by driving a double to deep left-center, clearing the bases and giving the Cubs a 5-1 lead, which they would need to survive Ryan Dempster's adventures in the bottom of the ninth.
7. May 19: Lee's pinch-hit grand slam
The Cubs trailed 6-5 to the White Sox entering the bottom of the eighth on a day when runs were pretty easy to come by. The Cubs took a 7-6 lead after Theriot tripled, Alfonso Soriano singled and Ramirez followed with another triple, but such a slim lead did not look safe. An intentional walk of Ward and an infield single from Michael Barrett loaded the bases, and Piniella pinch hit Derrek Lee - then coming off an injury - for the struggling Jacque Jones. Lee sent Boone Logan's 3-1 pitch into the seats in right-center for a grand slam to boost the lead to 11-6, the eventual final, giving the pre-June Cubs their high point (soon to be overshadowed as the Cubs dropped ten of the next 12, unfortunately).
6. September 2: Lee HR beats Houston
The Astros held a 5-4 lead on the Cubs going into the bottom of the eighth, and Lee came up with two outs and Soriano on first. After fouling off the first pitch, Lee sent a moon shot to left field that found the basket, giving the Cubs the 6-5 win and maintaining their slim 1½-game division lead.
5. August 30: Murton and Soriano go back to back
It was the final meeting between the Cubs and Brewers all year, with the Cubs up by a game and a half coming in. The game was tied 3-3 in the bottom of the sixth with Chris Capuano pitching; he'd been relegated to the bullpen due to his struggles as a starter, but had held the Cubs through two innings thus far. With two outs, Matt Murton - who had entered the game on defense in the top of the inning - came to the plate. On a 3-2 pitch, Murton parked one in the seats in left-center, then was followed by Soriano, who hit Capuano's second pitch out to left. The Cubs took a 5-3 lead and held on to win 5-4, leaving their final series with Milwaukee with a 2½-game lead in the Central.
4. August 1: Murton comes home
Murton ended August by winning a game for the Cubs, the same way he had begun it. The Cubs took a 4-1 lead on the Phillies, then gave it back when Rich Hill couldn't get out of the fifth. The Cubs loaded the bases in the eighth but failed to score; the Phillies did the same in the top of the ninth. The Cubs loaded them again in the bottom of the ninth, when Murton doubled and advanced to third on a wild pitch. Cedeno walked and Jones was walked intentionally to load them up; after a Jason Kendall strikeout for the first out, Brett Myers uncorked his second wild pitch of the inning before Floyd could even take the bat off his shoulder. Murton raced home with the winning run and the Cubs, for the first time all season, moved into a tie for first place with Milwaukee.
3. September 17: DeRosa's fifth beats Reds
The Cubs trailed 6-4 going into the bottom of the ninth with their slim one-game lead in the Central on the line. But David Weathers, usually pretty strong against the Cubs, couldn't even record an out. After a Theriot walk and a Lee single, Ramirez hit one to right center that just eluded a diving Norris Hopper, who had robbed Ramirez of extra bases in the fifth. Theriot and Lee scored to tie the game, and after Ward was intentionally walked, DeRosa - who was already 4-for-4 - hit a shot up the middle that deflected off Weathers' glove for an infield single. Sam Fuld, pinch-running for Ramirez, dashed home from third and the Cubs' division lead was safe for the day.
2. June 25: Soriano beats Rockies
If any proof was needed that the 2007 Cubs were doing their darnedest to reverse karma, this game - the kind that most Cubs teams, and maybe most teams period, lose - was it. The Cubs appeared to be coasting, entering the top of the ninth with an 8-3 lead. Scott Eyre - then in the throes of his mid-season struggles - had gotten through 1.1 innings with minimal problems so far, but in the ninth he lost it, giving up a single to Kaz Matsui, walking Matt Holliday, and then allowing a Todd Helton double to make it 8-4. Eyre was pulled for Bob Howry with men at second and third, and Howry - otherwise very solid all year - apparently didn't like pitching from the stretch, as he allowed two straight run-scoring singles and a three-run homer to rookie Troy Tulowitzki. Just like that, the Cubs were down 9-8, a turn of events so horrifying it actually led a fan to run onto the field and charge Howry, yelling at him, "What are you doing??" as he was tackled by security. The bases clear, Howry apparently relaxed, inducing two groundouts to short and striking out Cory Sullivan to end the inning. Still, the damage had been done, or so it seemed. But in the bottom of the ninth, everything broke right. After DeRosa singled and Pagan struck out, Rob Bowen grounded a tailor-made double play ball to first - but Rockies then-closer Brian Fuentes failed to cover first in time and the slow-footed Bowen made it to first without even a return throw from second. Koyie Hill then pinch-hit and laced a single to left, advancing Bowen to second. Theriot hit a ball to second that should also have ended the game, but it ate up Matsui and everyone was safe, though Jones, pinch-running for Bowen, nearly overran third. Soriano came up with the bags full and smacked a single into right center, scoring Jones and Hill and giving the Cubs the improbable 10-9 win.
1. June 29: Ramirez walk-off
Perhaps no single at-bat was more emblematic of the Cubs' 2007 campaign. The Cubs entered the series opener with Milwaukee at Wrigley riding a six-game winning streak, alone in second place in the division (7½ back), and looking to reach .500 for the first time since May 10. Rich Hill got pounded for five runs in the top of the first, however, and the Cubs played from behind all day. They scratched back two runs in the fourth and one in the seventh, but still trailed 5-3 entering the bottom of the ninth against Francisco Cordero, who had been virtually unhittable for the Brewers to that point in the season. Theriot opened the inning with a popout to second, but Soriano singled and Mike Fontenot's single sent him to third. Lee hit a sac fly to right to cut the score to 5-4, bringing Ramirez up with one on and two outs. He swung at the first pitch, and Len Kasper's call on WGN TV (warning: make sure your speakers aren't turned up too loud) pretty much sums up how every Cubs fan watching felt.
So there you go - eleven things that made being a Cubs fan pretty awesome this year. Let's hope tonight is the start of eleven more. Go Cubs.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
And then there were none
The magic number is zero. The Cubs are your 2007 NL Central champions. From a low point of nine games under .500 on June 2, and 8.5 games back of the Brewers as late as June 23, the Cubs crawled out of the abyss, going 23-10 in the next 33 games to reach a tie for first. All told, the Cubs are 50-37 since that time, and are three games up with two to play. (Obviously, it's helped that the Brewers are 38-48 since taking that lead.) Whatever the reason, it's all over now - the Cubs are in the playoffs and for just the third time in memory (I was too young for 1984 and I simply don't have any recollection of 1989), I get to watch October baseball and do something besides root against the Yankees. Even better, I won't have to watch the Cubs play the Braves this time.
The other NL playoff spots look like they're going to belong to Arizona, San Diego, and Philadelphia, and the Cubs would get the West winner in that scenario, which is currently Arizona and probably will be Arizona. With that in mind, let's examine the upcoming Cubs-D'Backs NLDS and see what we think might happen.
The Diamondbacks are, right now, 90-70 with two games against the Rockies to play. They are the only 90-win team in the NL (though the Padres and Phillies are both still capable of getting there) and the only 50-home-win team in the NL (though the Brewers are still capable of getting there). All this and the D'Backs have been outscored this season, 717-708 through 160 games. (The Mariners are the only other team over .500 to have been outscored.) What this says is that the Diamondbacks win a lot of close games. A lot of them. In fact, they're 32-19 in one-run games. (The Cubs famously started this season with a horrible one-run-game record. They've crawled their way back to 23-22 in such contests, but still: edge, D'Backs.) The Diamondbacks do not want to get into a slugfest, ever. They're 20-25 in games decided by five runs or more; the Cubs are 26-17. The Diamondbacks' team BA is .251 (15th in the NL); team OBP is .321 (14th). The team ERA of 4.11, by comparison, is third.
Head to Head
The D'Backs won this season's series, 4-2, taking two out of three at both Wrigley and Chase Field. The games were pretty close. In the Wrigley series, the Cubs hit Brandon Webb - easily Arizona's best starter - in the first game, winning 6-2, but couldn't muster much offense in the next two games, losing 3-2 and 3-0. In Arizona, the Cubs also won the first game 6-2 behind a great start from Sean Marshall (who allowed just two hits in six innings), then dropped 3-1 and 5-4 decisions. In other words, the season series was really pretty close, with the Cubs at least having chances in all four games they lost.
By Position
Catcher: Lou Piniella doesn't seem totally sure which catcher he's going to go with. Geovany Soto has hit since coming back up and is a solid defender, while Jason Kendall brings the experience of a canny veteran but not a whole lot else at the moment. I expect both catchers to be on the playoff roster and possibly to get mixed around if one or the other fails to hit, though I think Lou wants to find one he can ride through the playoffs as soon as possible. The Diamondbacks are caught primarily by Chris Snyder, who has a pretty average stick but has been great in the field, making just one error this year and throwing out more than a third of attempted base-stealers. Aside from Soriano and Theriot, the Cubs don't run much, so this may not be much of an issue. If Kendall starts, however, look for the D'Backs to try and press their advantage in this area.
EDGE: D'Backs if Kendall starts, push if Soto starts
First Base: Derrek Lee's power has been down this year, but he's still managed to hit well over .300 and hit a lot of doubles. Plus, despite a shaky spell down the stretch, he's a great defensive first baseman, which has helped during the Cubs' infield musical chairs this season. Conor Jackson has had a decent season for Arizona, hitting .282 with 15 home runs, but for a first baseman that's not terribly impressive.
EDGE: Cubs
Second Base: Mark DeRosa's contract was widely derided when he was signed in the offseason, but it's worked out pretty well - DeRosa has played several positions, including filling in admirably at third during Aramis Ramirez's injuries, and he's hitting almost .300. Arizona's 2B is manned by journeyman Augie Ojeda, spelled by rookie Emilio Bonifacio. Starter Orlando Hudson had season-ending thumb surgery in mid-September.
EDGE: Cubs
Shortstop: It's been a streaky season for Ryan Theriot; at one point hitting near .300, he's slumped to .269 with some rough play down the stretch. Recently he was demoted to hitting 8th in the lineup. He still brings speed to the team (28 stolen bases to just 4 CS) and has played fine in the field. Arizona's Stephen Drew hits just .240, but with 12 home runs he's got a little more pop than Theriot does. He's been a little worse in the field error-wise, but he probably has a little more range.
EDGE: Push
Third Base: Arizona's intended starter Chad Tracy had his season ended by injury, forcing AA call-up Mark Reynolds to fill in. Reynolds has hit pretty well since coming up in May, hitting .283 with 17 home runs. Aramis Ramirez, of course, has cracked the 100-RBI plateau and has 26 home runs, slugging .552. Reynolds has also found the going a little rough in the field, making 10 errors in 219 chances; Ramirez has 10 in 353.
EDGE: Cubs
Left Field: Eric Byrnes has been a revelation for Arizona this year, hitting 21 home runs, scoring 100 runs, and stealing 50 bases. He doesn't have Alfonso Soriano's power, but he has at least as much speed (and runs more, certainly) and is maybe the one guy on Arizona you definitely want to keep off the basepaths. Soriano has 19 assists this year; Byrnes has 9 in left, which still suggests a decent arm. Aside from his SB stats, though, Byrnes has tailed off a bit in the second half, hitting just .262 since the break (perhaps worn out from all those All-Star Game promos he appeared in for Fox). Soriano's second half has been slower too, but he's coming around in crunch time, hitting 13 home runs in September with an OPS well over 1.000.
EDGE: Cubs (slight)
Center Field: Chris Young, the leadoff hitter who makes Soriano look like Ichiro. I know studies have shown that batting order is a bit overrated, but do you think there's any chance that some of the D'Backs' run-scoring issues can be chalked up to the fact that their leadoff hitter has an OBP below .300? 74 players qualify for the NL batting title this year, and of those 74, Chris Young ranks 71st in OBP, getting on at a ludicrously bad .294 clip, forty points lower than Soriano (whose OBP is already not very good for a leadoff hitter). Still, Young hits first for the same reason Soriano does - he's got 32 home runs this year and is 27/6 at base-stealing. He's not always going to hit (.235), but nearly a quarter of his hits leave the premises, meaning he, like Soriano, is capable of providing instant offense. Meanwhile, the Cubs' center field is likely to be manned by Jacque Jones, who despite turning it on to the tune of .349 in August and .301 in September, is having a pretty lousy year and is as likely to have an ugly-looking strikeout in a big spot as anyone in baseball. (It's possible Craig Monroe could start in center against a left-handed pitcher.)
EDGE: D'Backs
Right Field: This spot has shifted around for the Cubs, but it will likely be filled by Cliff Floyd, with Matt Murton or possibly Monroe getting the start against a left-hander. Floyd has the power for a 30-homer season (he has two), but he's hit just 9 this year, his lowest total since he had six in 61 games for the 1997 Marlins. Floyd has hit four of those homers in September, though, and he's good at taking a walk. Arizona will counter with Justin Upton, the 2o-year-old future star called up in August. Upton has loads of talent, but he hasn't hit just yet, with a .226 average in 41 games.
EDGE: Cubs
Starting pitching: The Diamondbacks probably have the best starter in this series in Brandon Webb, but despite his 3.01 ERA and long scoreless-innings streak, he's just 18-10. Part of that's because he doesn't get a ton of run support, but he's also a feast-or-famine kind of guy - in his 18 wins, he has an ERA of 1.28, but in ten losses his ERA is nearly six. Still, he's probably the best pitcher in the NL, and he's certainly no less consistent than Cubs ace Carlos Zambrano, whose ERA is 1.53 in wins but 7.75 in losses. Both pitched last night, meaning they're on a collision course for Game One of this series, which is likely to be required viewing for anyone who likes pitching.
Beyond the aces, both staffs have been a little better than average but not much more. Ted Lilly has been something of a secondary ace for the Cubs, his 3.86 ERA leading the team and his 15 wins second. (He'll probably have his scheduled Sunday start skipped so he's ready for Game Two.) All told, the Cubs' top four - Zambrano, Lilly, Hill and Marquis - have an ERA of 4.10, while Arizona's top four - Webb, Livan Hernandez, Micah Owings and Doug Davis - have an ERA of 4.06. On the whole I think I'd call it even, but I'll give Arizona a slight edge because we can't be sure that we're going to get "Good Zambrano" for the entire series.
EDGE: D'Backs (slight)
Relief pitching: Arizona has a big edge in the closer department - Jose Valverde has 47 saves and a 1.12 WHIP, though he has blown seven. Ryan Dempster has only blown three saves (while recording 28), but he's given up at least one earned run in six of his last eight appearances, and he seems incredibly uncomfortable in non-save situations. The rest of the Cubs bullpen has been pretty solid - Howry, Wuertz, Wood, and Eyre have all been pretty good the last month or two, and Marmol has been lights-out all year, allowing just 11 earned runs in more than 68 innings (his ERA+ is 316) while striking out 95. I would like the Cubs' chances in any game where they can get to the seventh with a lead. Of course, Arizona's bullpen has been strong as well - Tony Pena, Brandon Lyon, Doug Slaten and erstwhile Cub Juan Cruz all have ERA+s of at least 140.
EDGE: D'Backs
Bench: Both benches feature two professional hitters - Tony Clark and Jeff Cirillo in Arizona, Daryle Ward and Craig Monroe for the Cubs - and a bunch of fairly young players. Slight edge to the D'Backs here because Clark has the most power in that group and Monroe has looked lost at the plate, but I'd take Ward if I needed a bench player on either team to get a hit.
EDGE: D'Backs (slight)
Manager: Given the rather insane youth of Bob Melvin's team - average age 26.6 - he's done a heck of a job coaxing 90 wins out of them while other youth movement teams like the Marlins and Pirates slumped to 90 losses. It's easy to argue that Lou Piniella has underachieved given the Cubs' payroll and the fact that they'll finish with half a dozen or so fewer wins than Arizona, but he's nevertheless done a solid job turning the team around after it nearly imploded in May and most of the calls he's made down the stretch have turned out to be the right ones. He's also got a World Series ring, which Melvin does not.
EDGE: Cubs (slight)
Experience: The Cubs definitely win on experience - six of Arizona's eight starting position players are 26 or younger, and nearly all of their playoff experience is accounted for by Livan Hernandez, who hasn't pitched a playoff game since getting shelled by Anaheim in the 2002 World Series. The Cubs have less playoff experience than some teams, but Lee, Monroe, Marquis, Floyd, Eyre and Soriano have played in the World Series, while Ramirez, DeRosa, Kendall, Wood and Jones also have LCS experience. In fact, while Eric Byrnes is the only starting position player for Arizona to have playoff experience, the Cubs feature only Ryan Theriot without any. Experience isn't everything, of course, but it's nice to have.
EDGE: Cubs (big)
So there you go. I tend to be conservative/pessimistic, so I'm going to refrain from making a pick, because I'd be too nervous picking the Cubs to win but too guilty picking them to lose. One way or the other I think it should be a pretty interesting series, going four or five, and I'll be doing my best to watch every pitch of every game, just like I did in 2003. When the Cubs are in the playoffs, you've gotta savor it. Let's hope we all get to savor it for the full extra month.
The other NL playoff spots look like they're going to belong to Arizona, San Diego, and Philadelphia, and the Cubs would get the West winner in that scenario, which is currently Arizona and probably will be Arizona. With that in mind, let's examine the upcoming Cubs-D'Backs NLDS and see what we think might happen.
The Diamondbacks are, right now, 90-70 with two games against the Rockies to play. They are the only 90-win team in the NL (though the Padres and Phillies are both still capable of getting there) and the only 50-home-win team in the NL (though the Brewers are still capable of getting there). All this and the D'Backs have been outscored this season, 717-708 through 160 games. (The Mariners are the only other team over .500 to have been outscored.) What this says is that the Diamondbacks win a lot of close games. A lot of them. In fact, they're 32-19 in one-run games. (The Cubs famously started this season with a horrible one-run-game record. They've crawled their way back to 23-22 in such contests, but still: edge, D'Backs.) The Diamondbacks do not want to get into a slugfest, ever. They're 20-25 in games decided by five runs or more; the Cubs are 26-17. The Diamondbacks' team BA is .251 (15th in the NL); team OBP is .321 (14th). The team ERA of 4.11, by comparison, is third.
Head to Head
The D'Backs won this season's series, 4-2, taking two out of three at both Wrigley and Chase Field. The games were pretty close. In the Wrigley series, the Cubs hit Brandon Webb - easily Arizona's best starter - in the first game, winning 6-2, but couldn't muster much offense in the next two games, losing 3-2 and 3-0. In Arizona, the Cubs also won the first game 6-2 behind a great start from Sean Marshall (who allowed just two hits in six innings), then dropped 3-1 and 5-4 decisions. In other words, the season series was really pretty close, with the Cubs at least having chances in all four games they lost.
By Position
Catcher: Lou Piniella doesn't seem totally sure which catcher he's going to go with. Geovany Soto has hit since coming back up and is a solid defender, while Jason Kendall brings the experience of a canny veteran but not a whole lot else at the moment. I expect both catchers to be on the playoff roster and possibly to get mixed around if one or the other fails to hit, though I think Lou wants to find one he can ride through the playoffs as soon as possible. The Diamondbacks are caught primarily by Chris Snyder, who has a pretty average stick but has been great in the field, making just one error this year and throwing out more than a third of attempted base-stealers. Aside from Soriano and Theriot, the Cubs don't run much, so this may not be much of an issue. If Kendall starts, however, look for the D'Backs to try and press their advantage in this area.
EDGE: D'Backs if Kendall starts, push if Soto starts
First Base: Derrek Lee's power has been down this year, but he's still managed to hit well over .300 and hit a lot of doubles. Plus, despite a shaky spell down the stretch, he's a great defensive first baseman, which has helped during the Cubs' infield musical chairs this season. Conor Jackson has had a decent season for Arizona, hitting .282 with 15 home runs, but for a first baseman that's not terribly impressive.
EDGE: Cubs
Second Base: Mark DeRosa's contract was widely derided when he was signed in the offseason, but it's worked out pretty well - DeRosa has played several positions, including filling in admirably at third during Aramis Ramirez's injuries, and he's hitting almost .300. Arizona's 2B is manned by journeyman Augie Ojeda, spelled by rookie Emilio Bonifacio. Starter Orlando Hudson had season-ending thumb surgery in mid-September.
EDGE: Cubs
Shortstop: It's been a streaky season for Ryan Theriot; at one point hitting near .300, he's slumped to .269 with some rough play down the stretch. Recently he was demoted to hitting 8th in the lineup. He still brings speed to the team (28 stolen bases to just 4 CS) and has played fine in the field. Arizona's Stephen Drew hits just .240, but with 12 home runs he's got a little more pop than Theriot does. He's been a little worse in the field error-wise, but he probably has a little more range.
EDGE: Push
Third Base: Arizona's intended starter Chad Tracy had his season ended by injury, forcing AA call-up Mark Reynolds to fill in. Reynolds has hit pretty well since coming up in May, hitting .283 with 17 home runs. Aramis Ramirez, of course, has cracked the 100-RBI plateau and has 26 home runs, slugging .552. Reynolds has also found the going a little rough in the field, making 10 errors in 219 chances; Ramirez has 10 in 353.
EDGE: Cubs
Left Field: Eric Byrnes has been a revelation for Arizona this year, hitting 21 home runs, scoring 100 runs, and stealing 50 bases. He doesn't have Alfonso Soriano's power, but he has at least as much speed (and runs more, certainly) and is maybe the one guy on Arizona you definitely want to keep off the basepaths. Soriano has 19 assists this year; Byrnes has 9 in left, which still suggests a decent arm. Aside from his SB stats, though, Byrnes has tailed off a bit in the second half, hitting just .262 since the break (perhaps worn out from all those All-Star Game promos he appeared in for Fox). Soriano's second half has been slower too, but he's coming around in crunch time, hitting 13 home runs in September with an OPS well over 1.000.
EDGE: Cubs (slight)
Center Field: Chris Young, the leadoff hitter who makes Soriano look like Ichiro. I know studies have shown that batting order is a bit overrated, but do you think there's any chance that some of the D'Backs' run-scoring issues can be chalked up to the fact that their leadoff hitter has an OBP below .300? 74 players qualify for the NL batting title this year, and of those 74, Chris Young ranks 71st in OBP, getting on at a ludicrously bad .294 clip, forty points lower than Soriano (whose OBP is already not very good for a leadoff hitter). Still, Young hits first for the same reason Soriano does - he's got 32 home runs this year and is 27/6 at base-stealing. He's not always going to hit (.235), but nearly a quarter of his hits leave the premises, meaning he, like Soriano, is capable of providing instant offense. Meanwhile, the Cubs' center field is likely to be manned by Jacque Jones, who despite turning it on to the tune of .349 in August and .301 in September, is having a pretty lousy year and is as likely to have an ugly-looking strikeout in a big spot as anyone in baseball. (It's possible Craig Monroe could start in center against a left-handed pitcher.)
EDGE: D'Backs
Right Field: This spot has shifted around for the Cubs, but it will likely be filled by Cliff Floyd, with Matt Murton or possibly Monroe getting the start against a left-hander. Floyd has the power for a 30-homer season (he has two), but he's hit just 9 this year, his lowest total since he had six in 61 games for the 1997 Marlins. Floyd has hit four of those homers in September, though, and he's good at taking a walk. Arizona will counter with Justin Upton, the 2o-year-old future star called up in August. Upton has loads of talent, but he hasn't hit just yet, with a .226 average in 41 games.
EDGE: Cubs
Starting pitching: The Diamondbacks probably have the best starter in this series in Brandon Webb, but despite his 3.01 ERA and long scoreless-innings streak, he's just 18-10. Part of that's because he doesn't get a ton of run support, but he's also a feast-or-famine kind of guy - in his 18 wins, he has an ERA of 1.28, but in ten losses his ERA is nearly six. Still, he's probably the best pitcher in the NL, and he's certainly no less consistent than Cubs ace Carlos Zambrano, whose ERA is 1.53 in wins but 7.75 in losses. Both pitched last night, meaning they're on a collision course for Game One of this series, which is likely to be required viewing for anyone who likes pitching.
Beyond the aces, both staffs have been a little better than average but not much more. Ted Lilly has been something of a secondary ace for the Cubs, his 3.86 ERA leading the team and his 15 wins second. (He'll probably have his scheduled Sunday start skipped so he's ready for Game Two.) All told, the Cubs' top four - Zambrano, Lilly, Hill and Marquis - have an ERA of 4.10, while Arizona's top four - Webb, Livan Hernandez, Micah Owings and Doug Davis - have an ERA of 4.06. On the whole I think I'd call it even, but I'll give Arizona a slight edge because we can't be sure that we're going to get "Good Zambrano" for the entire series.
EDGE: D'Backs (slight)
Relief pitching: Arizona has a big edge in the closer department - Jose Valverde has 47 saves and a 1.12 WHIP, though he has blown seven. Ryan Dempster has only blown three saves (while recording 28), but he's given up at least one earned run in six of his last eight appearances, and he seems incredibly uncomfortable in non-save situations. The rest of the Cubs bullpen has been pretty solid - Howry, Wuertz, Wood, and Eyre have all been pretty good the last month or two, and Marmol has been lights-out all year, allowing just 11 earned runs in more than 68 innings (his ERA+ is 316) while striking out 95. I would like the Cubs' chances in any game where they can get to the seventh with a lead. Of course, Arizona's bullpen has been strong as well - Tony Pena, Brandon Lyon, Doug Slaten and erstwhile Cub Juan Cruz all have ERA+s of at least 140.
EDGE: D'Backs
Bench: Both benches feature two professional hitters - Tony Clark and Jeff Cirillo in Arizona, Daryle Ward and Craig Monroe for the Cubs - and a bunch of fairly young players. Slight edge to the D'Backs here because Clark has the most power in that group and Monroe has looked lost at the plate, but I'd take Ward if I needed a bench player on either team to get a hit.
EDGE: D'Backs (slight)
Manager: Given the rather insane youth of Bob Melvin's team - average age 26.6 - he's done a heck of a job coaxing 90 wins out of them while other youth movement teams like the Marlins and Pirates slumped to 90 losses. It's easy to argue that Lou Piniella has underachieved given the Cubs' payroll and the fact that they'll finish with half a dozen or so fewer wins than Arizona, but he's nevertheless done a solid job turning the team around after it nearly imploded in May and most of the calls he's made down the stretch have turned out to be the right ones. He's also got a World Series ring, which Melvin does not.
EDGE: Cubs (slight)
Experience: The Cubs definitely win on experience - six of Arizona's eight starting position players are 26 or younger, and nearly all of their playoff experience is accounted for by Livan Hernandez, who hasn't pitched a playoff game since getting shelled by Anaheim in the 2002 World Series. The Cubs have less playoff experience than some teams, but Lee, Monroe, Marquis, Floyd, Eyre and Soriano have played in the World Series, while Ramirez, DeRosa, Kendall, Wood and Jones also have LCS experience. In fact, while Eric Byrnes is the only starting position player for Arizona to have playoff experience, the Cubs feature only Ryan Theriot without any. Experience isn't everything, of course, but it's nice to have.
EDGE: Cubs (big)
So there you go. I tend to be conservative/pessimistic, so I'm going to refrain from making a pick, because I'd be too nervous picking the Cubs to win but too guilty picking them to lose. One way or the other I think it should be a pretty interesting series, going four or five, and I'll be doing my best to watch every pitch of every game, just like I did in 2003. When the Cubs are in the playoffs, you've gotta savor it. Let's hope we all get to savor it for the full extra month.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Battle of who could choke less
In my estimation, there are four kinds of losses that, if not specific to the Cubs, they seem to suffer through more often than most teams. These are:
Type 1: Look completely overmatched against a pitcher who would get destroyed by any other team in the league.
Type 2: Fall behind by several runs early, come back (2a: within a run; 2b: to tie; 2c: actually take the lead), then stop hitting for the rest of the game and lose.
Type 3: Score a couple runs early but blow a chance to tack on several more, then stop hitting for the rest of the game.
Type 4: Hold a lead late that gives your fans a false sense of security, then proceed to totally gag it up. Classic example: Game 6 of the 2003 NLCS.
This series featured examples of the first two types, with Type 2 embodying the losses both yesterday and today. And that's why, despite a sizeable pro-Cubs contingent, the Cubs stumbled out of Florida with ten straight losses to the Marlins. Missed opportunity after missed opportunity.
And yet after all that, the magic number is two, thanks to ample help from the Brewers, who clearly don't want to win the division either. The Cubs need to win just one more game to assure themselves of a playoff at worst; two wins, or a win and a Brewers loss (or two more Brewers losses, but I'd really like this team to win a game before the end of the season), and the Cubs are in. And then I can start worrying about how they don't match up too well with any of the potential playoff opponents.
I'd like to see Zambrano have a big start tomorrow and pitch us in. That would be a nice punctuation mark to his up-and-down year. Am I confident in that happening? No, not especially. But hopefully he'll at least pitch okay. At the very least I hope the rest of the team can shake out of the funk and go back to the form that saw them maul the Pirates just five days ago.
Type 1: Look completely overmatched against a pitcher who would get destroyed by any other team in the league.
Type 2: Fall behind by several runs early, come back (2a: within a run; 2b: to tie; 2c: actually take the lead), then stop hitting for the rest of the game and lose.
Type 3: Score a couple runs early but blow a chance to tack on several more, then stop hitting for the rest of the game.
Type 4: Hold a lead late that gives your fans a false sense of security, then proceed to totally gag it up. Classic example: Game 6 of the 2003 NLCS.
This series featured examples of the first two types, with Type 2 embodying the losses both yesterday and today. And that's why, despite a sizeable pro-Cubs contingent, the Cubs stumbled out of Florida with ten straight losses to the Marlins. Missed opportunity after missed opportunity.
And yet after all that, the magic number is two, thanks to ample help from the Brewers, who clearly don't want to win the division either. The Cubs need to win just one more game to assure themselves of a playoff at worst; two wins, or a win and a Brewers loss (or two more Brewers losses, but I'd really like this team to win a game before the end of the season), and the Cubs are in. And then I can start worrying about how they don't match up too well with any of the potential playoff opponents.
I'd like to see Zambrano have a big start tomorrow and pitch us in. That would be a nice punctuation mark to his up-and-down year. Am I confident in that happening? No, not especially. But hopefully he'll at least pitch okay. At the very least I hope the rest of the team can shake out of the funk and go back to the form that saw them maul the Pirates just five days ago.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Marquis de Sad
Wildly overreacting to any single game result is usually my dad's bailiwick, but the results against the Marlins are really starting to bother me. And yes, I know that the magic number was reduced to three tonight, and yes, I know that even being swept by the Marlins won't be that big a deal if we can take two of three against a Dunn-and-Griffey-less Reds team. But yes, it bothers me rather substantially that the Cubs manage to be this bad against the Marlins. That's now nine consecutive losses, and while I'll buy the first seven - the first four coming during the awful '06 season and 5-7 coming at the apex of the late May meltdown this year - the last two have been pretty awful. Lilly and Marquis both looked mediocre at best, not a good precedent coming down the stretch. (Marquis' last two starts: 7.2 IP, 11 ER.) And we're now counting on Steve Trachsel to save a game in this series. Wonderful.
The Marlins, if you didn't know, have the worst pitching staff in the National League. Their team ERA is 4.97. Opponents hit .285 against them. And yeah, they're better at home, but not by much - it's still 4.85 and .280, both of which are not very good numbers.
The Marlins' team ERA against the Cubs this year? 2.60. It's embarrassing.
Mercifully, the extended comparison to the 2004 end-of-season flop that I was going to write in this space was staved off by St. Louis managing to take a game from the Brewers, dropping the Cubs' magic number to 3 without them having to do anything so complicated as win a game. This leaves the division lead at 2 games with four to play. All of Milwaukee's four are against San Diego, a team fighting for its life, playoff-wise, so that's a bonus. Of course, Milwaukee doesn't have to face Jake Peavy and there's no way the Padres can outslug the Brewers. But the odds are against a four-game sweep by Milwaukee, meaning that winning a mere two of the remaining four games should be enough to get the Cubs into the playoffs.
On the cautious optimism scale, I'd say right now I'm at a 4, with a 10 being "dancing in the streets" and a 1 being "post-game 6, 2003 NLCS."
The Marlins, if you didn't know, have the worst pitching staff in the National League. Their team ERA is 4.97. Opponents hit .285 against them. And yeah, they're better at home, but not by much - it's still 4.85 and .280, both of which are not very good numbers.
The Marlins' team ERA against the Cubs this year? 2.60. It's embarrassing.
Mercifully, the extended comparison to the 2004 end-of-season flop that I was going to write in this space was staved off by St. Louis managing to take a game from the Brewers, dropping the Cubs' magic number to 3 without them having to do anything so complicated as win a game. This leaves the division lead at 2 games with four to play. All of Milwaukee's four are against San Diego, a team fighting for its life, playoff-wise, so that's a bonus. Of course, Milwaukee doesn't have to face Jake Peavy and there's no way the Padres can outslug the Brewers. But the odds are against a four-game sweep by Milwaukee, meaning that winning a mere two of the remaining four games should be enough to get the Cubs into the playoffs.
On the cautious optimism scale, I'd say right now I'm at a 4, with a 10 being "dancing in the streets" and a 1 being "post-game 6, 2003 NLCS."
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Fished in
Did you know that the Cubs have lost eight straight to the Marlins? Eight straight. And even though that horrible meltdown series - the one at Wrigley where the players held a meeting and then lost 9-0 - feels like it happened a year ago, it was actually this season and the Cubs are now 0-4 this year against a team with 90 losses. And if they can't figure out a way to win a couple games off a team that doesn't have a single starting pitcher with an ERA under 4.65, they are going to throw away this division, because the Cardinals sure aren't doing shit to help them.
It's the FUCKING MARLINS. They have 90 losses. Their "ace" has 15 losses and an ERA well over 5. And you just lost to him 4-2. Really? This is how you want to go out?
Only the Cubs could have a 3.5-game lead in their division with a week to play and look in serious jeopardy of blowing it because they can't beat two teams that are collectively about 45 games under .500 this year. I'm not saying they will - the magic number is still four, which still favors the Cubs and certainly leaves them in control of their own destiny - but the cautious optimism I had following the destruction of the Pirates is quickly drying up. If the Marlins win tomorrow, it's full-on panic mode.
Can't being a Cubs fan ever be easy? I get enough bad times during the 95-loss seasons that I think I'm entitled to at least one year where they coast. But both playoff appearances in my memory were tight and hard-earned. So will be this one... assuming they don't fucking blow it.
It's the FUCKING MARLINS. They have 90 losses. Their "ace" has 15 losses and an ERA well over 5. And you just lost to him 4-2. Really? This is how you want to go out?
Only the Cubs could have a 3.5-game lead in their division with a week to play and look in serious jeopardy of blowing it because they can't beat two teams that are collectively about 45 games under .500 this year. I'm not saying they will - the magic number is still four, which still favors the Cubs and certainly leaves them in control of their own destiny - but the cautious optimism I had following the destruction of the Pirates is quickly drying up. If the Marlins win tomorrow, it's full-on panic mode.
Can't being a Cubs fan ever be easy? I get enough bad times during the 95-loss seasons that I think I'm entitled to at least one year where they coast. But both playoff appearances in my memory were tight and hard-earned. So will be this one... assuming they don't fucking blow it.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
That will ruin his weekend
The Cubs' quest for a division crown isn't going so well right now. Disturbingly, it's not even the offense that's necessarily been the problem - Friday wasn't good, but we already knew the Cubs struggle against Gorzelanny (it took a Jason Marquis 1-0 CG shutout to beat him earlier this year), which isn't surprising when you consider that he's been one of the best lefty starters in the NL this year. So has Rich Hill, but you wouldn't know it from his 6 ER and nine hits in six innings. After a welcome win by Zambrano, the Cubs proceeded to lose the series thanks to a bed-shitting performance from Steve Trachsel that's going to cause a lot of Cubs fans to wake up in cold sweats over the next few nights with flashbacks to 1999. (Trachsel had fully seven starts that year in which he gave up at least 6 ER, including two in which he allowed nine, en route to a brilliant 8-18 campaign during which his ERA was 5.56.)
Meanwhile - of course - Milwaukee managed to win a road series, just their third since the All-Star Break.
I'm glad Zambrano's back, if this wasn't just one fluke start. But if the rest of the starters are going to go into the tank, does it even matter? You have to win late-season series against crappy teams with nothing left but the chance to play spoiler. The offense has been showing me a bit more - Soriano's power is kicking in, Soto has looked great, etc. - but for God's sake, why can't this team ever have every part of it going good at the same damn time?
Meanwhile - of course - Milwaukee managed to win a road series, just their third since the All-Star Break.
I'm glad Zambrano's back, if this wasn't just one fluke start. But if the rest of the starters are going to go into the tank, does it even matter? You have to win late-season series against crappy teams with nothing left but the chance to play spoiler. The offense has been showing me a bit more - Soriano's power is kicking in, Soto has looked great, etc. - but for God's sake, why can't this team ever have every part of it going good at the same damn time?
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Square one-thirty-nine
Every game up until now, it turns out, has been more or less for naught. As September 6 draws to a close, the Cubs find themselves in exactly the same spot as they were when the season started - deadlocked with the Milwaukee Brewers. (Okay, so on April 1 the Cubs were tied with four other teams too. But since those teams are not tied for first right now, it doesn't matter.) Both teams are 71-68; both have had stretches this season where they were the hottest team in baseball, and both have only managed to settle around .500 despite that. The Cubs led by as many as 2.5 games only a week or so ago; now it is dead even.
Today's game was a bad one to lose. When Soriano hit his second homer, I foolishly thought that the game was won - the bullpen had been strong recently and only needed six outs. Howry gave up a solo home run but had little other trouble, but Dempster couldn't seem to get anyone out, and even if Ethier's home run was a basket job, Ryan seemed headed to his third blown save by hook or by crook. Wuertz's wild pitch was just icing on the cake, not that the Cubs showed any sign of hitting Saito in the bottom of the ninth. This was one where the bottom just dropped out, like that game against the Mets in May. Where the Cubs could have kept a one-game separation in first, they instead dropped into a tie.
With things virtually dead even now (since the annoying Cardinals are just one back; will someone please figure out how to pitch to Rick Ankiel?), let's take a look down the stretch.
Cubs (71-68, tied for first)
Games left: 23
Home/road split: 7/16
Divisional games left: 20
Games left against winning teams: 5
Brewers (71-68, tied for first)
Games left: 23
Home/road split: 10/13
Divisional games left: 15
Games left against winning teams: 11
Cardinals (69-68, one game back)
Games left: 25
Home/road split: 11/14
Divisional games left: 18
Games left against winning teams: 15
At first blush, the schedule seems to favor the Cubs. They have the most road games remaining, but their home/road records this year are virtually identical (38-36 at home, 33-32 away), something that cannot be said of Milwaukee, which plays three more home games down the stretch but still faces the majority of their remaining games on the road, where they are a stunning 26-42 this year. St. Louis is 30-37 on the road. Since all three teams play a majority of road games, it probably helps the Cubs and their +.500 road record most to do so. And of course, the Cubs only play five games against teams with records above .500 - all five of them are against the Cardinals, though, and there's the rub. The Cubs have to play four games at Busch, where St. Louis is 39-31 and where the Cubs have historically not played terribly well (although they're 4-1 there this year). These four games could well decide the division, or at least decide which of the Cardinals and Cubs won't be seriously contending for it. Or they could split the four and we'd be right back where we started.
The Cubs get to play a lot of games against the Central, and in particular the dregs of the Central, with 15 of the 23 games coming against Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Houston. The only problem here? The Cubs' combined record against those three this year is 15-18. Still, if you had to choose who to face down the stretch, you couldn't do a lot better than the Cubs' schedule. The only extra-divisional team is Florida, itself 20 games under .500 (though the Cubs seem to struggle with them). By comparison, the Cardinals play four against the Phillies and Mets, while the Brewers have series against both Atlanta and San Diego - plus the Cardinals and Brewers play each other to start the season's final week, which could be very good for the Cubs, who will be busy playing Florida at the time.
Certainly the Cardinals and Brewers have plenty of games left against bad Central teams too. And they've had more success this year - Milwaukee is 23-14 against the Central's second division, and St. Louis is 24-14. (In fact, the Cubs might well be struggling worse than they are if not for being six games over against their two closest competitors. Oh, the irony.) But the Cubs have the most left, and they have to take advantage of this for a change. The Cubs average just 4.6 runs a game, and the NL Central's bad teams are bad mostly because they can't pitch - the Reds, for example, are third in the NL in runs scored but second-worst in runs allowed. The bats need to come to life, something they've struggled to do for most of the year. Did you know that the Cubs have scored more than six runs in a game just ten times in the second half (and one of those was in a loss)? When you're facing Cincinnati - which averages well over five runs allowed per game - you've gotta put crooked numbers on the board.
So here's what I think the Cubs will have to do to win the division: 15-8.
Milwaukee has 10 home games left and they play .633 ball at home - the good news is that seven of those ten come against St. Louis and San Diego. Still, I can easily see Milwaukee winning three of six on their current road trip, then sweeping the Reds at home (six wins), taking two of three at Houston (eight wins), splitting with Atlanta (ten wins), taking two of three from St. Louis (twelve wins) and splitting with the Padres (14 wins). This means the Cubs will need to go 15-8. (Unless five of those eight losses are to the Cardinals, it shouldn't matter what St. Louis does so long as the Cubs win 15 of their last 23.)
The bigger question, then: can the Cubs win 15 of 23?
It would basically entail winning every series from here on out, which is certainly a possibility given the quality of opposition, but not a lock given the Cubs' tendency to fail to exploit teams like that. 15 wins means two wins in each of the remaining seven multi-game series (wins in six plus a split in Busch), plus a win over the Cardinals in the makeup game at Wrigley on Monday. This is by no means impossible, but it's a tall order. Here are five things the Cubs need to happen to go 15-8 to end the year:
1. Zambrano returns to June/July form.
Hey, remember Carlos Zambrano's two-month stretch where he went 9-3 with an ERA under 2.00? I hope he does, because he's going to have to duplicate it over his last 4-5 starts. Zambrano may not win the Cy Young like he promised, but if he doesn't set a career high for wins (17+), this team could well be in trouble. As well as everyone else has pitched, the ace needs to show up - or at least needs to stop being a guaranteed loss every time he takes the hill.
2. Soriano/Theriot hot at the top.
Soriano's two HR today notwithstanding, the top of the order for the Cubs probably hasn't been quite as productive over the course of the year as one might have liked; between them, Soriano and Theriot have an OBP around .335, which isn't great for your 1-2 guys. However, Soriano has proven he can be streaky, and Theriot has had hot and cold months. One hot month for both of them could make a lot of difference.
3. Power surge.
In previous years the Cubs were the team with the low OBP and all the home runs. (In 2005, for example, the Cubs were #2 in HR but #11 in OBP in the NL.) This year they're the team with the low OBP (#10) and no home runs (#14, with 114, leading just Washington and the Dodgers, the latter of whom only passed 100 with their three-homer barrage today). When you have three potential 40-HR guys on the roster and six guys who have at least one career season of 25 homers or more, you probably shouldn't have only two guys at 20 and just three guys in double digits come September, yet that's where things sit. Mark DeRosa hit four home runs in April but has just one since June 27. 11 of Derrek Lee's 17 homers have been bunched post-All-Star Break. There's no way this team is incapable of having a hot streak with the longball; they haven't managed to do it all year, but these guys have done it before. They just need to figure out how to do it again.
4. Continued strong bullpen play.
Dempster's meltdown today notwithstanding, the bullpen may have been the club's biggest strength since things started to turn around in June, and it's not many Cubs teams about which you could say that recently. Scott Eyre remembered how to pitch; Wuertz, Howry and Dempster have been generally reliable; Marmol has been great. My only concern is that it's not a terribly deep pen right now, but perhaps some of the callups can shore it up.
5. Not playing down to the competition.
The Cubs do this a lot. But with so many games remaining against bad teams, they just can't afford to keep doing it. End of story.
Do I think the Cubs can do it? At this stage I would still call myself "guardedly optimistic," but I don't know that I really expect anything. Even if the Cubs can squeeze into the playoffs, I just don't see this team pulling off the consistency to win a World Series (no matter what St. Louis did last year). I'm happy to follow them as far as they go, as I always will; I just don't think I can imagine that being terribly far, playoffs or not.
Today's game was a bad one to lose. When Soriano hit his second homer, I foolishly thought that the game was won - the bullpen had been strong recently and only needed six outs. Howry gave up a solo home run but had little other trouble, but Dempster couldn't seem to get anyone out, and even if Ethier's home run was a basket job, Ryan seemed headed to his third blown save by hook or by crook. Wuertz's wild pitch was just icing on the cake, not that the Cubs showed any sign of hitting Saito in the bottom of the ninth. This was one where the bottom just dropped out, like that game against the Mets in May. Where the Cubs could have kept a one-game separation in first, they instead dropped into a tie.
With things virtually dead even now (since the annoying Cardinals are just one back; will someone please figure out how to pitch to Rick Ankiel?), let's take a look down the stretch.
Cubs (71-68, tied for first)
Games left: 23
Home/road split: 7/16
Divisional games left: 20
Games left against winning teams: 5
Brewers (71-68, tied for first)
Games left: 23
Home/road split: 10/13
Divisional games left: 15
Games left against winning teams: 11
Cardinals (69-68, one game back)
Games left: 25
Home/road split: 11/14
Divisional games left: 18
Games left against winning teams: 15
At first blush, the schedule seems to favor the Cubs. They have the most road games remaining, but their home/road records this year are virtually identical (38-36 at home, 33-32 away), something that cannot be said of Milwaukee, which plays three more home games down the stretch but still faces the majority of their remaining games on the road, where they are a stunning 26-42 this year. St. Louis is 30-37 on the road. Since all three teams play a majority of road games, it probably helps the Cubs and their +.500 road record most to do so. And of course, the Cubs only play five games against teams with records above .500 - all five of them are against the Cardinals, though, and there's the rub. The Cubs have to play four games at Busch, where St. Louis is 39-31 and where the Cubs have historically not played terribly well (although they're 4-1 there this year). These four games could well decide the division, or at least decide which of the Cardinals and Cubs won't be seriously contending for it. Or they could split the four and we'd be right back where we started.
The Cubs get to play a lot of games against the Central, and in particular the dregs of the Central, with 15 of the 23 games coming against Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Houston. The only problem here? The Cubs' combined record against those three this year is 15-18. Still, if you had to choose who to face down the stretch, you couldn't do a lot better than the Cubs' schedule. The only extra-divisional team is Florida, itself 20 games under .500 (though the Cubs seem to struggle with them). By comparison, the Cardinals play four against the Phillies and Mets, while the Brewers have series against both Atlanta and San Diego - plus the Cardinals and Brewers play each other to start the season's final week, which could be very good for the Cubs, who will be busy playing Florida at the time.
Certainly the Cardinals and Brewers have plenty of games left against bad Central teams too. And they've had more success this year - Milwaukee is 23-14 against the Central's second division, and St. Louis is 24-14. (In fact, the Cubs might well be struggling worse than they are if not for being six games over against their two closest competitors. Oh, the irony.) But the Cubs have the most left, and they have to take advantage of this for a change. The Cubs average just 4.6 runs a game, and the NL Central's bad teams are bad mostly because they can't pitch - the Reds, for example, are third in the NL in runs scored but second-worst in runs allowed. The bats need to come to life, something they've struggled to do for most of the year. Did you know that the Cubs have scored more than six runs in a game just ten times in the second half (and one of those was in a loss)? When you're facing Cincinnati - which averages well over five runs allowed per game - you've gotta put crooked numbers on the board.
So here's what I think the Cubs will have to do to win the division: 15-8.
Milwaukee has 10 home games left and they play .633 ball at home - the good news is that seven of those ten come against St. Louis and San Diego. Still, I can easily see Milwaukee winning three of six on their current road trip, then sweeping the Reds at home (six wins), taking two of three at Houston (eight wins), splitting with Atlanta (ten wins), taking two of three from St. Louis (twelve wins) and splitting with the Padres (14 wins). This means the Cubs will need to go 15-8. (Unless five of those eight losses are to the Cardinals, it shouldn't matter what St. Louis does so long as the Cubs win 15 of their last 23.)
The bigger question, then: can the Cubs win 15 of 23?
It would basically entail winning every series from here on out, which is certainly a possibility given the quality of opposition, but not a lock given the Cubs' tendency to fail to exploit teams like that. 15 wins means two wins in each of the remaining seven multi-game series (wins in six plus a split in Busch), plus a win over the Cardinals in the makeup game at Wrigley on Monday. This is by no means impossible, but it's a tall order. Here are five things the Cubs need to happen to go 15-8 to end the year:
1. Zambrano returns to June/July form.
Hey, remember Carlos Zambrano's two-month stretch where he went 9-3 with an ERA under 2.00? I hope he does, because he's going to have to duplicate it over his last 4-5 starts. Zambrano may not win the Cy Young like he promised, but if he doesn't set a career high for wins (17+), this team could well be in trouble. As well as everyone else has pitched, the ace needs to show up - or at least needs to stop being a guaranteed loss every time he takes the hill.
2. Soriano/Theriot hot at the top.
Soriano's two HR today notwithstanding, the top of the order for the Cubs probably hasn't been quite as productive over the course of the year as one might have liked; between them, Soriano and Theriot have an OBP around .335, which isn't great for your 1-2 guys. However, Soriano has proven he can be streaky, and Theriot has had hot and cold months. One hot month for both of them could make a lot of difference.
3. Power surge.
In previous years the Cubs were the team with the low OBP and all the home runs. (In 2005, for example, the Cubs were #2 in HR but #11 in OBP in the NL.) This year they're the team with the low OBP (#10) and no home runs (#14, with 114, leading just Washington and the Dodgers, the latter of whom only passed 100 with their three-homer barrage today). When you have three potential 40-HR guys on the roster and six guys who have at least one career season of 25 homers or more, you probably shouldn't have only two guys at 20 and just three guys in double digits come September, yet that's where things sit. Mark DeRosa hit four home runs in April but has just one since June 27. 11 of Derrek Lee's 17 homers have been bunched post-All-Star Break. There's no way this team is incapable of having a hot streak with the longball; they haven't managed to do it all year, but these guys have done it before. They just need to figure out how to do it again.
4. Continued strong bullpen play.
Dempster's meltdown today notwithstanding, the bullpen may have been the club's biggest strength since things started to turn around in June, and it's not many Cubs teams about which you could say that recently. Scott Eyre remembered how to pitch; Wuertz, Howry and Dempster have been generally reliable; Marmol has been great. My only concern is that it's not a terribly deep pen right now, but perhaps some of the callups can shore it up.
5. Not playing down to the competition.
The Cubs do this a lot. But with so many games remaining against bad teams, they just can't afford to keep doing it. End of story.
Do I think the Cubs can do it? At this stage I would still call myself "guardedly optimistic," but I don't know that I really expect anything. Even if the Cubs can squeeze into the playoffs, I just don't see this team pulling off the consistency to win a World Series (no matter what St. Louis did last year). I'm happy to follow them as far as they go, as I always will; I just don't think I can imagine that being terribly far, playoffs or not.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Zambarrassing
After dropping his fifth consecutive decision - a career worst - and receiving boos from the home fans at Wrigley Field, Carlos Zambrano said the following:
Really, Carlos? Really? You don't understand why? Well, let me go over a few reasons for you:
1) You're the ace of this team and you've lost five straight decisions, at a time when literally every win is absolutely vital.
2) You just signed a gargantuan new contract, the richest per-year multi-year deal a pitcher has ever signed. Do you think you've been earning it so far?
3) Your ERA has gone up nearly a full run since hitting its season low of 3.42 on August 3. In June and July you went 9-3 with an ERA under 2.00 and ten starts out of twelve in which you gave up two earned runs or fewer. In August? Your ERA was 7.06, more than a run worse than it was even in April. On August 3 you walked seven batters in five innings. On August 14 you gave up 13 hits in seven innings against the Reds. You walked five more guys yesterday and gave up eight earned runs. Do you know how long it's been since you gave up eight earned runs? I'll give you a hint - June 22, 2005.
I've spent time in this space defending Zambrano - see below - but as the losses pile up and he keeps looking bad, we have to wonder what's wrong, because something has to be. This guy is prone to having blow-up starts every now and then, but not five in a row. (He bounced back from that 8 ER start in June of '05 with eight shutout innings in his next outing. Does anyone think that's going to happen this time?) So what's wrong?
Injury. I don't know that I buy this one. Injury was the speculation as to why Z was struggling in the first two months, and then he caught fire in June and July. Is it really likely that he covered up an injury for two months, then had it heal, then re-aggravated it but continued to cover it up? I'm sure he doesn't want to be seen as a quitter or the kind of person who signs a big deal and then goes on the DL, but is there anyone out there who would rather see him pitch through an injury if he's going to look like this? If he is injured, he really needs to let someone know. But I just don't think that's it.
Pressure. For what it's worth, this isn't the first time Zambrano has pitched in this situation - in 2004, the Cubs were in a fight for the wild card that they ended up losing, finishing three games back of Houston - but it's his first time doing so as the unquestioned ace, the guy everyone is expecting to come through. Z was the best pitcher on the '04 Cubs - going 16-8 with a 2.75 ERA - but with Maddux, Wood and Prior on the roster, people didn't necessarily look to him first (although Wood and Prior combined for just 259 innings that year). Now? There's no doubt who the ace is supposed to be, but over the last month it's been... I don't know, Jason Marquis? That's not a playoff team. I hope it's not this, because if it is, that suggests that Zambrano won't come through in a tight race until the Cubs sign Johan Santana.
Just plain mental. Zambrano has always been, to put it nicely, mercurial. But he's also been able to use his emotions to his advantage, and recently he hasn't been managing that. Has he lost confidence in himself somehow? Is he just struggling through a rough patch that almost all pitchers hit at some point in their careers? Whatever the reason, he needs to get his head screwed back on the way he did at the start of June. I'm not necessarily advocating a dugout brawl with Jason Kendall, but if even Henry Blanco can't get a good start out of Zambrano, the problem ain't with the catchers. Zambrano pointed to his head after being booed yesterday - the implication, I think, was that he would remember the booing. Let's hope he does. This guy seems to need something to get him motivated again, and if the money isn't going to do it, maybe being reviled by the home fans is just the ticket.
I understand Zambrano's point to a certain degree - I'm sure no baseball player wants to struggle, especially like Z has been doing, and to get booed on top of that must really suck. On the other hand, all that money ought to dampen some of the pain. When you're making that much and not performing, I don't think you can really be too upset by booing, especially in a pennant race. It's just too bad that fixing this won't be as easy as simply buying his control back.
"I don't understand why the fans were booing at me. I can't understand that. They showed me today they just care about them. That's no fair. Because when you are struggling, that's when you want to feel the support of the fans."
Really, Carlos? Really? You don't understand why? Well, let me go over a few reasons for you:
1) You're the ace of this team and you've lost five straight decisions, at a time when literally every win is absolutely vital.
2) You just signed a gargantuan new contract, the richest per-year multi-year deal a pitcher has ever signed. Do you think you've been earning it so far?
3) Your ERA has gone up nearly a full run since hitting its season low of 3.42 on August 3. In June and July you went 9-3 with an ERA under 2.00 and ten starts out of twelve in which you gave up two earned runs or fewer. In August? Your ERA was 7.06, more than a run worse than it was even in April. On August 3 you walked seven batters in five innings. On August 14 you gave up 13 hits in seven innings against the Reds. You walked five more guys yesterday and gave up eight earned runs. Do you know how long it's been since you gave up eight earned runs? I'll give you a hint - June 22, 2005.
I've spent time in this space defending Zambrano - see below - but as the losses pile up and he keeps looking bad, we have to wonder what's wrong, because something has to be. This guy is prone to having blow-up starts every now and then, but not five in a row. (He bounced back from that 8 ER start in June of '05 with eight shutout innings in his next outing. Does anyone think that's going to happen this time?) So what's wrong?
Injury. I don't know that I buy this one. Injury was the speculation as to why Z was struggling in the first two months, and then he caught fire in June and July. Is it really likely that he covered up an injury for two months, then had it heal, then re-aggravated it but continued to cover it up? I'm sure he doesn't want to be seen as a quitter or the kind of person who signs a big deal and then goes on the DL, but is there anyone out there who would rather see him pitch through an injury if he's going to look like this? If he is injured, he really needs to let someone know. But I just don't think that's it.
Pressure. For what it's worth, this isn't the first time Zambrano has pitched in this situation - in 2004, the Cubs were in a fight for the wild card that they ended up losing, finishing three games back of Houston - but it's his first time doing so as the unquestioned ace, the guy everyone is expecting to come through. Z was the best pitcher on the '04 Cubs - going 16-8 with a 2.75 ERA - but with Maddux, Wood and Prior on the roster, people didn't necessarily look to him first (although Wood and Prior combined for just 259 innings that year). Now? There's no doubt who the ace is supposed to be, but over the last month it's been... I don't know, Jason Marquis? That's not a playoff team. I hope it's not this, because if it is, that suggests that Zambrano won't come through in a tight race until the Cubs sign Johan Santana.
Just plain mental. Zambrano has always been, to put it nicely, mercurial. But he's also been able to use his emotions to his advantage, and recently he hasn't been managing that. Has he lost confidence in himself somehow? Is he just struggling through a rough patch that almost all pitchers hit at some point in their careers? Whatever the reason, he needs to get his head screwed back on the way he did at the start of June. I'm not necessarily advocating a dugout brawl with Jason Kendall, but if even Henry Blanco can't get a good start out of Zambrano, the problem ain't with the catchers. Zambrano pointed to his head after being booed yesterday - the implication, I think, was that he would remember the booing. Let's hope he does. This guy seems to need something to get him motivated again, and if the money isn't going to do it, maybe being reviled by the home fans is just the ticket.
I understand Zambrano's point to a certain degree - I'm sure no baseball player wants to struggle, especially like Z has been doing, and to get booed on top of that must really suck. On the other hand, all that money ought to dampen some of the pain. When you're making that much and not performing, I don't think you can really be too upset by booing, especially in a pennant race. It's just too bad that fixing this won't be as easy as simply buying his control back.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Breaking the bank
Finally allowed to open the coffers again, the Cubs signed Carlos Zambrano to a five-year, $91.5 million extension. Was he worth it? Well, Zambrano has a career ERA of 3.37, which ranks him tenth among eligible active pitchers (min 1000 IP) and fifth among eligible active pitchers under the age of 30. (The four ahead of him are Oswalt, Santana, Webb, and Peavy. The first two both make eight figures; Peavy and Webb are enormous bargains at the moment, but probably won't be for more than another year or two.) He's also had good luck with injuries so far; he's made 30+ starts and thrown 200+ innings in each of his four full years with the Cubs, and is on pace to do so again this year. (Some would probably argue that this, along with his tendency to throw an awful lot of pitches - his count has increased from 3,407 in 2003 to 3,626 in 2006, and this year he's averaging a career high 4.01 pitches per plate appearance - is more of a warning sign than a good thing. But I don't know. Some guys actually are that durable. Clemens' career P/PA is 3.92, a hair above Zambrano's.)
There are concerns, sure. He's got a 3.86 ERA right now, which would be his career worst (not including his rookie year of 2001 in which he threw a total of 7.2 innings). Two more home runs allowed sets his single-season mark; he'll likely approach a career-worst hits allowed total; he's on pace for a career low in Ks. But with that said, his career ERA is 3.37. It's pretty darn great. And he has a career winning percentage of .605 - I know that wins aren't the best way to measure a pitcher (in fact they can be a pretty terrible way), but given that Z hasn't pitched for a single 90-win team, that's not bad. In fact, it puts him in the top ten among active pitchers under age 35. His 78 total wins are already top 60 among active players and only four guys who will still be under 30 by next season have more. None of them is as young as Zambrano.
Of course, career stats only mean so much, especially in the world of the starting pitcher. A guy who looks like a sure thing one year can flame out the next - Mark Prior, anyone? Zambrano has a good pedigree but he's still prone to maddening temper tantrums, loss of focus after a couple bad at-bats, and a general overuse of emotion that starts off cute and gets more and more tiresome every time it results in a meltdown on the mound. Still, Zambrano's stats this year in the control department aren't markedly different from those in years past - he's not going to walk as many guys as last year, for example, and his percentage of strikes is consistent with his career averages at 61%. (He's also throwing more first-pitch strikes than ever before, at 58%.) 5% of batters faced saw a 3-0 count, also about average for his career. Even where his numbers are worse, they're certainly not orders of magnitude worse. The guy will have 15+ wins barring something insane happening and his ERA will be under 4.00 unless he goes into the tank. Is a guy who gets you 15-12, 3.80 an $18 million pitcher? Worthy of the highest average salary for a multi-year-contract pitcher in history?
On the face of it, no. But again, you have to consider a couple other factors.
1) The market for Zambrano after the season.
As noted by Jayson Stark here, we are heading into one of the most barren free agency periods for starters in recent memory. The most intriguing commodities are a 41-year-old Curt Schilling and a bunch of guys with career ERAs that look like Olympic figure skating scores. Given the money thrown at Barry Zito last year - and Zito's subsequent failure to earn it - it's hard to believe that someone wouldn't have offered Zambrano nine figures on the open market, especially with teams like the Mets and Yankees, and the deep pockets found there, still struggling to put together strong top-to-bottom rotations to match their fantasy-team lineups.
2) Again, the career numbers.
Even if Zambrano's 2007 numbers aren't going to blow anyone's mind, he doesn't even turn 27 until next June, and yet he has more than 75 wins, a sub-3.50 ERA, 1000 career strikeouts and a winning percentage over .600. All other players under 30 who fit these criteria please step forward: hi, Johan. And hi, Roy, but you'll have to step back in a week when you turn 30. Anyone else? No? I realize this is more than a bit gerrymandered, and Jake Peavy is currently filling out his application form, and two of the categories are more team-dependent. Still, you get the general idea - Zambrano is pretty high up there in terms of career success among still-young starting pitchers, and his durability thus far only bolsters the idea that he's worth a long-term deal. And maybe the stability will help him get his head on just a little straighter. (Maybe?)
So I think we can stop with the doom-and-gloom just because he's had a few iffy starts ever since the tear through June and July. In particular, my dad called me today and said "I want to go on record that signing Zambrano was what destroyed this franchise!" Because of one loss in which Zambrano had a mediocre outing and got no run support. I would submit this as proof that following the Cubs for decades of futility is enough to make anyone crazy. I overreact to individual games as much as anyone, but let's try to think big picture here - the Cubs are still contenders this year and, unless the new owner is Carl Pohlad, probably have the money to be for the foreseeable future as long as the management is smart. There are several good-to-great position players locked up to long term deals and the youth movement has been filling in the gaps pretty nicely. All told, I'm not unhappy with the current direction, which is probably more than I've been able to say about the Cubs for a while now.
And hey - the Craig Monroe era is upon us!
There are concerns, sure. He's got a 3.86 ERA right now, which would be his career worst (not including his rookie year of 2001 in which he threw a total of 7.2 innings). Two more home runs allowed sets his single-season mark; he'll likely approach a career-worst hits allowed total; he's on pace for a career low in Ks. But with that said, his career ERA is 3.37. It's pretty darn great. And he has a career winning percentage of .605 - I know that wins aren't the best way to measure a pitcher (in fact they can be a pretty terrible way), but given that Z hasn't pitched for a single 90-win team, that's not bad. In fact, it puts him in the top ten among active pitchers under age 35. His 78 total wins are already top 60 among active players and only four guys who will still be under 30 by next season have more. None of them is as young as Zambrano.
Of course, career stats only mean so much, especially in the world of the starting pitcher. A guy who looks like a sure thing one year can flame out the next - Mark Prior, anyone? Zambrano has a good pedigree but he's still prone to maddening temper tantrums, loss of focus after a couple bad at-bats, and a general overuse of emotion that starts off cute and gets more and more tiresome every time it results in a meltdown on the mound. Still, Zambrano's stats this year in the control department aren't markedly different from those in years past - he's not going to walk as many guys as last year, for example, and his percentage of strikes is consistent with his career averages at 61%. (He's also throwing more first-pitch strikes than ever before, at 58%.) 5% of batters faced saw a 3-0 count, also about average for his career. Even where his numbers are worse, they're certainly not orders of magnitude worse. The guy will have 15+ wins barring something insane happening and his ERA will be under 4.00 unless he goes into the tank. Is a guy who gets you 15-12, 3.80 an $18 million pitcher? Worthy of the highest average salary for a multi-year-contract pitcher in history?
On the face of it, no. But again, you have to consider a couple other factors.
1) The market for Zambrano after the season.
As noted by Jayson Stark here, we are heading into one of the most barren free agency periods for starters in recent memory. The most intriguing commodities are a 41-year-old Curt Schilling and a bunch of guys with career ERAs that look like Olympic figure skating scores. Given the money thrown at Barry Zito last year - and Zito's subsequent failure to earn it - it's hard to believe that someone wouldn't have offered Zambrano nine figures on the open market, especially with teams like the Mets and Yankees, and the deep pockets found there, still struggling to put together strong top-to-bottom rotations to match their fantasy-team lineups.
2) Again, the career numbers.
Even if Zambrano's 2007 numbers aren't going to blow anyone's mind, he doesn't even turn 27 until next June, and yet he has more than 75 wins, a sub-3.50 ERA, 1000 career strikeouts and a winning percentage over .600. All other players under 30 who fit these criteria please step forward: hi, Johan. And hi, Roy, but you'll have to step back in a week when you turn 30. Anyone else? No? I realize this is more than a bit gerrymandered, and Jake Peavy is currently filling out his application form, and two of the categories are more team-dependent. Still, you get the general idea - Zambrano is pretty high up there in terms of career success among still-young starting pitchers, and his durability thus far only bolsters the idea that he's worth a long-term deal. And maybe the stability will help him get his head on just a little straighter. (Maybe?)
So I think we can stop with the doom-and-gloom just because he's had a few iffy starts ever since the tear through June and July. In particular, my dad called me today and said "I want to go on record that signing Zambrano was what destroyed this franchise!" Because of one loss in which Zambrano had a mediocre outing and got no run support. I would submit this as proof that following the Cubs for decades of futility is enough to make anyone crazy. I overreact to individual games as much as anyone, but let's try to think big picture here - the Cubs are still contenders this year and, unless the new owner is Carl Pohlad, probably have the money to be for the foreseeable future as long as the management is smart. There are several good-to-great position players locked up to long term deals and the youth movement has been filling in the gaps pretty nicely. All told, I'm not unhappy with the current direction, which is probably more than I've been able to say about the Cubs for a while now.
And hey - the Craig Monroe era is upon us!
Saturday, August 11, 2007
You can't spell Podsednik without "P.O.S."
Two victories in Colorado - nice start. How about a big four-game sweep? (Or at least win three. Nothing worse than starting a series 2-0 and splitting it.) But I was a little disappointed with some news I heard yesterday. I recognize that Alfonso Soriano's loss has got the Cubs scrambling a bit. But putting in a waiver claim on Scott Podsednik? Sure, they both play left field and they're both leadoff hitters, and they both have stolen 40 bases in a season. There are a few differences, however:
Alfonso Soriano, 2007 OBP: .336
Scott Podsednik, 2007 OBP: .328
That's not so bad, I guess...
Alfonso Soriano, 2007 SLG: .511
Scott Podsednik: 2007 SLG: .377
Ah yes.
Podsednik's OBP is well below league average, which is kind of terrible for a leadoff hitter. It's one thing if you're Soriano and can knock the ball out of the park; Podsednik can't do that - he's hit fewer home runs in the last four seasons combined than Soriano has this year alone - and he doesn't get on base. The amazing thing is that he gets so much of the credit for the White Sox's 2005 title run (mostly, I think, for his walkoff home run in Game 2 of the World Series). He got MVP votes that year - 15, but still - MVP votes! I think it was that big .700 OPS that put him over the top.
The hilarious thing is that Scott Podsednik was traded, pretty much straight up, for Carlos Lee. I will grant you that Carlos Lee is not going to steal a lot of bases (Podsednik had stolen 70 in 2004 just before the trade; he also had a .313 OBP). In 2004 Carlos Lee was 28 - he hit 31 home runs, hit .305 with a .366 OBP, and then was traded for a guy who'd hit .244 with a .313 OBP. But Podsednik could steal bases for you - at a 72% clip in 2005, below the level at which Baseball Prospectus found you're better off not even trying to steal. Ken Williams is a GENIUS.
Actual Williams quote at the time: "As we stated this October, we wanted to make a strong effort this offseason to improve our pitching and defense. ... Our goal was to field a team that is more speed-oriented and offers a more consistent run-scoring attack. Scott is exactly that type of offensive player."
(Postscript: the White Sox scored 865 runs in 2004, third best in the AL. In 2005 they scored 741 runs, ninth best. But you're right, Ken - a more consistent run-scoring attack. In 2005 your team consistently scored fewer runs than it had the year before, because you traded one of your best offensive players for a light-hitting guy who was kind of fast but also got thrown out a lot. In a related story, the team ERA dropped from 4.91 to 3.61 in the same span, and then the Sox won the World Series because, if you believe Ozzie Guillen, they were so good at bunting runners over. Hint as to what actually happened: Ozzie Guillen is an idiot.)
(Post-postscript: Carlos Lee has hit 93 home runs since being traded with an OBP around his career average of .342. He's averaged more than 6 runs created per 27 outs made. Scott Podsednik has hit 4 home runs with an OBP of about .330 and fewer than 4 runs created per 27 outs made. No, seriously, what a fucking awesome trade. I know someone is going to come along and say that since they won the World Series after the trade there must be a correlation, but you know what? No. No there was not. The correlation is they scored 124 fewer runs in 2005 and that managed not to matter because their pitching was insane. Unless Podsednik taught the White Sox staff how to throw a spitball and not get caught, he had literally no positive impact on the 2005 White Sox that Carlos Lee would not have had and then some. And if that is what happened, what's his fucking excuse for the last two years?)
All this is kind of a long and satisfyingly Williams/Guillen-deflating way of saying that I think the Cubs can do just fine without Scott Podsednik, thank you. Matt Murton this year? OBP ten points higher than Scott Podsednik's. Four times as many home runs (in roughly the same number of PAs). He does have fewer stolen bases. I'll give you that one. But the Cubs have a Podsednik-like leadoff guy already to fill Soriano's void - Ryan Theriot (.353 OBP, 20 steals to just 4 CS - he's like Podsednik but good!).
Don't get me wrong. I don't mind seeing the Cubs put in waiver claims on principle; it's good that they don't just want to sit around feeling sorry for themselves. But let's not make any panic moves here. Unless Podsednik suddenly recaptures his 2003 form - the only year in which he was ever really that good - it's a bad idea to pick him up. And remember what happened last time we signed a speedy but light-hitting outfielder based on his 2003 season? I don't care what happened in 2005, Podsednik is not some sort of good luck charm. Hendry would do well to remember that.
Alfonso Soriano, 2007 OBP: .336
Scott Podsednik, 2007 OBP: .328
That's not so bad, I guess...
Alfonso Soriano, 2007 SLG: .511
Scott Podsednik: 2007 SLG: .377
Ah yes.
Podsednik's OBP is well below league average, which is kind of terrible for a leadoff hitter. It's one thing if you're Soriano and can knock the ball out of the park; Podsednik can't do that - he's hit fewer home runs in the last four seasons combined than Soriano has this year alone - and he doesn't get on base. The amazing thing is that he gets so much of the credit for the White Sox's 2005 title run (mostly, I think, for his walkoff home run in Game 2 of the World Series). He got MVP votes that year - 15, but still - MVP votes! I think it was that big .700 OPS that put him over the top.
The hilarious thing is that Scott Podsednik was traded, pretty much straight up, for Carlos Lee. I will grant you that Carlos Lee is not going to steal a lot of bases (Podsednik had stolen 70 in 2004 just before the trade; he also had a .313 OBP). In 2004 Carlos Lee was 28 - he hit 31 home runs, hit .305 with a .366 OBP, and then was traded for a guy who'd hit .244 with a .313 OBP. But Podsednik could steal bases for you - at a 72% clip in 2005, below the level at which Baseball Prospectus found you're better off not even trying to steal. Ken Williams is a GENIUS.
Actual Williams quote at the time: "As we stated this October, we wanted to make a strong effort this offseason to improve our pitching and defense. ... Our goal was to field a team that is more speed-oriented and offers a more consistent run-scoring attack. Scott is exactly that type of offensive player."
(Postscript: the White Sox scored 865 runs in 2004, third best in the AL. In 2005 they scored 741 runs, ninth best. But you're right, Ken - a more consistent run-scoring attack. In 2005 your team consistently scored fewer runs than it had the year before, because you traded one of your best offensive players for a light-hitting guy who was kind of fast but also got thrown out a lot. In a related story, the team ERA dropped from 4.91 to 3.61 in the same span, and then the Sox won the World Series because, if you believe Ozzie Guillen, they were so good at bunting runners over. Hint as to what actually happened: Ozzie Guillen is an idiot.)
(Post-postscript: Carlos Lee has hit 93 home runs since being traded with an OBP around his career average of .342. He's averaged more than 6 runs created per 27 outs made. Scott Podsednik has hit 4 home runs with an OBP of about .330 and fewer than 4 runs created per 27 outs made. No, seriously, what a fucking awesome trade. I know someone is going to come along and say that since they won the World Series after the trade there must be a correlation, but you know what? No. No there was not. The correlation is they scored 124 fewer runs in 2005 and that managed not to matter because their pitching was insane. Unless Podsednik taught the White Sox staff how to throw a spitball and not get caught, he had literally no positive impact on the 2005 White Sox that Carlos Lee would not have had and then some. And if that is what happened, what's his fucking excuse for the last two years?)
All this is kind of a long and satisfyingly Williams/Guillen-deflating way of saying that I think the Cubs can do just fine without Scott Podsednik, thank you. Matt Murton this year? OBP ten points higher than Scott Podsednik's. Four times as many home runs (in roughly the same number of PAs). He does have fewer stolen bases. I'll give you that one. But the Cubs have a Podsednik-like leadoff guy already to fill Soriano's void - Ryan Theriot (.353 OBP, 20 steals to just 4 CS - he's like Podsednik but good!).
Don't get me wrong. I don't mind seeing the Cubs put in waiver claims on principle; it's good that they don't just want to sit around feeling sorry for themselves. But let's not make any panic moves here. Unless Podsednik suddenly recaptures his 2003 form - the only year in which he was ever really that good - it's a bad idea to pick him up. And remember what happened last time we signed a speedy but light-hitting outfielder based on his 2003 season? I don't care what happened in 2005, Podsednik is not some sort of good luck charm. Hendry would do well to remember that.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
A season on the brink (of ending)
I haven't posted in three weeks because the Cubs went on their run and I was terrified of doing anything to jinx it. But with things beginning to fall apart, I'm breaking radio silence; it's hard to imagine I could say anything to make things much worse at this point. I have to admit, this is a lot earlier than I imagined them disappointing me this year. At the risk of overreacting to less than a week's worth of events, it's looking like three-strikes-and-you're-out as far as the Cubs' real chances of contending go:
Strike one: Alfonso Soriano tears a quad, is out a month
Strike two: Aramis Ramirez tweaks his wrist, is day-to-day
Strike three: Team drops to three games over .500 after being swept by Astros; Zambrano rounds into mid-April form once more
If Zambrano starts being a mediocre pitcher again, that's three huge losses (even if Ramirez's injury is relatively minor), and the offense was already not nearly as consistent as it could have been. Mercifully, the Brewers' road woes continued in Colorado, meaning the Cubs will still be just a game back when tonight's inevitable loss is over, but suddenly the Cardinals have shown up in the rear view mirror, and the Cubs could be leading this division by multiple games if they didn't have an infuriating tendency to slump at the exact same time as the Brewers, most of July notwithstanding.
Maybe this is just one bad series. Maybe the 26 strikeouts by the lineup in the first two games was just the result of pressing after Soriano's injury, and they'll figure it out. Of course, with no off day until next Monday, they don't have a lot of time to figure it out, and going to Colorado to face a Rockies team that has played surprisingly well this year and just stomped the Brewers might not be the preferred next destination. Maybe Zambrano just had a couple bad starts in a row and he'll be fine the next time he comes up in the rotation. Maybe this is all a blip on the way to a division title; the 2003 Cubs were just three games over .500 as late as August 31 and lost 9 of 14 between August 16 and 31. Still, looking to the past can only be so comforting. The whole point of spending $300 million was for this Cubs team to be the future, or at least the present, and right now that's being derailed by injuries and a pitching staff that seem to be starting to wear down. This may not ever have been a World Series team, but there's no reason it can't be a playoff team, and yet that's starting to feel like something that's severely at risk. There's a lot of baseball left to be played, but if the next month and half looks anything like the last week and a half, most of it is going to be pretty unpleasant.
Strike one: Alfonso Soriano tears a quad, is out a month
Strike two: Aramis Ramirez tweaks his wrist, is day-to-day
Strike three: Team drops to three games over .500 after being swept by Astros; Zambrano rounds into mid-April form once more
If Zambrano starts being a mediocre pitcher again, that's three huge losses (even if Ramirez's injury is relatively minor), and the offense was already not nearly as consistent as it could have been. Mercifully, the Brewers' road woes continued in Colorado, meaning the Cubs will still be just a game back when tonight's inevitable loss is over, but suddenly the Cardinals have shown up in the rear view mirror, and the Cubs could be leading this division by multiple games if they didn't have an infuriating tendency to slump at the exact same time as the Brewers, most of July notwithstanding.
Maybe this is just one bad series. Maybe the 26 strikeouts by the lineup in the first two games was just the result of pressing after Soriano's injury, and they'll figure it out. Of course, with no off day until next Monday, they don't have a lot of time to figure it out, and going to Colorado to face a Rockies team that has played surprisingly well this year and just stomped the Brewers might not be the preferred next destination. Maybe Zambrano just had a couple bad starts in a row and he'll be fine the next time he comes up in the rotation. Maybe this is all a blip on the way to a division title; the 2003 Cubs were just three games over .500 as late as August 31 and lost 9 of 14 between August 16 and 31. Still, looking to the past can only be so comforting. The whole point of spending $300 million was for this Cubs team to be the future, or at least the present, and right now that's being derailed by injuries and a pitching staff that seem to be starting to wear down. This may not ever have been a World Series team, but there's no reason it can't be a playoff team, and yet that's starting to feel like something that's severely at risk. There's a lot of baseball left to be played, but if the next month and half looks anything like the last week and a half, most of it is going to be pretty unpleasant.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Houston, we have no problem
The Cubs play the Astros approximately 74 times in the second half, so it's good that things kicked off to this kind of a start, and equally good that the crappiness of the first half conclusion - somehow losing two out of three to the Pirates - was immediately counteracted by a sweep of a team that has been a pretty consistent historical bugaboo for the Cubs.
Game-by-game positives
Game 1: Cubs 6, Astros 0
Another nice game for Zambrano; more good work by Marmol; Jones managing not be completely worthless; the Cubs capitalizing on the other team's mistakes; a shutout.
Game 2: Cubs 9, Astros 3
Another great outing by Lilly; a pounding on Roy Oswalt; Ramirez and Soriano going nuts; first team homer since June 29 (wha??); not panicking after an early run allowed.
Game 3: Cubs 7, Astros 6
Winning a slugfest; not panicking after going down 5-0 in the second; Lee's first home run since June 3; beating up on a guy they're supposed to beat up on in Wandy Rodriguez; the bullpen having another nice outing (5 innings, no runs to salvage Marquis' 4 innings, 6 runs); comeback win; Soto getting a hit and RBI (maybe one of the three catchers we're carrying could start hitting?); winning a game with the wind blowing out to left; getting to four games over .500 for the first time this year.
All told, you have to be pretty darn happy with how things turned out. Buster Olney says the Cubs have the easiest schedule among NL contenders after the break, although the Brewers were listed at #2. 3.5 back of Milwaukee is suddenly a pretty small cushion when we're not even to August yet - just ask the 2001 Cubs, who led the division by four games on July 27 and ended up five games back. I still refuse to buy this Brewers team as wire-to-wire division winners - sorry, Milwaukee fans, but if you think your team is as talented as the 2006 Tigers (the oft-made comparison because of the "out of seemingly nowhere!" factor), you have another think coming. I'm not saying the Cubs are definitely winning the division, and at this point it sure seems like if they don't then the Brewers will (not buying the Cardinals right now), but if the Cubs keep playing how they've been playing for the last three weeks? The Brewers are toast. Mark it down.
Game-by-game positives
Game 1: Cubs 6, Astros 0
Another nice game for Zambrano; more good work by Marmol; Jones managing not be completely worthless; the Cubs capitalizing on the other team's mistakes; a shutout.
Game 2: Cubs 9, Astros 3
Another great outing by Lilly; a pounding on Roy Oswalt; Ramirez and Soriano going nuts; first team homer since June 29 (wha??); not panicking after an early run allowed.
Game 3: Cubs 7, Astros 6
Winning a slugfest; not panicking after going down 5-0 in the second; Lee's first home run since June 3; beating up on a guy they're supposed to beat up on in Wandy Rodriguez; the bullpen having another nice outing (5 innings, no runs to salvage Marquis' 4 innings, 6 runs); comeback win; Soto getting a hit and RBI (maybe one of the three catchers we're carrying could start hitting?); winning a game with the wind blowing out to left; getting to four games over .500 for the first time this year.
All told, you have to be pretty darn happy with how things turned out. Buster Olney says the Cubs have the easiest schedule among NL contenders after the break, although the Brewers were listed at #2. 3.5 back of Milwaukee is suddenly a pretty small cushion when we're not even to August yet - just ask the 2001 Cubs, who led the division by four games on July 27 and ended up five games back. I still refuse to buy this Brewers team as wire-to-wire division winners - sorry, Milwaukee fans, but if you think your team is as talented as the 2006 Tigers (the oft-made comparison because of the "out of seemingly nowhere!" factor), you have another think coming. I'm not saying the Cubs are definitely winning the division, and at this point it sure seems like if they don't then the Brewers will (not buying the Cardinals right now), but if the Cubs keep playing how they've been playing for the last three weeks? The Brewers are toast. Mark it down.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Road trip!
Following the series win over the Brewers - as Jason Marquis avoiding self-destructing in the sixth inning for the first time in like three weeks - the Cubs hit the road trying to climb over .500 for the first time since early May. The team the Cubs beat to pass the .500 mark last time? The Washington Nationals. The team the Cubs start a four-game set against tonight at RFK? Well, I think I just gave you your answer - the very same Washington Nationals. Between the four in Washington and three in Pittsburgh to finish up the first half, there is pretty much no excuse for the Cubs not to be at least three games over .500 by the All-Star break. I know the Cubs' tendency to play down to their opposition, but as well overall as the team has been playing lately, they really need to exploit the shitty teams on the schedule as much as possible.
Fun fact: although Derrek Lee has just six home runs so far this season, he has 26 doubles. This puts him on pace to have 53, which would be one of the top 30 doubles seasons of all-time. He's also on pace for 200 hits. He won't hit 46 home runs again (and can you imagine how ridiculous it would be at this point if he did?), but a .340 season with 200 hits and 50+ doubles is pretty goddamn productive. (As it stands, Lee is only tied for sixth in baseball in doubles right now. Magglio Ordonez is actually on pace to break the all-time record for doubles in a season, while Chase Utley and Dan Uggla are both on pace to hit the 60-double mark, something that - and this is key - no one has done since 1936. If you ask me, this is way more interesting than any homer chases, even if 99.9% of baseball fans couldn't tell you who holds the doubles record, or how many he had, or what year he set it, or for what team.)
Fun fact: although Derrek Lee has just six home runs so far this season, he has 26 doubles. This puts him on pace to have 53, which would be one of the top 30 doubles seasons of all-time. He's also on pace for 200 hits. He won't hit 46 home runs again (and can you imagine how ridiculous it would be at this point if he did?), but a .340 season with 200 hits and 50+ doubles is pretty goddamn productive. (As it stands, Lee is only tied for sixth in baseball in doubles right now. Magglio Ordonez is actually on pace to break the all-time record for doubles in a season, while Chase Utley and Dan Uggla are both on pace to hit the 60-double mark, something that - and this is key - no one has done since 1936. If you ask me, this is way more interesting than any homer chases, even if 99.9% of baseball fans couldn't tell you who holds the doubles record, or how many he had, or what year he set it, or for what team.)
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
The streak continues
Say what you will about the Michael Barrett trade... but it seems to have had the desired effect.
Since this was a weekday game with a 1:20 start, I was following it on Gamecast at work. When the Brewers went up 5-0, I pretty much stopped following it closely, as I imagine a lot of people did. I did check in periodically, watching the Cubs' at-bats in the last few innings after they had gotten on the board. When Lee came up with one out in the ninth, with Soriano at third and Fontenot at first, I thought, "This would be a good spot for Lee to bust out of his power slump." (Did you know he hasn't hit one since June 3?) Of course, he didn't, but at least he knocked one in. When Ramirez came up and the first pitch led to the "Incoming pitch has been hit into play..." alert on the Gamecast, I just had the feeling somehow that he had parked it in the bleachers... of course, that turned out to be the case. Thank God I was only watching this on Gamecast, because if I'd been listening on the radio (or if I'd been a bad, bad boy and been watching MLB TV at work) I probably would have yelled. As it was I probably got more excited than one should at work, although fortunately this is Chicago, so everyone pretty much understood.
I know it's the Cubs and I don't want to get my hopes too high... but I mean, how can you not absolutely love this team right now? Two come-from-behind wins in the bottom of the ninth in the space of a week... last year they had one all year. (The 2003 Cubs never did it.) The bullpen has been great (except for that Rockies game, when it got picked up) and the hitting has been far more timely than we've come to expect. Seven wins in a row? Pretty great.
I don't know where this is going. The Brewers still lead by 6.5, and the Cubs can't catch them on the strength of head-to-head alone - even if they win the remaining five, it's still 1.5 games. But if the Cubs can keep the recent momentum and luck going... well, you know this team has enough talent to contend for the division. The start was slow, but all that means is the end has to be a little faster. Stranger things have happened, right?
Since this was a weekday game with a 1:20 start, I was following it on Gamecast at work. When the Brewers went up 5-0, I pretty much stopped following it closely, as I imagine a lot of people did. I did check in periodically, watching the Cubs' at-bats in the last few innings after they had gotten on the board. When Lee came up with one out in the ninth, with Soriano at third and Fontenot at first, I thought, "This would be a good spot for Lee to bust out of his power slump." (Did you know he hasn't hit one since June 3?) Of course, he didn't, but at least he knocked one in. When Ramirez came up and the first pitch led to the "Incoming pitch has been hit into play..." alert on the Gamecast, I just had the feeling somehow that he had parked it in the bleachers... of course, that turned out to be the case. Thank God I was only watching this on Gamecast, because if I'd been listening on the radio (or if I'd been a bad, bad boy and been watching MLB TV at work) I probably would have yelled. As it was I probably got more excited than one should at work, although fortunately this is Chicago, so everyone pretty much understood.
I know it's the Cubs and I don't want to get my hopes too high... but I mean, how can you not absolutely love this team right now? Two come-from-behind wins in the bottom of the ninth in the space of a week... last year they had one all year. (The 2003 Cubs never did it.) The bullpen has been great (except for that Rockies game, when it got picked up) and the hitting has been far more timely than we've come to expect. Seven wins in a row? Pretty great.
I don't know where this is going. The Brewers still lead by 6.5, and the Cubs can't catch them on the strength of head-to-head alone - even if they win the remaining five, it's still 1.5 games. But if the Cubs can keep the recent momentum and luck going... well, you know this team has enough talent to contend for the division. The start was slow, but all that means is the end has to be a little faster. Stranger things have happened, right?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Trader Jim
The Cubs have now won six in a row after two consecutive sweeps, from the White Sox and now Rockies, only their second and third swept series this year. A key off day is ahead, followed by a critical weekend home series with Milwaukee - a sweep announces the Cubs as a force in not just the Central, but perhaps the NL as a whole; 2 out of 3 says "we're in this thing till the end"; 1 out of 3 or a sweep loss says "Just kidding about those six in a row." At least two wins is basically a must.
With Jacque Jones seemingly on the way out (although the deal to Florida fell through over money), however, a lot of the talk has been about whether Jim Hendry has done a good job as manager of this team, especially on the trade front. Nate Silver of Baseball Prospectus contends that during Hendry's tenure, "the Cubs’ [sic] have developed a nasty habit ... of doing everything in their power to degrade a player’s value, and then trading him for pennies on the dollar." The article starts by discussing the Barrett trade, then goes on to cite various examples of players who were run out of town, including Hee Seop Choi, Mark Bellhorn, Sammy Sosa, Corey Patterson, Todd Walker, and now Jones (when and if he gets dealt).
A couple things here. First, no matter what you think of the Barrett trade, it seems a little presumptuous to suggest that it was the Cubs who were trying to run Barrett out of town. I can't recall seeing anyone in the organization doing or saying anything publicly to degrade Barrett, and it was the media - indeed, not just the local but national media - who decided that Barrett was a clubhouse cancer because he'd had a couple incidents involving tempers flaring over the past couple of years. Witness how the Rich Hill thing got blown up despite the fact that there was pretty clearly nothing to it beyond any normal dugout interaction for a pitcher and catcher who had just given up an RBI single to the pitcher. It may well be that Barrett wasn't popular in the clubhouse, but if that's true, it doesn't seem to have made the whispers.
Second of all, and this is going to be true of nearly all the trades I'll discuss, other teams have scouts. Everyone saw that Barrett was having a bad year. It was probably the worst possible time to trade him and get any value back. That said, if Lou Piniella went to Jim Hendry and told him to trade Barrett - as may well have happened - it was up to Hendry to get what he could. Around the same time that Barrett and Zambrano tussled, Piniella appeared to realize that he wasn't leaving enough of his own imprint on this team. Things have started to turn around since then. If that's partly a result of Piniella being more in control, then if Barrett leaving was part of that control issue... well, that isn't really Hendry's fault, is it?
With that said, let's take a look at the deals done by Hendry since his promotion to GM on July 5, 2002. (Note: I have deliberately excluded deals so minor on both sides that they don't rate a mention.)
July 31, 2002: Cubs trade Darren Lewis to the Pirates for Chad Hermansen.
As it turned out, Lewis would never play another game in the majors, and he was hitting .241 in limited action, so it can't really be argued that he was "devalued" by the Cubs or Hendry. Hermansen did even less, but he ended up being spun off in the offseason in a much better trade that we'll get to shortly.
August 22, 2002: Cubs trade Tom Gordon to the Astros for Russ Rohlicek, Travis Anderson, and Mike Nannini.
This was legitimately a bad trade, although to be fair, the Cubs were busy cutting bait as a 67-95 season wound to a close under an interim manager. Gordon had been a solid reliever for the Cubs, saving 27 games in 2001, and ended up having several more productive years - in fact, he's still pitching for the Phillies, although his stats so far this year are mediocre. He did have a 204 ERA+ with the Yankees in 2004, however. So, could the Cubs have gotten more for him? Well, Gordon was a rental for the Astros, so the Cubs were trading a guy who, presumably, they didn't think they could resign, and taking what they could get. What they got wasn't much - none of the three guys who came over ever made the bigs that I can tell. Certainly none of them did it with the Cubs. I doubt this was a case of Flash being run out of town, though. The Cubs traded a guy they expected not to re-sign and happened to receive prospects who didn't pan out. Wasn't the first time that happened, won't be the last.
August 25, 2002: Cubs trade Jeff Fassero to the Cardinals for Jared Blasdell and Jason Karnuth.
Fassero was also a free agent after the '02 season. He was also 39 years old and had gone 5-6 with a 6.18 ERA for the Cubs that year; it's probably amazing that we got anything for him at all. (Of course he proceeded to go 3-0, 3.00 down the stretch for the Cardinals, and then pitched four more years, although not very well in any of them.) Karnuth had a brief stint with the Tigers in 2005 but otherwise has done nothing; Blasdell never came up. Given Fassero's ERA, though, you could argue that this was addition by subtraction, especially considering his contract situation.
September 4, 2002: Cubs trade Bill Mueller and cash to the Giants for Jeff Verplancke.
Mueller had missed a lot of the 2001 season after coming over from the Giants for Tim Worrell (a good trade, but not Hendry's), but he OBPed .403 in the 70 games he did play. In 2002, however, his stats were down - he was hitting just .266 in 103 games (though still getting on base at a pretty decent .355 clip). But he, too, was a free agent, and apparently Hendry just wanted to clean house, so off Mueller went for, well, nobody. The following year, Mueller signed with the Red Sox and won the motherfucking AL batting title. This is possibly the best early example of Hendry giving up on a guy, which Silver also accuses the Cubs of doing. History suggested Mueller gave you a good hitter, very solid OBP guy (career .373, for crap's sake), and a solid glove at third (the Cubs' hoodoo position). Instead, they either decided they weren't going to be able to resign him or (more likely) decided they had paid too much for what they'd gotten (possibly true, but injury-affected), and they shipped him off for one cent on the dollar. And the next year he won a goddamn batting title. Of course, the Cubs ended up getting a pretty good, and much younger, third baseman during the 2003 season, but Hendry couldn't have known that at the time.
December 4, 2002: Cubs trade Todd Hundley and Chad Hermansen to the Dodgers for Mark Grudzielanek and Eric Karros.
In November, the Cubs traded minor leaguers of no note for Damian Miller and Paul Bako, but I wanted to keep the list to major leaguers who were traded away. As it happens, they picked up two catchers because Joe Girardi was a free agent and because Todd Hundley was about to be shipped off. Hundley was, in fact, somewhat run out of town; his poor overall play and attitude combined to make him quite unpopular with the fans. As Hire Jim Essian!'s Bad Kermit notes in his post naming Hundley the worst Cub of his lifetime, Hundley was once booed after hitting a home run. By the home fans. That's pretty unpopular. I don't think you could call this any kind of Hendry conspiracy, however. The amazing thing is that Dodgers were willing to send back actual major league players for him. Grudzielanek and Karros had both had serviceable, if wholly unspectacular, seasons in 2002; both did pretty much the same in 2003, although Grudzielanek hit .314 and rather mysteriously received an MVP vote. The two combined for just three seasons at Wrigley, but anything that removed Hundley from the premises has to be considered a win.
June 20, 2003: Cubs trade Mark Bellhorn to the Rockies for Jose Hernandez.
The knock on Mark Bellhorn, according to Silver, was that he struck out too much. And he did strike out a lot, but his OBP in 2002 (when he had 144 Ks to 115 hits) was .374. The Bellhorn trade could be categorized as a panic trade; the Cubs were seeking to contend for the division and Bellhorn, through mid-June, was hitting .209 and not flashing the 27-home run power he'd displayed the year earlier. (Wow, does this sound familiar. Although Jones is hitting .234.) But if Bellhorn was pushed out the door for striking out too much, doesn't trading him for Jose Hernandez - who in 2002 had struck out 188 times! - seem kind of counterintuitive? It was kind of a silly trade, since Hernandez was no better than Bellhorn except maybe on defense, but it didn't end up making much difference. And Hernandez ended up playing a role in a much better trade.
July 23, 2003: Cubs trade Jose Hernandez, Bobby Hill, and Matt Bruback to the Pirates for Aramis Ramirez, Kenny Lofton, and cash.
Even in 2003, I think most fantasy league GMs would have shot this trade down. Ramirez had already had a 30/100 season, although he was pretty miserable in the field. Still, there's no denying that this is one of the best trades the Cubs ever made. The guy who was "run out of town" in this one? Well, maybe Bobby Hill, who was supposed to be the second baseman of the future but didn't do much with the big club, not that he was given much of a chance. When last seen, Hill was in the Padres' minor leagues, so I don't think we ended up missing much. Lofton was just a rental - an exceedingly useful rental who hit .327 down the stretch in 2003 and OBPed .381 - but Ramirez has finally shored up the hot corner that had seen player after player pass through it since the departure of Ron Santo.
November 25, 2003: Cubs trade Hee Seop Choi and Mike Nannini to the Marlins for Derrek Lee.
This was practically payback for the NLCS. I was kind of shocked to see Choi's name on Silver's list - I suppose you could argue that the Cubs didn't give him enough of a chance, but he played in 80 games in 2003 and hit .218 (although his OBP was a respectable .350). Derrek Lee, meanwhile, hit .271, had an OBP of .379, and went 31/92 in HR/RBI. This was an upgrade by any measure, even if Choi had been shortchanged. Did Hendry take advantage of a Marlins team having another post-title fire sale? Maybe so. But he still made a big upgrade at the first base spot, and you certainly can't accuse him of getting "cents on the dollar" for Choi, who isn't even in the majors right now.
December 15, 2003: Cubs trade Damian Miller and cash to the A's for Michael Barrett.
Barrett was never really an Athletic; the Expos traded him to Oakland, who immediately turned him around to the Cubs. At the time, Hendry stated that the move was due to Barrett having shown some offensive spark (which Miller hadn't really) and to his youth (seven years younger than Miller). You could again argue that Miller wasn't given enough chance to return to 2001 form, and he was a favorite of the pitching staff, but read the linked article - Barrett was considered just fine behind the plate and an improvement at it. All told, looks like a case of Hendry trying to upgrade a weaker offensive position on a team that was looking to contend for a division again. I don't see a problem.
March 25, 2004: Cubs trade Juan Cruz and Steve Smyth to the Braves for Andy Pratt and Richard Lewis.
Cruz pitched fairly well in 2002, but went 3-11 due to some bad breaks. In 2003, however, it was more on him, as his ERA was 6.05. Apparently not liking what they were seeing in 2004 spring training either, the Cubs gave up on a pitcher who was positioned, along with Mark Prior, as the next big thing going into 2002. They dumped him to Atlanta, not bothering to get back more than Andy Pratt, who had appeared in 1.1 innings with the Braves in 2002 and managed to issue as many walks as he recorded outs. He did even worse for the Cubs - in four games in 2004, Pratt appeared in 1.2 innings and issued seven walks. For good measure, he also hit a guy. Cubs ERA: 21.60. That was it for Andy. There is a better argument for Cruz being "run out of town" or "dumped at his lowest value" than for someone like Choi. What could the Cubs possibly have seen in Pratt that justified dumping Cruz, who at least had some big league experience that didn't involve sucking utterly? I get the feeling that after the failure of 2003, Hendry started to feel like he had to get rid of everyone who hadn't had a very good year. Surely if he did that, 2004 would only be better! So out went Cruz, Choi, Miller... and all this did make the Cubs better. Exactly one win better, in fact. Of course, in 2004, 89 wins didn't get you a division title.
July 31, 2004: Cubs trade Alex Gonzalez, Brendan Harris, and Francis Beltran to the Expos and Justin Jones to the Twins for Nomar Garciaparra and Matt Murton from the Red Sox.
Ah, the huge four-team deal. At the time this seemed genius. The goat of 2003 (well, one of) plus two minor-leaguers for Nomar, who at the time had only had one major pre-2004 injury and was coming off two straight seasons in which he had nearly 200 hits, knocked in over 100 runs, and had OPS+ numbers of over 120. On the other hand, Nomar had been injured and missed a high number of games in 2004 itself, and he ended up playing in just 105 games for the Cubs over two months of 2004 and the whole of 2005. Jose Macias played more games for the Cubs over that time than Nomar did. Murton, whom Hendry apparently insisted upon receiving, has had his playing time with the Cubs but perhaps did not receive enough in 2007 before being sent down to get more at-bats. So - was this a bad trade? I don't think that can be argued. Gonzalez was brutal at the plate in '04 - his OBP was .241 at the time of the trade - and his ties to the 2003 debacle weren't endearing him to anyone. Getting Nomar back was more like icing on the cake. Beltran and Harris had minimal chances with the Cubs but didn't do much with them; Harris is hitting well for Tampa Bay this year, but raise your hand if you had that one. Getting rid of Gonzalez can't really be quarreled with, and while accepting Nomar was in some respects taking on someone's hand-me-downs, he sure hit a lot better than Gonzalez did when he was actually on the field.
February 2, 2005: Cubs trade Sammy Sosa and cash to the Orioles for Jerry Hairston Jr., Mike Fontenot, and Dave Crouthers.
This is the big one. Sammy Sosa was most definitely run out of Chicago, and the organization packed his bags for him. They're the ones who released the security tape showing Sosa leaving in the seventh inning. Sosa had had a down year - his 35 home runs and 80 RBI were his lowest totals since 1994. He hit just .253, his lowest average since 1997. But he was still Sammy Sosa, right? Well, maybe that was the problem. The newspapers seemed only too happy to report on stories like the early departure, or how Sosa's boom box was unpopular with teammates. Whether or not the Cubs were trying to push Sosa down into the mud could be debated; for his part, Sosa accused Dusty Baker of trying to hang the Cubs' 2004 failures on his shoulders (which is a little unfair, but I mean, the guy was making $16 million). The question is, had the press not gotten so negative about Sammy, could he have been traded for more? (Hairston spent one middling year in Chicago before being shipped out in mid-2006; Fontenot has only just started to make his mark this year, though he's hitting very well at the moment; Crouthers never came up.) Hard to say, but I'm not sure, personally. Let's say no negative stories had ever come out about Sammy. There's still the matter of his declining statistics, which dipped significantly in pretty much every category from 2001 to 2004. With his enormous contract - $17 million in 2005, some of which the Cubs had to pay - he wasn't very tradeable, and if a team called you up offering to trade its biggest star, wouldn't that give you pause?
This is where the Hendry criticism bothers me a little bit. I mean, it's not like I think Jim Hendry is the greatest GM ever, but just what was he supposed to do in a situation like this? The stuff in the clubhouse existed whether it got out or not, so it came down to either keep a slumping Sosa at the risk of creating a huge clubhouse rift, or trade him for team chemistry and hope he kept sliding - which he did. Could Hendry have gotten more back? It's doubtful. Increasingly these days, teams are not that willing to trade big-name players for each other, and Sosa's value had been diminished by his own stats and the perception that he mostly seemed either to hit a home run or strike out. (In 2000 Sosa hit 50 home runs and had 143 non-HR hits. In 2004 he hit 35 home runs, but had just 86 non-HR hits to go with that.) Did the Cubs throw him under the bus? Absolutely. And they did this because even though the fans had noticed Sosa's diminished prediction and begun to boo accordingly, Sammy was still the face of the Cubs. If Sammy were going to be traded, he had to be more unpopular first, lest he turn things around in Baltimore and Hendry get flamed for the move. So the Cubs made Sosa unpopular, and then shipped him out for 15 cents on the dollar.
This, more than anywhere, is where Silver's point actually holds water. Hendry likely felt his legacy was at stake. If Sosa had to be traded, Hendry wasn't going to be the guy who traded "Sammy Sosa, hero." So instead, the organization worked to see to it that Hendry was trading "Sammy Sosa, slumping quitter jerk." It worked pretty well, too - ask a random sampling of Cubs fans, and I bet most of them have had their memories of 1993-2003 pretty colored in retrospect. (The steroids issue - though the evidence for Sosa is almost exclusively statistical - probably played a role in Hendry's decision as well. If it looked like Sosa's name could be dragged into the discussion, why not cut ties with him as early as possible?)
Assuming the order to release the tape of Sosa came from Hendry or someone very close to him, that would be a definite failing on his part - why make Sosa look like a bad character guy in addition to someone who was slumping with age? But again, I'm not sure it wouldn't have come out eventually. You don't just foist off a future Hall of Famer (as Sosa certainly looked at the time; he may still be, though the era will make it dodgy) for no reason, and the Orioles would have known this. While Hendry deserves some blame for helping ruin the memory of Sosa for Cubs fans - although it would be unfair to suggest that Sosa himself doesn't deserve a good deal of it as well - I'm not sure he deserves much for failing to get anything back for Sosa. As I said at the beginning - other teams have scouts too. If Sosa had still been hitting 50 home runs a year he could have left the final game of '04 wearing a thong and eat a broiled kitten and he still wouldn't have been traded. The Orioles knew Sosa was on a downturn just like the Cubs did. Did we think they would give us back Tejada? Hairston wasn't good, but heck - he wasn't significantly less productive than Sosa in 2005.
In summary, the criticism of Hendry on the Sosa front is true but quite possibly irrelevant. Other teams' general managers were not going to be stupid enough to trade for Sosa's name (especially given his price tag) while ignoring his statistics, and suggesting that Hendry could have gotten way more than he did strikes me as a gross misrepresentation of the facts of the situation.
February 9, 2005: Cubs trade Kyle Farnsworth to the Tigers for Roberto Novoa, Scott Moore, and Bo Flowers.
Here were Farnsworth's ERAs with the Cubs between 2000 and 2004: 6.43, 2.74, 7.33, 3.30, 4.73. He seemed to have some epidemic where he would have a great year, either get too high on himself or just stop working as hard, then have a bad year, then realize he needed to play better and turn it around. After five years of this (six if you include the year where he was mostly a starter, in 1999), the Cubs had seen enough, sending him to Detroit for a surprisingly robust package. True to form, Farnsworth had a great year in 2005, with a combined ERA of 2.19 for the Tigers and Braves, but he's been solidly mediocre for the Yankees in the two seasons since. You might argue here that Hendry could have waited until after Farnsworth's inevitable up year in 2005 to trade him, assuming he too had noticed the pattern. But Farnsworth, I think, had frustrated the Cubs by performing at his worst when they were most intent on relying upon him, and middle relievers are rarely going to bring you a strong package in return. Novoa and Moore are still in the organization, so at least there's that.
May 28, 2005: Cubs trade LaTroy Hawkins and cash to the Giants for Jerome Williams and David Aardsma.
Talk about a trade that had to happen. Hawkins had a couple monster statistical years for Minnesota in 2002 and 2003, so the Cubs brought him on as a free agent. While statistically his year-plus in Chicago looks decent at first glance (2.63 ERA in 2004), consider that he had just 29 saves as a Cub and 13 blown saves. That's a pretty bad rate. (In 2003 alone, Joe Borowski had 33 saves to just four blown.) Hawkins was brought in to be a middle reliever, ending up forced into the closer's role when Borowski struggled to start 2004. After about a year of the fans screaming about his blown saves, Hendry had evidently seen enough and spun Hawkins to San Francisco. That he got two pitchers back suggests that maybe, in fact, these other teams don't have scouts. Williams had won ten games in 2004 (in just 22 starts) and Aardsma was considered a talented kid who needed some polish. Neither ended up doing a ton for the Cubs - Williams had an okay remainder of 2005, I guess - but it was a pretty good package at the time. Was Hawkins traded for cents on the dollar? Some have argued that Hendry doesn't do enough to build up players' good attributes, rather harping on the problems that mean they need to go. Who could have avoided noticing Hawkins' unpopularity in Chicago and copious blown saves, though? I think Hendry got pretty good value in this deal.
July 18, 2005: Cubs trade Jason Dubois to the Indians for Jody Gerut.
Clinging to hope in the wild card race - five games back of Atlanta, while well off the pace in the division - the Cubs, well, mostly stood pat. This trade was a lateral move - Dubois, who had been touted for a couple years as a future star, had underperformed in platoon action, but Gerut, at the time, wasn't doing much more aside from having a much better OBP. As it turned out, the Cubs would probably have been better off keeping Dubois; Gerut was dinged up and saw almost no time with the Cubs, getting just 14 at-bats - in which he recorded one hit - before being shipped right back out. It's hard to call this a bad trade, but it wasn't a very good one. Even though Gerut's pre-trade stats had been fairly decent, his recent injury history made it a bit risky, and in fact there was no payoff.
July 31, 2005: Cubs trade Jody Gerut and cash to the Pirates for Matt Lawton.
On paper this was a great deal for the Cubs. They gave up only Gerut and cash, rather than any prospects, to get back Lawton, who at the time was getting on base at a .380 clip. At this point the Cubs were still over .500 and just four back in the wild card race - on the other hand, Houston was coming on like a house afire, and Lawton wasn't exactly a final piece. Hendry's deadline deals in 2005 were pretty weak - I can understand why he wanted an OBP guy, but the Cubs could have used a deeper rotation for the stretch. At any event, Lawton wasn't even an OBP guy for the Cubs, getting on at a .289 rate - the same as Dubois, for whom he'd effectively been traded.
August 9, 2005: Cubs trade Mike Remlinger and cash to the Red Sox for Olivio Astacio.
Remlinger was another reliever acquired after a great statistical year who couldn't duplicate it with the Cubs. But trading him for nothing didn't make much sense, especially with the Cubs still within screaming distance of the wild card if they could have turned it around. Hendry really didn't come through for the Cubs in '05.
August 27, 2005: Cubs trade Matt Lawton to the Yankees for Justin Berg.
By this point, Hendry was just waving the white flag. To be fair, though, Lawton had done little for the Cubs (and ended up doing even less for the Yankees) and by August 27, the Cubs had sunk to fifth and were pretty well done. Lawton was making a lot of money to do as little as he was doing, so pushing him off onto a contender wasn't that bad a move. You do wish the Cubs could have tried to squeeze New York for more, but this didn't really matter much.
August 29, 2005: Cubs trade Todd Hollandsworth to the Braves for Angelo Burrows and Todd Blackford.
Hollandsworth had been a super sub in 2004 when healthy, but had underwhelmed in 2005. Naturally the Cubs got nothing back for him. Again, though, he was a pending free agent on a non-playoff team, and he wasn't a major piece. The strategy of selling minor pieces to contenders and rolling the dice on their prospects isn't the worst thing ever, even if the Cubs have rarely gotten any decent prospects out of it. This deal was pretty average, either way.
December 7, 2005: Cubs trade Sergio Mitre, Ricky Nolasco and Renyel Pinto to the Marlins for Juan Pierre.
Pierre was coming off what was not a very good year; Hendry, no doubt, was looking more at 2003 and 2004. Trading three pitching prospects, all of whom have been at least serviceable major leaguers in Florida, was probably a bad move either way. Some Cubs fans were perhaps overly excited by this trade; at the time, it looked like one failed starter and two prospects for a guy who was, at least, a proven commodity (even if that commodity, in retrospect, was pretty overrated). You could argue that Mitre was another case of the Cubs giving up on someone too soon, but eh. I'd more say that the Marlins, as they tend to do, recognized that they could get some live arms for a guy who turned out to be pretty replaceable (2005 Marlins: 83 wins; 2006 Marlins: 78 wins. 2005 Cubs: 79 wins; 2006 Cubs: 66 wins). This was more a case of Hendry believing Pierre's hype, as a lot of us did, and letting himself overpay a little. Hey, if we'd gotten 2004 Pierre in the leadoff spot, maybe it would have been worth it. But that didn't happen. This ended up being more annoying later since Pierre was a one-year rental, although after 2006, who wanted him back in center anyway?
January 9, 2006: Cubs trade Corey Patterson to the Orioles for Carlos Perez and Nate Spears.
The CP era was officially over once Pierre came to town. Patterson is another case where it's claimed by Silver that he was run out of town for cents on the dollar, but come on. Are you going to argue that Patterson wasn't given a chance? He started 152 games in 2004 and was solidly mediocre; in 2005 he was just crap. How are you going to say that a guy who was barely a replacement-level player in 2005 was traded for cents on the dollar? Patterson turned it around to play okay for Baltimore - maybe he just needed a change of scenery, although it's not like he turned into Andruw Jones. This year, though, he's back to his sub-.300 OBP ways. Maybe Patterson wasn't treated entirely fairly in Chicago, but when you have a team that's trying desperately to stay decent, you can't keep a guy in the lineup who's flirting with the Mendoza line. I find it hilarious how many of the players Silver cites were just terrible for the Cubs. Hey, you know why we didn't get good players back? Because the players we were trading sucked! And I don't buy "Hendry shouldn't have let Patterson's value bottom out and then traded him." Well, what was he supposed to do? The Cubs had put a lot into Patterson and wanted him to succeed. But he kept on not succeeding. I suppose you could argue that they should have traded him after 2003 or 2004 - his value would have been higher, while at the same time the Cubs may already have known that his inconsistency was going to keep him from being the player they wanted - but I disagree. He had so much talent that the Cubs hung onto him, trying to make it work. When they finally realized that he was never likely to put it together, they just dumped him. Not the greatest thing ever, but what was the point in keeping him? Just so he could ride the bench, or hit .220 every day? Come on. This trade doesn't make Hendry a genius but criticizing him for it is pointless.
May 31, 2006: Cubs trade Jerry Hairston, Jr. to the Rangers for Phil Nevin and cash.
The Cubs had just had a rancid May and were in danger of the season being over by June. Hairston was hitting like shit, so he was sent out for Nevin, who wasn't hitting great for Texas but had some history as a power hitter. With Lee on the shelf, the Cubs needed some power. Although the team as a whole didn't turn it around, I don't see anything wrong with this trade - Nevin hit pretty well in his stint with the Cubs (12 HR and an OPS+ of 107), and while it was kind of low-risk, low-reward, I think Hendry could see the writing on the wall with Lee out. Even by May 31, 2006 was a lost season. Trading a bench guy for a power-hitting first baseman was, in its own way, a good thing to just try and see how it would work. Did Hendry have a responsibility to make more happen? Maybe - I remember rumors were flying at the time that the Cubs would try to bring in a big name at first base, but how would that have been smart with Lee inked to a big extension? And let's face it - if losing Lee drops you to 66 wins, you weren't a very good team even with him.
July 31, 2006: Cubs trade Greg Maddux to the Dodgers for Cesar Izturis.
Okay, this sucked. Mostly because I wanted Maddux to end his career with the Cubs. But while this was a bad trade, it probably wasn't Hendry's fault. Maddux, winding down his career, wanted to play for a contender. When the Cubs turned out to be the exact opposite of that, Hendry traded him to L.A.; the rumor was and continues to be that Maddux was practically the architect of the deal. This is another case where Hendry couldn't wait for Maddux's stats to rebound before trading him, since Maddux was looking for a trade, and there had been no reason to trade him sooner. We didn't get great value back, but Maddux's value at the time was about as low as it had ever been - he was old, a free agent, and struggling through his worst season since 1987. Frankly, that we got an actual major leaguer back is kind of amazing, although with the prospects the Dodgers have in their system, perhaps it would have been better to try and get one of them than the light-hitting Izturis, who ended up contributing to the 2007 infield logjam.
July 31, 2006: Cubs trade Todd Walker to the Padres for Jose Ceda.
I always liked Walk. I think the idea that he was pushed out the door is kind of a stretch; that Hendry didn't get back value for him is true, but that's what happens when you're a seller at the deadline. If Walker had stayed with the Cubs, he'd either be riding the bench right now or preventing one of the Theriot/Fontenot pair from playing. So this one was kind of "whatever" in the long run. Not a very good trade at the time, though. (Ceda, a ridiculously raw pitching prospect, threw high-90s and was apparently well-regarded in the Padres organization. But he's at least a couple years away from the majors, if indeed he ever gets there. I guess when you're near 100 losses, you're more concerned with future value.)
This brings us to 2007. The Barrett trade - not a good one, though as I said, I get the feeling Hendry's hands were kind of tied by Piniella. Let's take a look at the trades we've got here and determine how Hendry's trade tenure has gone. I'll assign one point for a good trade, deduct one for a bad trade, and assign no points for a trade that was pretty much "meh."
Lewis for Hermansen: 0
Gordon for prospects: -1
Fassero for prospects: 0
Mueller for prospect: -1
Hundley and Hermansen for Grudzielanek and Karros: +1
Bellhorn for Hernandez: 0
Hernandez, Hill and prospect for Ramirez and Lofton: +1
Choi and prospect for Lee: +1
Miller for Barrett: +1
Cruz and Smyth for Pratt and Lewis: -1
Gonzalez and prospects for Garciaparra and Murton: +1
Sosa for Hairston and prospects: -1
Farnsworth for Novoa and prospects: 0
Hawkins for Williams and Aardsma: +1
Dubois for Gerut: 0
Gerut for Lawton: +1
Remlinger for prospect: 0
Lawton for prospect: 0
Hollandsworth for prospects: 0
Mitre and prospects for Pierre: -1
Patterson for prospects: 0
Hairston for Nevin: +1
Maddux for Izturis: -1
Walker for prospect: -1
Barret for Bowen and prospect: -1
Overall I give Hendry a 0 as a trader, which over 25 trades makes him about exactly average, I'd say. His best trades were probably a lot better for the team than his worst trades were bad for it, and some have gotten a lot better in retrospect, while the worst lingering trade is probably Maddux. He had one really good stretch, though you could certainly argue that he peaked in late 2003 (like the Cubs themselves). And there's plenty to be said about his record as a signer of free agents (about which more anon, perhaps), which colors his overall record as a GM. But as far as Silver's column goes, I don't think I'm seeing it. I'm not sure what he thinks should have happened instead to guys like Choi and Patterson, but I don't think deals like the ones cited turned out so badly for the Cubs that Hendry deserves to be raked over the coals for them. There are plenty of other reasons we can find to do that (and when I get to the free agent signings, I'm sure that will happen).
With Jacque Jones seemingly on the way out (although the deal to Florida fell through over money), however, a lot of the talk has been about whether Jim Hendry has done a good job as manager of this team, especially on the trade front. Nate Silver of Baseball Prospectus contends that during Hendry's tenure, "the Cubs’ [sic] have developed a nasty habit ... of doing everything in their power to degrade a player’s value, and then trading him for pennies on the dollar." The article starts by discussing the Barrett trade, then goes on to cite various examples of players who were run out of town, including Hee Seop Choi, Mark Bellhorn, Sammy Sosa, Corey Patterson, Todd Walker, and now Jones (when and if he gets dealt).
A couple things here. First, no matter what you think of the Barrett trade, it seems a little presumptuous to suggest that it was the Cubs who were trying to run Barrett out of town. I can't recall seeing anyone in the organization doing or saying anything publicly to degrade Barrett, and it was the media - indeed, not just the local but national media - who decided that Barrett was a clubhouse cancer because he'd had a couple incidents involving tempers flaring over the past couple of years. Witness how the Rich Hill thing got blown up despite the fact that there was pretty clearly nothing to it beyond any normal dugout interaction for a pitcher and catcher who had just given up an RBI single to the pitcher. It may well be that Barrett wasn't popular in the clubhouse, but if that's true, it doesn't seem to have made the whispers.
Second of all, and this is going to be true of nearly all the trades I'll discuss, other teams have scouts. Everyone saw that Barrett was having a bad year. It was probably the worst possible time to trade him and get any value back. That said, if Lou Piniella went to Jim Hendry and told him to trade Barrett - as may well have happened - it was up to Hendry to get what he could. Around the same time that Barrett and Zambrano tussled, Piniella appeared to realize that he wasn't leaving enough of his own imprint on this team. Things have started to turn around since then. If that's partly a result of Piniella being more in control, then if Barrett leaving was part of that control issue... well, that isn't really Hendry's fault, is it?
With that said, let's take a look at the deals done by Hendry since his promotion to GM on July 5, 2002. (Note: I have deliberately excluded deals so minor on both sides that they don't rate a mention.)
July 31, 2002: Cubs trade Darren Lewis to the Pirates for Chad Hermansen.
As it turned out, Lewis would never play another game in the majors, and he was hitting .241 in limited action, so it can't really be argued that he was "devalued" by the Cubs or Hendry. Hermansen did even less, but he ended up being spun off in the offseason in a much better trade that we'll get to shortly.
August 22, 2002: Cubs trade Tom Gordon to the Astros for Russ Rohlicek, Travis Anderson, and Mike Nannini.
This was legitimately a bad trade, although to be fair, the Cubs were busy cutting bait as a 67-95 season wound to a close under an interim manager. Gordon had been a solid reliever for the Cubs, saving 27 games in 2001, and ended up having several more productive years - in fact, he's still pitching for the Phillies, although his stats so far this year are mediocre. He did have a 204 ERA+ with the Yankees in 2004, however. So, could the Cubs have gotten more for him? Well, Gordon was a rental for the Astros, so the Cubs were trading a guy who, presumably, they didn't think they could resign, and taking what they could get. What they got wasn't much - none of the three guys who came over ever made the bigs that I can tell. Certainly none of them did it with the Cubs. I doubt this was a case of Flash being run out of town, though. The Cubs traded a guy they expected not to re-sign and happened to receive prospects who didn't pan out. Wasn't the first time that happened, won't be the last.
August 25, 2002: Cubs trade Jeff Fassero to the Cardinals for Jared Blasdell and Jason Karnuth.
Fassero was also a free agent after the '02 season. He was also 39 years old and had gone 5-6 with a 6.18 ERA for the Cubs that year; it's probably amazing that we got anything for him at all. (Of course he proceeded to go 3-0, 3.00 down the stretch for the Cardinals, and then pitched four more years, although not very well in any of them.) Karnuth had a brief stint with the Tigers in 2005 but otherwise has done nothing; Blasdell never came up. Given Fassero's ERA, though, you could argue that this was addition by subtraction, especially considering his contract situation.
September 4, 2002: Cubs trade Bill Mueller and cash to the Giants for Jeff Verplancke.
Mueller had missed a lot of the 2001 season after coming over from the Giants for Tim Worrell (a good trade, but not Hendry's), but he OBPed .403 in the 70 games he did play. In 2002, however, his stats were down - he was hitting just .266 in 103 games (though still getting on base at a pretty decent .355 clip). But he, too, was a free agent, and apparently Hendry just wanted to clean house, so off Mueller went for, well, nobody. The following year, Mueller signed with the Red Sox and won the motherfucking AL batting title. This is possibly the best early example of Hendry giving up on a guy, which Silver also accuses the Cubs of doing. History suggested Mueller gave you a good hitter, very solid OBP guy (career .373, for crap's sake), and a solid glove at third (the Cubs' hoodoo position). Instead, they either decided they weren't going to be able to resign him or (more likely) decided they had paid too much for what they'd gotten (possibly true, but injury-affected), and they shipped him off for one cent on the dollar. And the next year he won a goddamn batting title. Of course, the Cubs ended up getting a pretty good, and much younger, third baseman during the 2003 season, but Hendry couldn't have known that at the time.
December 4, 2002: Cubs trade Todd Hundley and Chad Hermansen to the Dodgers for Mark Grudzielanek and Eric Karros.
In November, the Cubs traded minor leaguers of no note for Damian Miller and Paul Bako, but I wanted to keep the list to major leaguers who were traded away. As it happens, they picked up two catchers because Joe Girardi was a free agent and because Todd Hundley was about to be shipped off. Hundley was, in fact, somewhat run out of town; his poor overall play and attitude combined to make him quite unpopular with the fans. As Hire Jim Essian!'s Bad Kermit notes in his post naming Hundley the worst Cub of his lifetime, Hundley was once booed after hitting a home run. By the home fans. That's pretty unpopular. I don't think you could call this any kind of Hendry conspiracy, however. The amazing thing is that Dodgers were willing to send back actual major league players for him. Grudzielanek and Karros had both had serviceable, if wholly unspectacular, seasons in 2002; both did pretty much the same in 2003, although Grudzielanek hit .314 and rather mysteriously received an MVP vote. The two combined for just three seasons at Wrigley, but anything that removed Hundley from the premises has to be considered a win.
June 20, 2003: Cubs trade Mark Bellhorn to the Rockies for Jose Hernandez.
The knock on Mark Bellhorn, according to Silver, was that he struck out too much. And he did strike out a lot, but his OBP in 2002 (when he had 144 Ks to 115 hits) was .374. The Bellhorn trade could be categorized as a panic trade; the Cubs were seeking to contend for the division and Bellhorn, through mid-June, was hitting .209 and not flashing the 27-home run power he'd displayed the year earlier. (Wow, does this sound familiar. Although Jones is hitting .234.) But if Bellhorn was pushed out the door for striking out too much, doesn't trading him for Jose Hernandez - who in 2002 had struck out 188 times! - seem kind of counterintuitive? It was kind of a silly trade, since Hernandez was no better than Bellhorn except maybe on defense, but it didn't end up making much difference. And Hernandez ended up playing a role in a much better trade.
July 23, 2003: Cubs trade Jose Hernandez, Bobby Hill, and Matt Bruback to the Pirates for Aramis Ramirez, Kenny Lofton, and cash.
Even in 2003, I think most fantasy league GMs would have shot this trade down. Ramirez had already had a 30/100 season, although he was pretty miserable in the field. Still, there's no denying that this is one of the best trades the Cubs ever made. The guy who was "run out of town" in this one? Well, maybe Bobby Hill, who was supposed to be the second baseman of the future but didn't do much with the big club, not that he was given much of a chance. When last seen, Hill was in the Padres' minor leagues, so I don't think we ended up missing much. Lofton was just a rental - an exceedingly useful rental who hit .327 down the stretch in 2003 and OBPed .381 - but Ramirez has finally shored up the hot corner that had seen player after player pass through it since the departure of Ron Santo.
November 25, 2003: Cubs trade Hee Seop Choi and Mike Nannini to the Marlins for Derrek Lee.
This was practically payback for the NLCS. I was kind of shocked to see Choi's name on Silver's list - I suppose you could argue that the Cubs didn't give him enough of a chance, but he played in 80 games in 2003 and hit .218 (although his OBP was a respectable .350). Derrek Lee, meanwhile, hit .271, had an OBP of .379, and went 31/92 in HR/RBI. This was an upgrade by any measure, even if Choi had been shortchanged. Did Hendry take advantage of a Marlins team having another post-title fire sale? Maybe so. But he still made a big upgrade at the first base spot, and you certainly can't accuse him of getting "cents on the dollar" for Choi, who isn't even in the majors right now.
December 15, 2003: Cubs trade Damian Miller and cash to the A's for Michael Barrett.
Barrett was never really an Athletic; the Expos traded him to Oakland, who immediately turned him around to the Cubs. At the time, Hendry stated that the move was due to Barrett having shown some offensive spark (which Miller hadn't really) and to his youth (seven years younger than Miller). You could again argue that Miller wasn't given enough chance to return to 2001 form, and he was a favorite of the pitching staff, but read the linked article - Barrett was considered just fine behind the plate and an improvement at it. All told, looks like a case of Hendry trying to upgrade a weaker offensive position on a team that was looking to contend for a division again. I don't see a problem.
March 25, 2004: Cubs trade Juan Cruz and Steve Smyth to the Braves for Andy Pratt and Richard Lewis.
Cruz pitched fairly well in 2002, but went 3-11 due to some bad breaks. In 2003, however, it was more on him, as his ERA was 6.05. Apparently not liking what they were seeing in 2004 spring training either, the Cubs gave up on a pitcher who was positioned, along with Mark Prior, as the next big thing going into 2002. They dumped him to Atlanta, not bothering to get back more than Andy Pratt, who had appeared in 1.1 innings with the Braves in 2002 and managed to issue as many walks as he recorded outs. He did even worse for the Cubs - in four games in 2004, Pratt appeared in 1.2 innings and issued seven walks. For good measure, he also hit a guy. Cubs ERA: 21.60. That was it for Andy. There is a better argument for Cruz being "run out of town" or "dumped at his lowest value" than for someone like Choi. What could the Cubs possibly have seen in Pratt that justified dumping Cruz, who at least had some big league experience that didn't involve sucking utterly? I get the feeling that after the failure of 2003, Hendry started to feel like he had to get rid of everyone who hadn't had a very good year. Surely if he did that, 2004 would only be better! So out went Cruz, Choi, Miller... and all this did make the Cubs better. Exactly one win better, in fact. Of course, in 2004, 89 wins didn't get you a division title.
July 31, 2004: Cubs trade Alex Gonzalez, Brendan Harris, and Francis Beltran to the Expos and Justin Jones to the Twins for Nomar Garciaparra and Matt Murton from the Red Sox.
Ah, the huge four-team deal. At the time this seemed genius. The goat of 2003 (well, one of) plus two minor-leaguers for Nomar, who at the time had only had one major pre-2004 injury and was coming off two straight seasons in which he had nearly 200 hits, knocked in over 100 runs, and had OPS+ numbers of over 120. On the other hand, Nomar had been injured and missed a high number of games in 2004 itself, and he ended up playing in just 105 games for the Cubs over two months of 2004 and the whole of 2005. Jose Macias played more games for the Cubs over that time than Nomar did. Murton, whom Hendry apparently insisted upon receiving, has had his playing time with the Cubs but perhaps did not receive enough in 2007 before being sent down to get more at-bats. So - was this a bad trade? I don't think that can be argued. Gonzalez was brutal at the plate in '04 - his OBP was .241 at the time of the trade - and his ties to the 2003 debacle weren't endearing him to anyone. Getting Nomar back was more like icing on the cake. Beltran and Harris had minimal chances with the Cubs but didn't do much with them; Harris is hitting well for Tampa Bay this year, but raise your hand if you had that one. Getting rid of Gonzalez can't really be quarreled with, and while accepting Nomar was in some respects taking on someone's hand-me-downs, he sure hit a lot better than Gonzalez did when he was actually on the field.
February 2, 2005: Cubs trade Sammy Sosa and cash to the Orioles for Jerry Hairston Jr., Mike Fontenot, and Dave Crouthers.
This is the big one. Sammy Sosa was most definitely run out of Chicago, and the organization packed his bags for him. They're the ones who released the security tape showing Sosa leaving in the seventh inning. Sosa had had a down year - his 35 home runs and 80 RBI were his lowest totals since 1994. He hit just .253, his lowest average since 1997. But he was still Sammy Sosa, right? Well, maybe that was the problem. The newspapers seemed only too happy to report on stories like the early departure, or how Sosa's boom box was unpopular with teammates. Whether or not the Cubs were trying to push Sosa down into the mud could be debated; for his part, Sosa accused Dusty Baker of trying to hang the Cubs' 2004 failures on his shoulders (which is a little unfair, but I mean, the guy was making $16 million). The question is, had the press not gotten so negative about Sammy, could he have been traded for more? (Hairston spent one middling year in Chicago before being shipped out in mid-2006; Fontenot has only just started to make his mark this year, though he's hitting very well at the moment; Crouthers never came up.) Hard to say, but I'm not sure, personally. Let's say no negative stories had ever come out about Sammy. There's still the matter of his declining statistics, which dipped significantly in pretty much every category from 2001 to 2004. With his enormous contract - $17 million in 2005, some of which the Cubs had to pay - he wasn't very tradeable, and if a team called you up offering to trade its biggest star, wouldn't that give you pause?
This is where the Hendry criticism bothers me a little bit. I mean, it's not like I think Jim Hendry is the greatest GM ever, but just what was he supposed to do in a situation like this? The stuff in the clubhouse existed whether it got out or not, so it came down to either keep a slumping Sosa at the risk of creating a huge clubhouse rift, or trade him for team chemistry and hope he kept sliding - which he did. Could Hendry have gotten more back? It's doubtful. Increasingly these days, teams are not that willing to trade big-name players for each other, and Sosa's value had been diminished by his own stats and the perception that he mostly seemed either to hit a home run or strike out. (In 2000 Sosa hit 50 home runs and had 143 non-HR hits. In 2004 he hit 35 home runs, but had just 86 non-HR hits to go with that.) Did the Cubs throw him under the bus? Absolutely. And they did this because even though the fans had noticed Sosa's diminished prediction and begun to boo accordingly, Sammy was still the face of the Cubs. If Sammy were going to be traded, he had to be more unpopular first, lest he turn things around in Baltimore and Hendry get flamed for the move. So the Cubs made Sosa unpopular, and then shipped him out for 15 cents on the dollar.
This, more than anywhere, is where Silver's point actually holds water. Hendry likely felt his legacy was at stake. If Sosa had to be traded, Hendry wasn't going to be the guy who traded "Sammy Sosa, hero." So instead, the organization worked to see to it that Hendry was trading "Sammy Sosa, slumping quitter jerk." It worked pretty well, too - ask a random sampling of Cubs fans, and I bet most of them have had their memories of 1993-2003 pretty colored in retrospect. (The steroids issue - though the evidence for Sosa is almost exclusively statistical - probably played a role in Hendry's decision as well. If it looked like Sosa's name could be dragged into the discussion, why not cut ties with him as early as possible?)
Assuming the order to release the tape of Sosa came from Hendry or someone very close to him, that would be a definite failing on his part - why make Sosa look like a bad character guy in addition to someone who was slumping with age? But again, I'm not sure it wouldn't have come out eventually. You don't just foist off a future Hall of Famer (as Sosa certainly looked at the time; he may still be, though the era will make it dodgy) for no reason, and the Orioles would have known this. While Hendry deserves some blame for helping ruin the memory of Sosa for Cubs fans - although it would be unfair to suggest that Sosa himself doesn't deserve a good deal of it as well - I'm not sure he deserves much for failing to get anything back for Sosa. As I said at the beginning - other teams have scouts too. If Sosa had still been hitting 50 home runs a year he could have left the final game of '04 wearing a thong and eat a broiled kitten and he still wouldn't have been traded. The Orioles knew Sosa was on a downturn just like the Cubs did. Did we think they would give us back Tejada? Hairston wasn't good, but heck - he wasn't significantly less productive than Sosa in 2005.
In summary, the criticism of Hendry on the Sosa front is true but quite possibly irrelevant. Other teams' general managers were not going to be stupid enough to trade for Sosa's name (especially given his price tag) while ignoring his statistics, and suggesting that Hendry could have gotten way more than he did strikes me as a gross misrepresentation of the facts of the situation.
February 9, 2005: Cubs trade Kyle Farnsworth to the Tigers for Roberto Novoa, Scott Moore, and Bo Flowers.
Here were Farnsworth's ERAs with the Cubs between 2000 and 2004: 6.43, 2.74, 7.33, 3.30, 4.73. He seemed to have some epidemic where he would have a great year, either get too high on himself or just stop working as hard, then have a bad year, then realize he needed to play better and turn it around. After five years of this (six if you include the year where he was mostly a starter, in 1999), the Cubs had seen enough, sending him to Detroit for a surprisingly robust package. True to form, Farnsworth had a great year in 2005, with a combined ERA of 2.19 for the Tigers and Braves, but he's been solidly mediocre for the Yankees in the two seasons since. You might argue here that Hendry could have waited until after Farnsworth's inevitable up year in 2005 to trade him, assuming he too had noticed the pattern. But Farnsworth, I think, had frustrated the Cubs by performing at his worst when they were most intent on relying upon him, and middle relievers are rarely going to bring you a strong package in return. Novoa and Moore are still in the organization, so at least there's that.
May 28, 2005: Cubs trade LaTroy Hawkins and cash to the Giants for Jerome Williams and David Aardsma.
Talk about a trade that had to happen. Hawkins had a couple monster statistical years for Minnesota in 2002 and 2003, so the Cubs brought him on as a free agent. While statistically his year-plus in Chicago looks decent at first glance (2.63 ERA in 2004), consider that he had just 29 saves as a Cub and 13 blown saves. That's a pretty bad rate. (In 2003 alone, Joe Borowski had 33 saves to just four blown.) Hawkins was brought in to be a middle reliever, ending up forced into the closer's role when Borowski struggled to start 2004. After about a year of the fans screaming about his blown saves, Hendry had evidently seen enough and spun Hawkins to San Francisco. That he got two pitchers back suggests that maybe, in fact, these other teams don't have scouts. Williams had won ten games in 2004 (in just 22 starts) and Aardsma was considered a talented kid who needed some polish. Neither ended up doing a ton for the Cubs - Williams had an okay remainder of 2005, I guess - but it was a pretty good package at the time. Was Hawkins traded for cents on the dollar? Some have argued that Hendry doesn't do enough to build up players' good attributes, rather harping on the problems that mean they need to go. Who could have avoided noticing Hawkins' unpopularity in Chicago and copious blown saves, though? I think Hendry got pretty good value in this deal.
July 18, 2005: Cubs trade Jason Dubois to the Indians for Jody Gerut.
Clinging to hope in the wild card race - five games back of Atlanta, while well off the pace in the division - the Cubs, well, mostly stood pat. This trade was a lateral move - Dubois, who had been touted for a couple years as a future star, had underperformed in platoon action, but Gerut, at the time, wasn't doing much more aside from having a much better OBP. As it turned out, the Cubs would probably have been better off keeping Dubois; Gerut was dinged up and saw almost no time with the Cubs, getting just 14 at-bats - in which he recorded one hit - before being shipped right back out. It's hard to call this a bad trade, but it wasn't a very good one. Even though Gerut's pre-trade stats had been fairly decent, his recent injury history made it a bit risky, and in fact there was no payoff.
July 31, 2005: Cubs trade Jody Gerut and cash to the Pirates for Matt Lawton.
On paper this was a great deal for the Cubs. They gave up only Gerut and cash, rather than any prospects, to get back Lawton, who at the time was getting on base at a .380 clip. At this point the Cubs were still over .500 and just four back in the wild card race - on the other hand, Houston was coming on like a house afire, and Lawton wasn't exactly a final piece. Hendry's deadline deals in 2005 were pretty weak - I can understand why he wanted an OBP guy, but the Cubs could have used a deeper rotation for the stretch. At any event, Lawton wasn't even an OBP guy for the Cubs, getting on at a .289 rate - the same as Dubois, for whom he'd effectively been traded.
August 9, 2005: Cubs trade Mike Remlinger and cash to the Red Sox for Olivio Astacio.
Remlinger was another reliever acquired after a great statistical year who couldn't duplicate it with the Cubs. But trading him for nothing didn't make much sense, especially with the Cubs still within screaming distance of the wild card if they could have turned it around. Hendry really didn't come through for the Cubs in '05.
August 27, 2005: Cubs trade Matt Lawton to the Yankees for Justin Berg.
By this point, Hendry was just waving the white flag. To be fair, though, Lawton had done little for the Cubs (and ended up doing even less for the Yankees) and by August 27, the Cubs had sunk to fifth and were pretty well done. Lawton was making a lot of money to do as little as he was doing, so pushing him off onto a contender wasn't that bad a move. You do wish the Cubs could have tried to squeeze New York for more, but this didn't really matter much.
August 29, 2005: Cubs trade Todd Hollandsworth to the Braves for Angelo Burrows and Todd Blackford.
Hollandsworth had been a super sub in 2004 when healthy, but had underwhelmed in 2005. Naturally the Cubs got nothing back for him. Again, though, he was a pending free agent on a non-playoff team, and he wasn't a major piece. The strategy of selling minor pieces to contenders and rolling the dice on their prospects isn't the worst thing ever, even if the Cubs have rarely gotten any decent prospects out of it. This deal was pretty average, either way.
December 7, 2005: Cubs trade Sergio Mitre, Ricky Nolasco and Renyel Pinto to the Marlins for Juan Pierre.
Pierre was coming off what was not a very good year; Hendry, no doubt, was looking more at 2003 and 2004. Trading three pitching prospects, all of whom have been at least serviceable major leaguers in Florida, was probably a bad move either way. Some Cubs fans were perhaps overly excited by this trade; at the time, it looked like one failed starter and two prospects for a guy who was, at least, a proven commodity (even if that commodity, in retrospect, was pretty overrated). You could argue that Mitre was another case of the Cubs giving up on someone too soon, but eh. I'd more say that the Marlins, as they tend to do, recognized that they could get some live arms for a guy who turned out to be pretty replaceable (2005 Marlins: 83 wins; 2006 Marlins: 78 wins. 2005 Cubs: 79 wins; 2006 Cubs: 66 wins). This was more a case of Hendry believing Pierre's hype, as a lot of us did, and letting himself overpay a little. Hey, if we'd gotten 2004 Pierre in the leadoff spot, maybe it would have been worth it. But that didn't happen. This ended up being more annoying later since Pierre was a one-year rental, although after 2006, who wanted him back in center anyway?
January 9, 2006: Cubs trade Corey Patterson to the Orioles for Carlos Perez and Nate Spears.
The CP era was officially over once Pierre came to town. Patterson is another case where it's claimed by Silver that he was run out of town for cents on the dollar, but come on. Are you going to argue that Patterson wasn't given a chance? He started 152 games in 2004 and was solidly mediocre; in 2005 he was just crap. How are you going to say that a guy who was barely a replacement-level player in 2005 was traded for cents on the dollar? Patterson turned it around to play okay for Baltimore - maybe he just needed a change of scenery, although it's not like he turned into Andruw Jones. This year, though, he's back to his sub-.300 OBP ways. Maybe Patterson wasn't treated entirely fairly in Chicago, but when you have a team that's trying desperately to stay decent, you can't keep a guy in the lineup who's flirting with the Mendoza line. I find it hilarious how many of the players Silver cites were just terrible for the Cubs. Hey, you know why we didn't get good players back? Because the players we were trading sucked! And I don't buy "Hendry shouldn't have let Patterson's value bottom out and then traded him." Well, what was he supposed to do? The Cubs had put a lot into Patterson and wanted him to succeed. But he kept on not succeeding. I suppose you could argue that they should have traded him after 2003 or 2004 - his value would have been higher, while at the same time the Cubs may already have known that his inconsistency was going to keep him from being the player they wanted - but I disagree. He had so much talent that the Cubs hung onto him, trying to make it work. When they finally realized that he was never likely to put it together, they just dumped him. Not the greatest thing ever, but what was the point in keeping him? Just so he could ride the bench, or hit .220 every day? Come on. This trade doesn't make Hendry a genius but criticizing him for it is pointless.
May 31, 2006: Cubs trade Jerry Hairston, Jr. to the Rangers for Phil Nevin and cash.
The Cubs had just had a rancid May and were in danger of the season being over by June. Hairston was hitting like shit, so he was sent out for Nevin, who wasn't hitting great for Texas but had some history as a power hitter. With Lee on the shelf, the Cubs needed some power. Although the team as a whole didn't turn it around, I don't see anything wrong with this trade - Nevin hit pretty well in his stint with the Cubs (12 HR and an OPS+ of 107), and while it was kind of low-risk, low-reward, I think Hendry could see the writing on the wall with Lee out. Even by May 31, 2006 was a lost season. Trading a bench guy for a power-hitting first baseman was, in its own way, a good thing to just try and see how it would work. Did Hendry have a responsibility to make more happen? Maybe - I remember rumors were flying at the time that the Cubs would try to bring in a big name at first base, but how would that have been smart with Lee inked to a big extension? And let's face it - if losing Lee drops you to 66 wins, you weren't a very good team even with him.
July 31, 2006: Cubs trade Greg Maddux to the Dodgers for Cesar Izturis.
Okay, this sucked. Mostly because I wanted Maddux to end his career with the Cubs. But while this was a bad trade, it probably wasn't Hendry's fault. Maddux, winding down his career, wanted to play for a contender. When the Cubs turned out to be the exact opposite of that, Hendry traded him to L.A.; the rumor was and continues to be that Maddux was practically the architect of the deal. This is another case where Hendry couldn't wait for Maddux's stats to rebound before trading him, since Maddux was looking for a trade, and there had been no reason to trade him sooner. We didn't get great value back, but Maddux's value at the time was about as low as it had ever been - he was old, a free agent, and struggling through his worst season since 1987. Frankly, that we got an actual major leaguer back is kind of amazing, although with the prospects the Dodgers have in their system, perhaps it would have been better to try and get one of them than the light-hitting Izturis, who ended up contributing to the 2007 infield logjam.
July 31, 2006: Cubs trade Todd Walker to the Padres for Jose Ceda.
I always liked Walk. I think the idea that he was pushed out the door is kind of a stretch; that Hendry didn't get back value for him is true, but that's what happens when you're a seller at the deadline. If Walker had stayed with the Cubs, he'd either be riding the bench right now or preventing one of the Theriot/Fontenot pair from playing. So this one was kind of "whatever" in the long run. Not a very good trade at the time, though. (Ceda, a ridiculously raw pitching prospect, threw high-90s and was apparently well-regarded in the Padres organization. But he's at least a couple years away from the majors, if indeed he ever gets there. I guess when you're near 100 losses, you're more concerned with future value.)
This brings us to 2007. The Barrett trade - not a good one, though as I said, I get the feeling Hendry's hands were kind of tied by Piniella. Let's take a look at the trades we've got here and determine how Hendry's trade tenure has gone. I'll assign one point for a good trade, deduct one for a bad trade, and assign no points for a trade that was pretty much "meh."
Lewis for Hermansen: 0
Gordon for prospects: -1
Fassero for prospects: 0
Mueller for prospect: -1
Hundley and Hermansen for Grudzielanek and Karros: +1
Bellhorn for Hernandez: 0
Hernandez, Hill and prospect for Ramirez and Lofton: +1
Choi and prospect for Lee: +1
Miller for Barrett: +1
Cruz and Smyth for Pratt and Lewis: -1
Gonzalez and prospects for Garciaparra and Murton: +1
Sosa for Hairston and prospects: -1
Farnsworth for Novoa and prospects: 0
Hawkins for Williams and Aardsma: +1
Dubois for Gerut: 0
Gerut for Lawton: +1
Remlinger for prospect: 0
Lawton for prospect: 0
Hollandsworth for prospects: 0
Mitre and prospects for Pierre: -1
Patterson for prospects: 0
Hairston for Nevin: +1
Maddux for Izturis: -1
Walker for prospect: -1
Barret for Bowen and prospect: -1
Overall I give Hendry a 0 as a trader, which over 25 trades makes him about exactly average, I'd say. His best trades were probably a lot better for the team than his worst trades were bad for it, and some have gotten a lot better in retrospect, while the worst lingering trade is probably Maddux. He had one really good stretch, though you could certainly argue that he peaked in late 2003 (like the Cubs themselves). And there's plenty to be said about his record as a signer of free agents (about which more anon, perhaps), which colors his overall record as a GM. But as far as Silver's column goes, I don't think I'm seeing it. I'm not sure what he thinks should have happened instead to guys like Choi and Patterson, but I don't think deals like the ones cited turned out so badly for the Cubs that Hendry deserves to be raked over the coals for them. There are plenty of other reasons we can find to do that (and when I get to the free agent signings, I'm sure that will happen).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)