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?
Friday, June 29, 2007
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).
Monday, June 25, 2007
Don't stop believing
It was over. We were done. It was Game Six all over again - memories of an endless stream of Marlins reaching base throbbed in my head. It was my fault; I'd created bad karma by fawning over the bullpen's recent success. I had oohed over their two runs in their last 16 1/3 innings, aahed over their one blown save in June. I had jinxed them, and now it was all coming crashing down - Piniella had left Eyre in to close out the game, up 8-3 in the top of the ninth. He had thrown 1 1/3 already, but on only 21 pitches, and maybe he hadn't looked great, but we didn't need great. We needed three outs. Surely even Eyre was capable of that.
But then there was a single. Then a walk. Then a double; 8-4, second and third. Even Piniella had seen enough. Time to bring on the fill-in closer, Bob Howry, who had been so effective against the White Sox. Turns out, the Rockies hit better than the White Sox. Or Howry gets nervous with inherited runners. Suddenly every pitch was a hit. Single; 8-5. Single; 8-6. And the coup de grace, the finishing touch on the brutality of the inning - Troy Tulowitzki taking one out. At least there was nobody on now. 9-8 Rockies. It was over. It always is.
Yet hope springs eternal. True baseball fans don't walk away from a game in progress and I couldn't move away from the TV. Howry settled down, inducing two ground balls to Theriot before striking out the pinch-hitter. Down one going into the bottom of the ninth. Usually the Cubs lose this game; usually most teams lose this game. A seemingly impregnable lead vanishing in the space of six hitters, all of whom scored. That's knee-buckle time.
Then something started happening. DeRosa opened with a single. Pagan struck out. Bowen hit a lazy bouncer to first - sure double play, even with Pie pinch-running. But the Rockies settled for the force at second; it was hard to see, but I don't think Fuentes got to first in time. Bowen seemed like he would have been meat in any other situation; instead he was on. Still, it was a man on first - a slow man on first - with two outs.
Pinch hitter... Koyie Hill? He was the best call, with most of the bench hitting lefty and Fuentes throwing from the same side. But what's Hill hitting - .200? Great. It's over.
But it wasn't over. Hill fell behind 1-2, then sliced one into left field. First and second. Jones comes in to run for Bowen.
Theriot. 2-for-2. He rolls one to second. Great, that's it. And then Matsui muffs it - everybody's safe! And suddenly you just get that feeling. It's there for the taking. Tonight the baseball gods are smiling on the Cubs. And Alfonso Soriano comes up with the bases loaded and two outs, and he's 0-for-5 tonight...
Ball one.
Sinking liner to right center... and IT DROPS IN AND WE'RE TIED AND HERE COMES HILL AND HE SCORES STANDING UP AND THE CUBS WIN!!!!!!!!!
Jubilation. I don't even know what to do. I run onto the porch, hoping to hear the cheers from the stadium; they're not carrying well tonight, so I channel all the energy in my body into one long, excited scream.
The Cubs may not win the World Series this year. They may not even make the playoffs. But games like this are why I'm a sports fan. I don't think there's anything else in life that can swing a human being so quickly from the pit of greatest despair to the highest heights of joy. It is an entertainment that you honest-to-goodness care about, and on a rare night like this, when you are rewarded with an unforeseen swing of the pendulum that favors your team where it so rarely seems to, it's the sweetest entertainment of all.
But then there was a single. Then a walk. Then a double; 8-4, second and third. Even Piniella had seen enough. Time to bring on the fill-in closer, Bob Howry, who had been so effective against the White Sox. Turns out, the Rockies hit better than the White Sox. Or Howry gets nervous with inherited runners. Suddenly every pitch was a hit. Single; 8-5. Single; 8-6. And the coup de grace, the finishing touch on the brutality of the inning - Troy Tulowitzki taking one out. At least there was nobody on now. 9-8 Rockies. It was over. It always is.
Yet hope springs eternal. True baseball fans don't walk away from a game in progress and I couldn't move away from the TV. Howry settled down, inducing two ground balls to Theriot before striking out the pinch-hitter. Down one going into the bottom of the ninth. Usually the Cubs lose this game; usually most teams lose this game. A seemingly impregnable lead vanishing in the space of six hitters, all of whom scored. That's knee-buckle time.
Then something started happening. DeRosa opened with a single. Pagan struck out. Bowen hit a lazy bouncer to first - sure double play, even with Pie pinch-running. But the Rockies settled for the force at second; it was hard to see, but I don't think Fuentes got to first in time. Bowen seemed like he would have been meat in any other situation; instead he was on. Still, it was a man on first - a slow man on first - with two outs.
Pinch hitter... Koyie Hill? He was the best call, with most of the bench hitting lefty and Fuentes throwing from the same side. But what's Hill hitting - .200? Great. It's over.
But it wasn't over. Hill fell behind 1-2, then sliced one into left field. First and second. Jones comes in to run for Bowen.
Theriot. 2-for-2. He rolls one to second. Great, that's it. And then Matsui muffs it - everybody's safe! And suddenly you just get that feeling. It's there for the taking. Tonight the baseball gods are smiling on the Cubs. And Alfonso Soriano comes up with the bases loaded and two outs, and he's 0-for-5 tonight...
Ball one.
Sinking liner to right center... and IT DROPS IN AND WE'RE TIED AND HERE COMES HILL AND HE SCORES STANDING UP AND THE CUBS WIN!!!!!!!!!
Jubilation. I don't even know what to do. I run onto the porch, hoping to hear the cheers from the stadium; they're not carrying well tonight, so I channel all the energy in my body into one long, excited scream.
The Cubs may not win the World Series this year. They may not even make the playoffs. But games like this are why I'm a sports fan. I don't think there's anything else in life that can swing a human being so quickly from the pit of greatest despair to the highest heights of joy. It is an entertainment that you honest-to-goodness care about, and on a rare night like this, when you are rewarded with an unforeseen swing of the pendulum that favors your team where it so rarely seems to, it's the sweetest entertainment of all.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Broom County
I probably shouldn't get too excited over the sweep of the Sox - I mean, they scored two runs on 16 hits in three games. The Sox are the worst offensive team in baseball right now. Sure, the Cubs took advantage of that - at 5-1, 2-1, and 3-0, the series was full of tight games (Game One having been 2-1 until three late insurance runs), and we certainly can't count on upcoming games against the Rockies and Brewers being winnable with 2 and 3 runs. But Soriano has been super hot for most of June, Ramirez has come back strong, and Lee is still hitting in the .34os even though it seems like he hasn't been truly on since coming off the DL during the first Sox series.
But I am excited, and for one main reason - I just have a hard time believing Milwaukee is a wire-to-wire winner of the Central. Detroit came out of "nowhere" - i.e. a number of experts had them, but casual fans were more surprised - to lead the AL Central nearly the whole way last year (although we should certainly note here that they didn't even end up winning the division, thanks to the Twins' hot final four months), but I'm not convinced that the Brewers are as talented a team as those Tigers. Fielder might keep this up all year (see: Ryan Howard last year), but I think we've started to see the pitching break down a little and the rest of the lineup doesn't scare me the way others around the league might. And frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see Fielder slump somewhere.
Of course you could probably say similar things about the Cubs, and they're the ones who have to play catch-up. But the Soriano-Lee-Ramirez trio has at least as much promise as Fielder and any two teammates you could pick for him, if you ask me, to say nothing of a longer track record. And with the Cubs bullpen improving over the past few weeks - in the last two series, they've allowed just two runs in 16 1/3 innings, and they've only blown one save in June - Milwaukee's biggest advantage has been largely canceled out. Sure, if Milwaukee can just stay even the rest of the way, they'll win the division by seven or eight games. But the Cubs have six games left against the Brewers - all at Wrigley, and Milwaukee has struggled away from Miller Park - and tons of games left against mediocre divisional opposition (though of course the same is true of Milwaukee).
Yes, I'm way too optimistic. But hey - the 2005 Astros were 12 games under in mid-June and double-digits out in the division. They, of course, ended up winning 89 games, the wild card, and the pennant. I'm not sure that 89 games will win you the wild card this year - but low 90s will probably win the division, and the Cubs were never as bad as the Astros were. And hey - that team only had one 100-RBI guy. The top of the rotation was better - Oswalt, Pettitte, and Clemens - but the back (Brandon Backe, Wandy Rodriguez) was decidedly worse.
I hate getting my hopes up with the Cubs, because they always find a way to break my heart. But with all the talent on this team - maybe the most talented Cubs team of my lifetime, top to bottom - maybe this time can be a little different.
But I am excited, and for one main reason - I just have a hard time believing Milwaukee is a wire-to-wire winner of the Central. Detroit came out of "nowhere" - i.e. a number of experts had them, but casual fans were more surprised - to lead the AL Central nearly the whole way last year (although we should certainly note here that they didn't even end up winning the division, thanks to the Twins' hot final four months), but I'm not convinced that the Brewers are as talented a team as those Tigers. Fielder might keep this up all year (see: Ryan Howard last year), but I think we've started to see the pitching break down a little and the rest of the lineup doesn't scare me the way others around the league might. And frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see Fielder slump somewhere.
Of course you could probably say similar things about the Cubs, and they're the ones who have to play catch-up. But the Soriano-Lee-Ramirez trio has at least as much promise as Fielder and any two teammates you could pick for him, if you ask me, to say nothing of a longer track record. And with the Cubs bullpen improving over the past few weeks - in the last two series, they've allowed just two runs in 16 1/3 innings, and they've only blown one save in June - Milwaukee's biggest advantage has been largely canceled out. Sure, if Milwaukee can just stay even the rest of the way, they'll win the division by seven or eight games. But the Cubs have six games left against the Brewers - all at Wrigley, and Milwaukee has struggled away from Miller Park - and tons of games left against mediocre divisional opposition (though of course the same is true of Milwaukee).
Yes, I'm way too optimistic. But hey - the 2005 Astros were 12 games under in mid-June and double-digits out in the division. They, of course, ended up winning 89 games, the wild card, and the pennant. I'm not sure that 89 games will win you the wild card this year - but low 90s will probably win the division, and the Cubs were never as bad as the Astros were. And hey - that team only had one 100-RBI guy. The top of the rotation was better - Oswalt, Pettitte, and Clemens - but the back (Brandon Backe, Wandy Rodriguez) was decidedly worse.
I hate getting my hopes up with the Cubs, because they always find a way to break my heart. But with all the talent on this team - maybe the most talented Cubs team of my lifetime, top to bottom - maybe this time can be a little different.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Athos and Porthos are no longer lonely
Aramis Ramirez returned to the Cubs' lineup today, playing DH. He hit a solo home run in his first at-bat and went 2-for-3, also reaching on a hit-by-pitch, with a run scored and two RBI, as the Cubs beat the Sox 5-1 in the opener. Considering Ramirez tends to be a second-half player, this is a great time for him to be coming back. The fact that he played DH and was pulled for a pinch-runner in the ninth suggests that he's probably not 100% quite yet, but it could just be that Piniella is treating him with kid gloves (certainly not a bad idea). Either way, he might be just what this offense needs right now.
Zambrano had another great outing - eight innings, twelve Ks, one earned run. Don't look now, but his ERA is down to 4.27 after it was 5.77 in April and as high as 5.62 in June (specifically, on June 1, the day of his 13-hit abomination against Atlanta). Since the fight with Barrett, Zambrano is 3-1 with a 1.15 ERA, the only loss coming in the 1-0 game where Zambrano almost threw a no-hitter, then threw a complete-game two-hitter, but lost when the Cubs managed only two hits off the Padres and no runs. By all rights, he should be 4-0 in that time, but either way the ERA speaks for itself. And what I said on April 18 is no longer true - Zambrano is now making himself money with each additional start. I really hope the Cubs' ownership situation gets settled soon, because if they can't offer Zambrano a big contract, he is going to be pitching in New York next year. And that's really going to upset me. As mercurial as Zambrano can be, he's a workhorse and a guy who could be the anchor of the franchise for another decade. He hasn't had the injury problems that derailed his fellow young guns Wood and Prior; he's a guy who will win you 15 games with an ERA in the low 3.00s. You're going to let that walk out the door because he can be emotional? If you ask me, that's just not enough of a liability. (And frankly, can you imagine Zambrano handling the New York media? God forbid he has another April like this one after signing a $120-million contract; they'd eat him alive.)
Fun fact: Rob Bowen has already drawn three walks in two games as the Cubs' starter. Barrett had 17 in 57 games.
Other fun fact: In his first start for the Padres, Barrett struck out three times and allowed a passed ball. (Maybe I shouldn't have wasted energy defending him...)
Fun ancillary recap item: "The White Sox fired senior director of amateur scouting Duane Shaffer after 35 seasons with the team." This is like when Steinbrenner fired the strength coach. Really? The director of amateur scouting? I guess Jerry Owens was a bust, but don't you think that if anyone needed to be fired due to the Sox's recent slump, it should be someone involved with the big club? Maybe I'm crazy.
Zambrano had another great outing - eight innings, twelve Ks, one earned run. Don't look now, but his ERA is down to 4.27 after it was 5.77 in April and as high as 5.62 in June (specifically, on June 1, the day of his 13-hit abomination against Atlanta). Since the fight with Barrett, Zambrano is 3-1 with a 1.15 ERA, the only loss coming in the 1-0 game where Zambrano almost threw a no-hitter, then threw a complete-game two-hitter, but lost when the Cubs managed only two hits off the Padres and no runs. By all rights, he should be 4-0 in that time, but either way the ERA speaks for itself. And what I said on April 18 is no longer true - Zambrano is now making himself money with each additional start. I really hope the Cubs' ownership situation gets settled soon, because if they can't offer Zambrano a big contract, he is going to be pitching in New York next year. And that's really going to upset me. As mercurial as Zambrano can be, he's a workhorse and a guy who could be the anchor of the franchise for another decade. He hasn't had the injury problems that derailed his fellow young guns Wood and Prior; he's a guy who will win you 15 games with an ERA in the low 3.00s. You're going to let that walk out the door because he can be emotional? If you ask me, that's just not enough of a liability. (And frankly, can you imagine Zambrano handling the New York media? God forbid he has another April like this one after signing a $120-million contract; they'd eat him alive.)
Fun fact: Rob Bowen has already drawn three walks in two games as the Cubs' starter. Barrett had 17 in 57 games.
Other fun fact: In his first start for the Padres, Barrett struck out three times and allowed a passed ball. (Maybe I shouldn't have wasted energy defending him...)
Fun ancillary recap item: "The White Sox fired senior director of amateur scouting Duane Shaffer after 35 seasons with the team." This is like when Steinbrenner fired the strength coach. Really? The director of amateur scouting? I guess Jerry Owens was a bust, but don't you think that if anyone needed to be fired due to the Sox's recent slump, it should be someone involved with the big club? Maybe I'm crazy.
Make or break
It's somewhat unfortunate that the defining series of the Cubs' season would have to come against the crosstown rival White Sox, but sometimes that's just how things work out. Following a disappointing series loss to the Rangers - currently the second-worst team in baseball, only a half-game ahead of the Reds - the Cubs find themselves 8.5 back in the division, a game behind the Cardinals in third place, and only a game and a half out of fifth. The runs scored/runs allowed ratio has dwindled to 320/303, now worse than Milwaukee's. Since climbing to within five games of first place on June 8, the Cubs are just 5-7, while the Brewers have rebounded after their slump to go 8-3 in the same time period. Meanwhile, the Cardinals keep adding pitching, and while Tomo Ohka and Mike Maroth aren't going to scare the pants off anyone, they're improvements over Anthony Reyes and a sign that St. Louis isn't satisfied with its 301/370 RS/RA ratio.
With the All-Star Break only about two weeks away, it's make-or-break time for the Cubs. Failure to reach .500 by early to mid-July, barring another long slump by the Brewers to keep the division lead accessible, is going to all but stick a fork in the Cubs' season, even if they remain buyers as the trading deadline approaches. (The latest rumor - Ken Griffey Jr. coming over from the Reds - is tantalizing but unlikely, and I'm not sure it even solves any problems this team currently has.)
So why this White Sox series? Because the White Sox have been underachieving as well, possibly even worse than the Cubs have. The Sox are 29-39, already double-digits out in the division and seemingly headed for their first sub-.500 season since 1999 and their first fourth-place finish in the three-division era. Their fans, so giddy just two years ago, are in full-blown depression mode; Bill Simmons talks about a five-year championship grace period, but I think all bets are off once your team stops being the perennial contender that a World Series winner seemingly should. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the Sox's freefall if only because it shuts up their fans (although deprived of the ability to brag about the Sox's success, some are going straight into "mock the Cubs exclusively" mode, which would be a lot worse if it weren't so desperate and pathetic); it's just that this series would probably tell us a lot more about the Cubs if the Sox didn't look quite so bad right now.
That said, the fact that the Sox are playing so poorly does allow us to use this series as something of a barometer for the rest of the season. With the Cubs at seven games under and flirting with falling out of the division race entirely, here are the four potential outcomes of this weekend's series and what they mean:
Cubs sweep 3-0
This result is, quite obviously, the optimal one. First of all, it tells us that the Cubs are capable of rebounding from disappointing series losses to San Diego and Texas. Second of all, it gets the Cubs within four games of .500, a good position to be in as July approaches, when .500 needs to be accessible. Third of all, it shuts up all Sox fans everywhere. And finally, it shows us that the Cubs are capable of beating teams that they should be beating. Did you know that the Cubs have only swept one series all year, over the Nationals at Wrigley on May 4-6? It's true. That was also the second-to-last time the Cubs were over .500 (the last time was two days later, after they lost one game to fall back to .500, then won).
Cubs win 2-1
The Cubs take the season series if they win 2-1, which would give some bragging rights, but this is more important because it involves winning a road series. Ultimately, the Cubs can pull themselves out of their hole without a huge winning streak so long as they can win most of the series they play. A series against a big rival - while not as important as series against the Cardinals or Brewers - would be nicely symbolic. Yes, winning 2 of 3 from a struggling Sox team isn't nearly as good as sweeping a team in freefall, but given how hard it's been for the Cubs to sweep anyone, I'd take the series win. The Cubs would pick up a game on .500 - a start - and with a series against Milwaukee looming next weekend, hopefully gain some needed momentum.
Cubs lose 2-1
A series loss would hurt. The Sox are not a good team right now and have trouble scoring runs, which leaves the Cubs with little excuse. That plus Aramis Ramirez's return means that there's absolutely no reason the Cubs shouldn't be winning these games 6-2 (except for the fact that they're the Cubs). Two losses means either the starting pitching got roughed up - a problem since the Cubs throw their three best recent starters at the Sox - or that the offense struggled - a problem since the Sox's pitching has not impressed lately - or perhaps that the bullpen turned back into a pumpkin. No matter why it happens, it's going to be emblematic of larger problems likely to keep the Cubs from making any runs at the division.
Cubs get swept
Absolute devastation. In addition to forcing the fans to endure the taunts and jibes of Sox fans for the rest of the year, this would drop the Cubs to ten games under .500 and would probably expose numerous gaping flaws in the team that aren't going to be fixed this year. If this happens, just stop watching the Cubs for the rest of the season, because they aren't going to be doing jack shit.
With the All-Star Break only about two weeks away, it's make-or-break time for the Cubs. Failure to reach .500 by early to mid-July, barring another long slump by the Brewers to keep the division lead accessible, is going to all but stick a fork in the Cubs' season, even if they remain buyers as the trading deadline approaches. (The latest rumor - Ken Griffey Jr. coming over from the Reds - is tantalizing but unlikely, and I'm not sure it even solves any problems this team currently has.)
So why this White Sox series? Because the White Sox have been underachieving as well, possibly even worse than the Cubs have. The Sox are 29-39, already double-digits out in the division and seemingly headed for their first sub-.500 season since 1999 and their first fourth-place finish in the three-division era. Their fans, so giddy just two years ago, are in full-blown depression mode; Bill Simmons talks about a five-year championship grace period, but I think all bets are off once your team stops being the perennial contender that a World Series winner seemingly should. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the Sox's freefall if only because it shuts up their fans (although deprived of the ability to brag about the Sox's success, some are going straight into "mock the Cubs exclusively" mode, which would be a lot worse if it weren't so desperate and pathetic); it's just that this series would probably tell us a lot more about the Cubs if the Sox didn't look quite so bad right now.
That said, the fact that the Sox are playing so poorly does allow us to use this series as something of a barometer for the rest of the season. With the Cubs at seven games under and flirting with falling out of the division race entirely, here are the four potential outcomes of this weekend's series and what they mean:
Cubs sweep 3-0
This result is, quite obviously, the optimal one. First of all, it tells us that the Cubs are capable of rebounding from disappointing series losses to San Diego and Texas. Second of all, it gets the Cubs within four games of .500, a good position to be in as July approaches, when .500 needs to be accessible. Third of all, it shuts up all Sox fans everywhere. And finally, it shows us that the Cubs are capable of beating teams that they should be beating. Did you know that the Cubs have only swept one series all year, over the Nationals at Wrigley on May 4-6? It's true. That was also the second-to-last time the Cubs were over .500 (the last time was two days later, after they lost one game to fall back to .500, then won).
Cubs win 2-1
The Cubs take the season series if they win 2-1, which would give some bragging rights, but this is more important because it involves winning a road series. Ultimately, the Cubs can pull themselves out of their hole without a huge winning streak so long as they can win most of the series they play. A series against a big rival - while not as important as series against the Cardinals or Brewers - would be nicely symbolic. Yes, winning 2 of 3 from a struggling Sox team isn't nearly as good as sweeping a team in freefall, but given how hard it's been for the Cubs to sweep anyone, I'd take the series win. The Cubs would pick up a game on .500 - a start - and with a series against Milwaukee looming next weekend, hopefully gain some needed momentum.
Cubs lose 2-1
A series loss would hurt. The Sox are not a good team right now and have trouble scoring runs, which leaves the Cubs with little excuse. That plus Aramis Ramirez's return means that there's absolutely no reason the Cubs shouldn't be winning these games 6-2 (except for the fact that they're the Cubs). Two losses means either the starting pitching got roughed up - a problem since the Cubs throw their three best recent starters at the Sox - or that the offense struggled - a problem since the Sox's pitching has not impressed lately - or perhaps that the bullpen turned back into a pumpkin. No matter why it happens, it's going to be emblematic of larger problems likely to keep the Cubs from making any runs at the division.
Cubs get swept
Absolute devastation. In addition to forcing the fans to endure the taunts and jibes of Sox fans for the rest of the year, this would drop the Cubs to ten games under .500 and would probably expose numerous gaping flaws in the team that aren't going to be fixed this year. If this happens, just stop watching the Cubs for the rest of the season, because they aren't going to be doing jack shit.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
All things must pass (especially baseballs)
As ESPN.com reported a couple hours ago and Cubs.com now confirms, the Cubs traded Michael Barrett and cash to the Padres today for backup catcher Rob Bowen and a single-A prospect.
I'm not sure how to feel about it. There seem to be two schools of thought on the trade:
(a) Barrett wasn't that bad; we should have gotten more back for him; it was pointless.
(b) Barrett was that bad, and even if he wasn't, there was too much personality conflict; he was a free agent anyway and probably wouldn't be resigned, so at least we got something for him.
I could argue that I'm of both schools. There's little doubt in my mind that this was mostly a dump job for personality reasons. As I argued last week, Barrett's offensive contributions - at least compared to the Blanco/Hill plate nightmare - tend to outweigh whatever defensive liabilities he brings to the table. However, historically, Barrett has both been better offensively and better defensively (this is his first year with the Cubs that his fielding percentage has been below league average for catchers). Last year he hit .307; this year, that's his OBP. His power numbers are on pace to set career highs, but that isn't everything. I'm not in the clubhouse, so I can't say just how much of a personality conflict existed there - most of his teammates insisted publicly there was no problem, but it seems like management didn't feel the same way.
You could certainly argue that we didn't get enough back for him - a backup catcher and a single-A prospect? Said prospect is rated okay, but certainly isn't a big-league player within the next year or two. The Cubs have a recent history of getting decent throw-ins (Fontenot came over in the Sosa deal, for example), but you've got to wait for those to pay off. If they do.
As for Bowen - is he the new backup, with Hill starting? Is he the new backup with Geovany Soto (who has been hitting like crazy at Iowa) called up to start? Is he the new starter with either Hill or Soto serving as backup? Honestly, who knows. Perhaps the Cubs felt that the catcher's offense just wasn't important enough - hell, check out 2003, when the Cubs won the division with the #8 hole mostly filled with Damian Miller (.233/.310/.369, 9 HR/36 RBI) and Paul Bako (.229/.311/.330, 0 HR/17 RBI). That's a pretty pitiful offensive contribution - Barrett already matched that homer total and had more than half the RBIs, while hitting 25 points higher or so.
On overall talent, this team is better than that team. So a minimal downgrade at catcher - assuming there is enough defensive improvement to statistically account for most of the offensive loss, and if whoever takes over as the starter finds the bat at least a little, it could - shouldn't make that much of a difference, so long as Lee and Soriano keep producing, Ramirez comes back soon, and the pitching stays solid. (Fingers crossed.)
I guess this trade was inevitable. Do I wish we could have gotten a little more back? Sure. But then you don't get much back for guys who:
(a) Are widely considered defensive liabilities at their position and aren't even hitting great this year;
(b) Have been in at least two fights in the past year and seem to have personality issues;
(c) Will be free agents at the end of the year;
(d) Everyone knows you've been looking to trade for weeks.
So, I guess I can live with it. I just hope we don't regret dealing away Barrett's offense in three months.
I'm not sure how to feel about it. There seem to be two schools of thought on the trade:
(a) Barrett wasn't that bad; we should have gotten more back for him; it was pointless.
(b) Barrett was that bad, and even if he wasn't, there was too much personality conflict; he was a free agent anyway and probably wouldn't be resigned, so at least we got something for him.
I could argue that I'm of both schools. There's little doubt in my mind that this was mostly a dump job for personality reasons. As I argued last week, Barrett's offensive contributions - at least compared to the Blanco/Hill plate nightmare - tend to outweigh whatever defensive liabilities he brings to the table. However, historically, Barrett has both been better offensively and better defensively (this is his first year with the Cubs that his fielding percentage has been below league average for catchers). Last year he hit .307; this year, that's his OBP. His power numbers are on pace to set career highs, but that isn't everything. I'm not in the clubhouse, so I can't say just how much of a personality conflict existed there - most of his teammates insisted publicly there was no problem, but it seems like management didn't feel the same way.
You could certainly argue that we didn't get enough back for him - a backup catcher and a single-A prospect? Said prospect is rated okay, but certainly isn't a big-league player within the next year or two. The Cubs have a recent history of getting decent throw-ins (Fontenot came over in the Sosa deal, for example), but you've got to wait for those to pay off. If they do.
As for Bowen - is he the new backup, with Hill starting? Is he the new backup with Geovany Soto (who has been hitting like crazy at Iowa) called up to start? Is he the new starter with either Hill or Soto serving as backup? Honestly, who knows. Perhaps the Cubs felt that the catcher's offense just wasn't important enough - hell, check out 2003, when the Cubs won the division with the #8 hole mostly filled with Damian Miller (.233/.310/.369, 9 HR/36 RBI) and Paul Bako (.229/.311/.330, 0 HR/17 RBI). That's a pretty pitiful offensive contribution - Barrett already matched that homer total and had more than half the RBIs, while hitting 25 points higher or so.
On overall talent, this team is better than that team. So a minimal downgrade at catcher - assuming there is enough defensive improvement to statistically account for most of the offensive loss, and if whoever takes over as the starter finds the bat at least a little, it could - shouldn't make that much of a difference, so long as Lee and Soriano keep producing, Ramirez comes back soon, and the pitching stays solid. (Fingers crossed.)
I guess this trade was inevitable. Do I wish we could have gotten a little more back? Sure. But then you don't get much back for guys who:
(a) Are widely considered defensive liabilities at their position and aren't even hitting great this year;
(b) Have been in at least two fights in the past year and seem to have personality issues;
(c) Will be free agents at the end of the year;
(d) Everyone knows you've been looking to trade for weeks.
So, I guess I can live with it. I just hope we don't regret dealing away Barrett's offense in three months.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
In defense of Michael Barrett
Yes, no one would claim that Michael Barrett is the perfect catcher. He's had some baserunning blunders, his hitting has been less reliable this year than usual (though his power numbers are about normal), and his defense is hardly stellar. But before you say that he has to go - as my dad said to me tonight, precipitating all this - let's look at, you know, the actual stats.
Offense
Barrett is hitting .250 this year, which ranks him just 11th among 17 "qualified" catchers on ESPN.com. His .734 OPS ranks him 9th in that group, still not great. But Barrett's career averages are .267 and .756, and last year they were .307 and .885, both career highs. This year's slow start notwithstanding, signs suggest Barrett is getting better as a hitter. He's on pace for more homers and RBI this year than in any previous, as well.
Henry Blanco has a career BA of .224 and a career OPS of .654. So far this year he's hitting .194 and .481 (admittedly in very limited pre-DL time). Koyie Hill, called up when Blanco went on the DL, has one hit in 16 big-league at-bats. (You could talk about Barrett's baserunning blunders here, but it's not like Blanco has any speed to speak of, so it's doubtful he'd make any kind of significant upgrade on the basepaths just because Barrett has made a couple gaffes.)
Yes, it's possible you could replace Barrett's bat if you traded him. But if his defense is as bad as claimed, who would trade as good or better a bat for him? (And you'd really need a better bat to compensate for then having the 8-hole filled with someone who is probably doing pretty much nothing every time up.) On offense, Barrett wins.
Defense
Barrett has eight passed balls this year, which is not good. (By comparison, he had ten all of last year. The Gold Glove winner, Brad Ausmus, had one.) Of course, some of that is the staff he catches; they tend to be kind of wild. Still, 8 passed balls leads the majors. (Although Bengie Molina, who I think most people would say "Oh, good defensive catcher" about, has seven.) But Blanco has two passed balls in just ten starts. Barrett has 48 starts. If Blanco had 48 starts, he would have 10 passed balls, assuming accurate extrapolation. The point is: this is a hard staff to catch and Barrett is probably not doing a significantly worse job of it than anyone else would be, or at least not a worse job than Blanco. (Koyie Hill has no passed balls yet in four starts. Give that man the starting job!)
"Calls a good game"
This is something that is always offered to a catcher as praise even though it's totally nebulous and no one can really define it as anything other than "the pitcher's outing was good." If you have someone like Greg Maddux, say, who studies film rigorously, and he goes out and throws a one-hitter, did the catcher call a good game, or is Maddux hard-working and awesome? I wouldn't say that catchers have no effect on pitchers, but it's one of those probably-overrated intangible things that "baseball men" use as a way of avoiding sabermetrics.
"Catcher's ERA" is a ludicrously rough tool, but it's one way to look at how good a game someone has been calling. It's just the ERA of the pitchers while throwing to that catcher. For the Cubs, it looks like this:
Michael Barrett: 4.11
Henry Blanco: 4.04
Koyie Hill: 1.58
Barrett is #7 among qualified catchers in the majors. Doesn't sound too bad, and aside from Jason Kendall - whose Oakland staff has been ridonkulous so far - Barrett is within just over half a run of the top. But oh, look! Blanco is at 4.04!
In other words, over the course of 162 games, Michael Barrett will give up about 11 more runs thanks to the shittiness with which he calls games. That's one extra run (earned run, to be completely accurate) every 15 games.
Meanwhile, Michael Barrett's career RC/27 (that's runs created per 27 outs) is 4.85; Blanco's is 3.43. Which means that, for his career, Michael Barrett has, as an offensive player, been worth 1.42 runs more than Henry Blanco every seven games or so. Meaning that in the 15 games in which Barrett is allowing one more run, he's leading to roughly three more than Blanco is. Over the course of a season, a team caught exclusively by Henry Blanco and featuring nine Henry Blancos at the plate will give up 654.48 runs and score 555.66, and thus probably lose a lot. A team caught exclusively by Michael Barrett and featuring nine Michael Barretts at the plate will give up 665.82 runs, but it will also score 785.7, and almost certainly win way more games than the Hank White All-Stars.
It should be noted that the RC/27 number is career, since I didn't want to penalize Blanco too unjustly for his limited time this year. I did use his CERA from this year since that's the number my dad was so quick to cite. "Zambrano's ERA was much better to Blanco and Hill than it was to Barrett!" That may be so; it's obvious that Zambrano and Barrett have had their issues. But Zambrano is still just one pitcher on this staff; the others seem to have no more trouble pitching to Barrett than to Blanco. Barrett's slightly higher CERA, after all, was compiled in five times as many innings as Blanco's number, making it a little more impressive. (Hill's 1.58 is in four total starts, which is why I didn't even bother addressing it.)
In conclusion, everybody just calm down. Barrett's having a mediocre stretch, but the stats suggest he's just fine overall, and certainly better than anything else we have, in sum total. The potential slight advantage in Blanco/Hill CERA - if you even buy that CERA has much of anything to do with the actual catcher - is grossly outweighed by the drain on the lineup they'd be compared to Barrett. The stats have spoken.
Offense
Barrett is hitting .250 this year, which ranks him just 11th among 17 "qualified" catchers on ESPN.com. His .734 OPS ranks him 9th in that group, still not great. But Barrett's career averages are .267 and .756, and last year they were .307 and .885, both career highs. This year's slow start notwithstanding, signs suggest Barrett is getting better as a hitter. He's on pace for more homers and RBI this year than in any previous, as well.
Henry Blanco has a career BA of .224 and a career OPS of .654. So far this year he's hitting .194 and .481 (admittedly in very limited pre-DL time). Koyie Hill, called up when Blanco went on the DL, has one hit in 16 big-league at-bats. (You could talk about Barrett's baserunning blunders here, but it's not like Blanco has any speed to speak of, so it's doubtful he'd make any kind of significant upgrade on the basepaths just because Barrett has made a couple gaffes.)
Yes, it's possible you could replace Barrett's bat if you traded him. But if his defense is as bad as claimed, who would trade as good or better a bat for him? (And you'd really need a better bat to compensate for then having the 8-hole filled with someone who is probably doing pretty much nothing every time up.) On offense, Barrett wins.
Defense
Barrett has eight passed balls this year, which is not good. (By comparison, he had ten all of last year. The Gold Glove winner, Brad Ausmus, had one.) Of course, some of that is the staff he catches; they tend to be kind of wild. Still, 8 passed balls leads the majors. (Although Bengie Molina, who I think most people would say "Oh, good defensive catcher" about, has seven.) But Blanco has two passed balls in just ten starts. Barrett has 48 starts. If Blanco had 48 starts, he would have 10 passed balls, assuming accurate extrapolation. The point is: this is a hard staff to catch and Barrett is probably not doing a significantly worse job of it than anyone else would be, or at least not a worse job than Blanco. (Koyie Hill has no passed balls yet in four starts. Give that man the starting job!)
"Calls a good game"
This is something that is always offered to a catcher as praise even though it's totally nebulous and no one can really define it as anything other than "the pitcher's outing was good." If you have someone like Greg Maddux, say, who studies film rigorously, and he goes out and throws a one-hitter, did the catcher call a good game, or is Maddux hard-working and awesome? I wouldn't say that catchers have no effect on pitchers, but it's one of those probably-overrated intangible things that "baseball men" use as a way of avoiding sabermetrics.
"Catcher's ERA" is a ludicrously rough tool, but it's one way to look at how good a game someone has been calling. It's just the ERA of the pitchers while throwing to that catcher. For the Cubs, it looks like this:
Michael Barrett: 4.11
Henry Blanco: 4.04
Koyie Hill: 1.58
Barrett is #7 among qualified catchers in the majors. Doesn't sound too bad, and aside from Jason Kendall - whose Oakland staff has been ridonkulous so far - Barrett is within just over half a run of the top. But oh, look! Blanco is at 4.04!
In other words, over the course of 162 games, Michael Barrett will give up about 11 more runs thanks to the shittiness with which he calls games. That's one extra run (earned run, to be completely accurate) every 15 games.
Meanwhile, Michael Barrett's career RC/27 (that's runs created per 27 outs) is 4.85; Blanco's is 3.43. Which means that, for his career, Michael Barrett has, as an offensive player, been worth 1.42 runs more than Henry Blanco every seven games or so. Meaning that in the 15 games in which Barrett is allowing one more run, he's leading to roughly three more than Blanco is. Over the course of a season, a team caught exclusively by Henry Blanco and featuring nine Henry Blancos at the plate will give up 654.48 runs and score 555.66, and thus probably lose a lot. A team caught exclusively by Michael Barrett and featuring nine Michael Barretts at the plate will give up 665.82 runs, but it will also score 785.7, and almost certainly win way more games than the Hank White All-Stars.
It should be noted that the RC/27 number is career, since I didn't want to penalize Blanco too unjustly for his limited time this year. I did use his CERA from this year since that's the number my dad was so quick to cite. "Zambrano's ERA was much better to Blanco and Hill than it was to Barrett!" That may be so; it's obvious that Zambrano and Barrett have had their issues. But Zambrano is still just one pitcher on this staff; the others seem to have no more trouble pitching to Barrett than to Blanco. Barrett's slightly higher CERA, after all, was compiled in five times as many innings as Blanco's number, making it a little more impressive. (Hill's 1.58 is in four total starts, which is why I didn't even bother addressing it.)
In conclusion, everybody just calm down. Barrett's having a mediocre stretch, but the stats suggest he's just fine overall, and certainly better than anything else we have, in sum total. The potential slight advantage in Blanco/Hill CERA - if you even buy that CERA has much of anything to do with the actual catcher - is grossly outweighed by the drain on the lineup they'd be compared to Barrett. The stats have spoken.
Extra painful
Once again, the Cubs lose in extras and look bad doing it. It's bad enough that they blew a bases-loaded, no-out situation for the second time in four days (both times where a single would have all but locked up the game); the really disappointing part is the disappearing act in extra innings again. This team is now 1-6 in extra frames and frankly it's amazing they even got one win, so cold do the bats go once the inning number rolls into double figures. In four extra innings, the Cubs had four baserunners, but three of those were in the bottom of the 13th already down 5-3. And the fourth was an infield single that probably could have been called an error and wasn't. In that same timespan? Six strikeouts. The Mariners' bullpen is pretty good, I'll grant, but ugh. Not good times.
There's talk about Barrett's baserunning (again) and the inability to cash in the bases-loaded, no-out jam (again), but for me the worst move of the game was leaving Ohman in once he'd given up the double to Vidro. Ohman is used to going an inning or less; now he's on his ninth batter faced in Bloomquist (although Betancourt, having been intentionally walked, doesn't really count for this discussion), who isn't even a lefty! Gallagher was ready in the pen; I know he's a recent call-up, but Ohman clearly looked gassed (besides the fact that he sucks).
Naturally, Ohman gives up two runs and the Cubs lose another one. (The whole "Barrett can't find the ball" thing was weird, but it seemed like it just kind of squirted out of his glove as he started to come up... I mean, that'll happen. Frankly it's amazing that Jones got the ball to the plate at all, so I'm hesitant to pin the blame on the defense here.) Even more naturally, we had to get teased with a two-on, one-out in the bottom of the inning before Soriano was pitched around (shock of shocks) and Hill grounded out. (Another second-guess: why hit Hill there? Sure, he's an "actual batter," but given how he's looked at the plate, why not take your chances with Marquis? I mean, he's a better pro hitter right now.)
So of course, no ground gained on the Brewers (even as they were no-hit!) and the Cardinals are still right there. Plus the suddenly kind of annoying Astros won again. I really hate following this teamevery day of my life sometimes.
There's talk about Barrett's baserunning (again) and the inability to cash in the bases-loaded, no-out jam (again), but for me the worst move of the game was leaving Ohman in once he'd given up the double to Vidro. Ohman is used to going an inning or less; now he's on his ninth batter faced in Bloomquist (although Betancourt, having been intentionally walked, doesn't really count for this discussion), who isn't even a lefty! Gallagher was ready in the pen; I know he's a recent call-up, but Ohman clearly looked gassed (besides the fact that he sucks).
Naturally, Ohman gives up two runs and the Cubs lose another one. (The whole "Barrett can't find the ball" thing was weird, but it seemed like it just kind of squirted out of his glove as he started to come up... I mean, that'll happen. Frankly it's amazing that Jones got the ball to the plate at all, so I'm hesitant to pin the blame on the defense here.) Even more naturally, we had to get teased with a two-on, one-out in the bottom of the inning before Soriano was pitched around (shock of shocks) and Hill grounded out. (Another second-guess: why hit Hill there? Sure, he's an "actual batter," but given how he's looked at the plate, why not take your chances with Marquis? I mean, he's a better pro hitter right now.)
So of course, no ground gained on the Brewers (even as they were no-hit!) and the Cardinals are still right there. Plus the suddenly kind of annoying Astros won again. I really hate following this team
Monday, June 11, 2007
Pick 'em up
We needed a big game from Zambrano and we got it. I'm a little bothered that he threw 128 pitches, and he seemed pretty gassed by the time he finished the eighth - but he struck out eight, allowed just five baserunners (three hits, a walk and a hit batsman), and hit 96 on the gun early in the game. And, of course, he hit what turned out to be the game-winning home run into the left-field seats. All told it was a fun game to be at, unless you like a lot of hits. I don't mind a good old-fashioned pitchers' duel, though (in fact, many of the Cubs' games I've attended have turned out to be such), although it was a little frustrating to see the offense struggle. (To be fair, a lot of balls were pretty well hit and just found gloves. Mike Lamb's liner stab and scramble to first to double Lee off, for example; pretty lucky on Houston's part.) I know Ramirez is out, but Lee has looked off for a couple weeks - he seems to be taking too many pitches. If I had a dollar for every third strike he's looked at in the past week, I could have a pretty big lunch tomorrow.
Still, good to see the bullpen get some rest, even if it meant a ton of pitches for Big Z (he seems to be one of the few guys capable of handling that workload, but I'm biting my tongue here), after getting shredded last night, and good to see Dempster rebound. And good to see a win when I'm actually in the ballpark. By my count I'm actually 6-1 since returning to Chicago for school in 2000, including five straight since 2001. Maybe I should go more often.
Still, good to see the bullpen get some rest, even if it meant a ton of pitches for Big Z (he seems to be one of the few guys capable of handling that workload, but I'm biting my tongue here), after getting shredded last night, and good to see Dempster rebound. And good to see a win when I'm actually in the ballpark. By my count I'm actually 6-1 since returning to Chicago for school in 2000, including five straight since 2001. Maybe I should go more often.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Same old sorry-ass Cubs
Between 1990 and 1998, the San Francisco 49ers beat the Los Angeles/St. Louis Rams seventeen times in a row. In the midst of this run, the Niners came to St. Louis for the first time in 1995 with the Rams in their new home and supposedly improved. San Francisco ran away with the game, and a 49ers player was quoted as saying, "Same old sorry-ass Rams."
I mention this because the title of this post, a paraphrase of the Rams quote, was what popped into my head after the conclusion of tonight's game, the second straight devastating loss in a row just when we thought the Cubs were turning the corner on their season.
First came last night, of course - when the Cubs put up a four-spot against Atlanta's best starter, Tim Hudson, in the top of the first and then saw him leave the game early, it looked like things were steaming along nicely. Then Jason Marquis laid a six-run egg, going just an inning and two-thirds, the bats fell asleep for the rest of the game, and the final score was 9-5.
Taken by itself, of course, those games are bound to happen occasionally. And with the good fortune of having John Smoltz pushed back again, the Cubs looked like they could still win the series - three out of four on the road would have been huge. So what happened?
Ted Lilly hit Edgar Renteria in the first inning, and because it appeared to be retaliation for the Braves' having hit Soriano on Saturday, Lilly got ejected. This forced the pitching scramble that, ultimately, led to the loss.
Marmol, Ohman, Wuertz and Howry took the Cubs through the seventh with a 4-2 lead. In the top of the eighth, a great time for insurance runs, the Cubs loaded the bases with no outs - but Mike Fontenot, who had homered to lead off the seventh, hit into a double play, and no runs scored.
Although four relief pitchers had already been used, I'm not sure about Piniella's decision to send out Dempster in the eighth. Was he hoping Dempster could go two innings? He must have been; with Eyre and Gallagher - who had both pitched multiple innings on Saturday - the only other relievers on the bench, and Howry having pitched two innings already, Dempster going two was the only way the Cubs were going to get out of it with a win.
As it turned out, Dempster avoided having to go two by absolutely gagging up the game. First he gave up a double. Then he gave up another double; 4-3. Then he gave up a single. First and third, still no outs. Willie Harris, on first, stole second; now Dempster walks Kelly Johnson intentionally to load the bases. He induces a double play, but the tying run scores and Harris moves to third. Dempster proceeds to walk the bases loaded again, and then throws a wild pitch, allowing Harris to score the go-ahead run. Soriano and Pie hit a couple long flies in the top of the ninth, but the Cubs lose 5-4.
I said before the series that I'd take a 2-2 split on the road. But Jesus, like this? Marquis shitting the bed on Saturday and the bullpen getting shredded on Sunday? Derrek Lee going 0-for-4 on Sunday to continue his June funk, lowering his average to .332? (Granted, not having Ramirez for protection is hurting, but ugh. .233 in the last week and an OBP higher than his slugging?) This should have been 3-1 at least, probably 4-0. And the same stuff that always bites the Cubs in the ass did it again.
Zambrano starts tomorrow in the makeup game against Houston. I'll be there. Hopefully the real Zambrano is too.
I mention this because the title of this post, a paraphrase of the Rams quote, was what popped into my head after the conclusion of tonight's game, the second straight devastating loss in a row just when we thought the Cubs were turning the corner on their season.
First came last night, of course - when the Cubs put up a four-spot against Atlanta's best starter, Tim Hudson, in the top of the first and then saw him leave the game early, it looked like things were steaming along nicely. Then Jason Marquis laid a six-run egg, going just an inning and two-thirds, the bats fell asleep for the rest of the game, and the final score was 9-5.
Taken by itself, of course, those games are bound to happen occasionally. And with the good fortune of having John Smoltz pushed back again, the Cubs looked like they could still win the series - three out of four on the road would have been huge. So what happened?
Ted Lilly hit Edgar Renteria in the first inning, and because it appeared to be retaliation for the Braves' having hit Soriano on Saturday, Lilly got ejected. This forced the pitching scramble that, ultimately, led to the loss.
Marmol, Ohman, Wuertz and Howry took the Cubs through the seventh with a 4-2 lead. In the top of the eighth, a great time for insurance runs, the Cubs loaded the bases with no outs - but Mike Fontenot, who had homered to lead off the seventh, hit into a double play, and no runs scored.
Although four relief pitchers had already been used, I'm not sure about Piniella's decision to send out Dempster in the eighth. Was he hoping Dempster could go two innings? He must have been; with Eyre and Gallagher - who had both pitched multiple innings on Saturday - the only other relievers on the bench, and Howry having pitched two innings already, Dempster going two was the only way the Cubs were going to get out of it with a win.
As it turned out, Dempster avoided having to go two by absolutely gagging up the game. First he gave up a double. Then he gave up another double; 4-3. Then he gave up a single. First and third, still no outs. Willie Harris, on first, stole second; now Dempster walks Kelly Johnson intentionally to load the bases. He induces a double play, but the tying run scores and Harris moves to third. Dempster proceeds to walk the bases loaded again, and then throws a wild pitch, allowing Harris to score the go-ahead run. Soriano and Pie hit a couple long flies in the top of the ninth, but the Cubs lose 5-4.
I said before the series that I'd take a 2-2 split on the road. But Jesus, like this? Marquis shitting the bed on Saturday and the bullpen getting shredded on Sunday? Derrek Lee going 0-for-4 on Sunday to continue his June funk, lowering his average to .332? (Granted, not having Ramirez for protection is hurting, but ugh. .233 in the last week and an OBP higher than his slugging?) This should have been 3-1 at least, probably 4-0. And the same stuff that always bites the Cubs in the ass did it again.
Zambrano starts tomorrow in the makeup game against Houston. I'll be there. Hopefully the real Zambrano is too.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
...are we back?
Since the season hit what hopefully will turn out to have been its nadir a week ago, things have been going a lot better for the Cubs. First came the blowout win in the final game of the Atlanta series, finally giving Sean Marshall some much deserved offense, and then came a series win at Miller Park (and if Ted Lilly had not gone homer-happy in the second game, it could have been a sweep... but I will take series wins all the way to the bank). Now a dangerous four-game set has started in Atlanta, and while the Brewers series was important, it's the current set that may well make or break the season. If the Cubs win three or (dare I hope) four - and they've already taken the first one thanks mostly to a brilliant outing by Rich Hill - against a team that is currently pretty close to a playoff spot, I think that would solidify the start of a turnaround (knock wood). One scout, as quoted by Jayson Stark yesterday, described the Cubs as having a chance "to rip off about 14 out of 15 one of these days." I don't know if that specifically would happen, but a handful of 8-of-10 strings over the next couple months would be just what the doctor ordered. Winning two would be slightly disappointing, but acceptable for a road series. But if, God forbid, they were to lose the next three, it would be back to the drawing board, back to nine games under, back to everything getting questioned. It would be a disaster.
Personally, watching this team recently, I feel like they're starting to get it. They didn't look great offensively tonight, but at least they didn't have to. Games like that are going to happen sometimes. The trick is minimizing them. If Soriano continues to be a monster at the top of the lineup - when he hit the home run off his shoetops on Monday, I actually yelled at the TV, "That's why we signed you! - I think this team can go a long way. Of course, Ramirez is hurt and Lee has been in a little slump recently, losing 20+ points of BA in about a week, so hopefully those things don't continue.
The big question is whether the Cubs are buyers or sellers at the trade deadline. Personally I doubt it will be either. Traders, perhaps, like just trying to mix things up a bit, but they aren't going to be shipping out prospects for any expensive pieces and I just don't see Hendry dismantling this team. I do wish they could figure out a way to get the money for Zambrano released already - he's never going to be cheaper than right this minute, I think - but I'm starting to really worry that the turnover at the very top is going to cost us this guy. Let's try not to worry about that right now, though.
Tomorrow: Sean Marshall tries to be awesome again. Can the offense get him runs more than once?
Personally, watching this team recently, I feel like they're starting to get it. They didn't look great offensively tonight, but at least they didn't have to. Games like that are going to happen sometimes. The trick is minimizing them. If Soriano continues to be a monster at the top of the lineup - when he hit the home run off his shoetops on Monday, I actually yelled at the TV, "That's why we signed you! - I think this team can go a long way. Of course, Ramirez is hurt and Lee has been in a little slump recently, losing 20+ points of BA in about a week, so hopefully those things don't continue.
The big question is whether the Cubs are buyers or sellers at the trade deadline. Personally I doubt it will be either. Traders, perhaps, like just trying to mix things up a bit, but they aren't going to be shipping out prospects for any expensive pieces and I just don't see Hendry dismantling this team. I do wish they could figure out a way to get the money for Zambrano released already - he's never going to be cheaper than right this minute, I think - but I'm starting to really worry that the turnover at the very top is going to cost us this guy. Let's try not to worry about that right now, though.
Tomorrow: Sean Marshall tries to be awesome again. Can the offense get him runs more than once?
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Sweet and Sour Lou
Braves 5, @Cubs 3
It was a lot closer this time, but in the end, things turned out like they have for the Cubs most of this season: they self-destructed down the stretch. After Rich Hill had one bad inning, giving up three runs, the Cubs scratched back to tie the game at 3-3 through seven. Enter Will Ohman; exit lead. After going 0-2 on the first hitter of the inning, Ohman proceeded to walk him. This despite the fact that Ohman was only brought on because the leadoff hitter was a lefty. Then, despite being a prototypical LOOGY (Lefty One-Out Guy), Ohman was left in, and proceeded to give up the go-ahead run. In the bottom of the eighth, Angel Pagan led off with a double and tried to make third when the ball got away from the catcher; unfortunately, it didn't get far away enough, and Pagan was gunned down in a bang-bang play. Pagan and Quade argued with the third-base umpire, and then out came Piniella, who was almost immediately tossed from the game and spent the next five minutes kicking dirt and his hat and ultimately being restrained by the umpires. For good measure, the game had to be delayed for several additional minutes because the bleacher fans deposited most of their beer cups onto the field at this point.
If yesterday was an embarrassing day to be a Cubs fan, today wasn't much better; for one thing, there's no excuse for throwing stuff onto the field, and for another, at least yesterday there was little belief the Cubs might actually win. When Pagan doubled I thought the tide was turning in our favor. Instead it was just another disappointingly close loss; once the dust settled in the eighth, the Cubs' remaining five outs went pretty smoothly for Atlanta aside from a Soriano single in the ninth. Lee came up as the tying run in the bottom of the ninth and grounded weakly into a fielder's choice. Obviously it's unfair to think he would be able to hit a home run in that situation all the time - no one is going to do that - but this was a big spot for the Cubs' season as a whole. And Lee went down without much fight.
After hitting their 25-33 nadir last year, the Twins turned around and won 21 of their next 23. Before they lost consecutive games again they were already 11 games above .500. I sure don't see that happening with this team. I'm sure Lou's ejection was half to vent his own frustration and half to try and motivate the team. Do you get any sense that it may have worked?
It was a lot closer this time, but in the end, things turned out like they have for the Cubs most of this season: they self-destructed down the stretch. After Rich Hill had one bad inning, giving up three runs, the Cubs scratched back to tie the game at 3-3 through seven. Enter Will Ohman; exit lead. After going 0-2 on the first hitter of the inning, Ohman proceeded to walk him. This despite the fact that Ohman was only brought on because the leadoff hitter was a lefty. Then, despite being a prototypical LOOGY (Lefty One-Out Guy), Ohman was left in, and proceeded to give up the go-ahead run. In the bottom of the eighth, Angel Pagan led off with a double and tried to make third when the ball got away from the catcher; unfortunately, it didn't get far away enough, and Pagan was gunned down in a bang-bang play. Pagan and Quade argued with the third-base umpire, and then out came Piniella, who was almost immediately tossed from the game and spent the next five minutes kicking dirt and his hat and ultimately being restrained by the umpires. For good measure, the game had to be delayed for several additional minutes because the bleacher fans deposited most of their beer cups onto the field at this point.
If yesterday was an embarrassing day to be a Cubs fan, today wasn't much better; for one thing, there's no excuse for throwing stuff onto the field, and for another, at least yesterday there was little belief the Cubs might actually win. When Pagan doubled I thought the tide was turning in our favor. Instead it was just another disappointingly close loss; once the dust settled in the eighth, the Cubs' remaining five outs went pretty smoothly for Atlanta aside from a Soriano single in the ninth. Lee came up as the tying run in the bottom of the ninth and grounded weakly into a fielder's choice. Obviously it's unfair to think he would be able to hit a home run in that situation all the time - no one is going to do that - but this was a big spot for the Cubs' season as a whole. And Lee went down without much fight.
After hitting their 25-33 nadir last year, the Twins turned around and won 21 of their next 23. Before they lost consecutive games again they were already 11 games above .500. I sure don't see that happening with this team. I'm sure Lou's ejection was half to vent his own frustration and half to try and motivate the team. Do you get any sense that it may have worked?
Friday, June 01, 2007
We were dead before the ship even sank
It's June 1, 2007. The Cubs, who committed nine figures to this year's payroll in the hopes of winning now, are 22-30. During today's game, Carlos Zambrano and Michael Barrett got into a fight in the dugout after Barrett passed a ball and then threw wildly to third; Zambrano pointed to his head on TV replays, evidently telling Barrett either that he should have caught the ball or shouldn't have thrown to third, period, after which Barrett appeared to gesture to the scoreboard, most likely pointing out that Zambrano had allowed 13 hits in just five innings. (The Cubs allowed 20 on the day. Frankly it's amazing they only lost 8-5.) After being separated, Zambrano and Barrett went separately into the clubhouse where, out of Piniella's watchful eye (?), they fought again, ending with Barrett getting his lip split. Barrett doesn't even catch Zambrano, but Henry Blanco is on the DL, leading to Barrett getting replaced by Koyie Hill, who I'd never even heard of until I checked the box score to find out who the hell could have replaced Barrett.
There are, of course, two ways of looking at this:
1. This is a good team that needed a kickstart, and maybe this will provide it.
2. This is a bad team venting its frustration with a season that, on June 1, appears already to be hopelessly lost.
Historically, teams that fight with each other are not very good teams. SportsCenter today showed video of a few other dugout fights, and they included the 2006 Kansas City Royals (62-100) and 2006 Toronto Blue Jays (87-75 but never a threat to make the playoffs). They did also include the 2002 San Francisco Giants (95-66), but that was Bonds and Kent, who both hit more than 35 home runs that year. Also Bonds' OPS+ was 275. That was clearly superstar egos. Zambrano might have a superstar ego but he sure doesn't have a 275 ERA+.
This team is not as untalented as it looks, although you could argue that it's benefited from some of the starters pitching above their historical averages thus far. (Key case in point: Jason Marquis and his 2.93 ERA.) Of course, Zambrano has sucked, though he's been the one getting the run support, which is why he has five wins. Offensively it's been pretty much an average showing, with the team OPS+ slightly below average (98), but that's not what you want from a playoff team. (Even the 2005 Padres, arguably the worst playoff team of all-time, had a team OPS+ of 104.) The Cubs have scored more runs than they've allowed, even after the -14 in two games against the Marlins this week, so their Pythagorean W-L is over .500, which suggests that they've been the victims of some exceptionally bad luck. But some consolation that is.
Now, on June 7, 2006, the Minnesota Twins were 25-33. Eight games under .500, just like the Cubs are now, and through more games. In their final 104 games of the season, the Twins went 71-33 and won an exceedingly competitive division in which three teams won 90 games or more.
The Twins also had the league's batting champion, the league MVP, and the AL Cy Young Award winner, of course. Also, a team OBP of .347 (although their OPS+ was a mere 101). Also, a team ERA+ of 113 (the Cubs', right now, is 104, though at least that's above average).
Am I looking for reasons to be optimistic? You're damn right I am. I intentionally lowered my hopes prior to the season because the Cubs had failed me too many times for me to assume they would win just because they spent money. But right now this team is failing to meet even my modest expectations. My thought was that, worst-case, they'd stumble around .500 all year. Right now, .500 is looking pretty sweet - they're on pace for 93 losses, which for $300 million would represent a three-game improvement over last year.
I hate overreacting and tossing blame around. But it's June fucking first. Among the people who need to queue up for some share of the blame:
Carlos Zambrano. Great, he's tied for the team lead in wins. He's also 5-5, has been bailed out by some of the majors' best run support, and has looked like absolute shit in a goddamn contract year. A lot of people have speculated that he's hiding an injury - for his sake, I hope he is, because I don't understand how anyone trying to justify a nine-figure contract could play this badly.
The bullpen. In particular, the holey trinity of Ohman, Howry, and Eyre, who have a combined WHIP of 1.78 through the end of May. It happens every year: the swallows return to Capistrano and the Cubs have a bunch of shitty middle relievers. In typical Cubs fashion, Neal Cotts pitched badly enough to get demoted to Iowa, while the guy for whom Cotts was traded, David Aardsma, is striking out more than a guy an inning. (Although his ERA isn't so hot either, so I guess whatever.)
A lack of fundamentals. Welcome to another Cub staple. Michael Barrett has seven passed balls this year. Cesar Izturis, the guy who was obtained straight up for Greg Maddux and was touted as a defensive whiz, has a .964 fielding percentage. Remember, he won a Gold Glove in 2004! (For good measure, he's hitting .258 with an OBP of .319 and an SLG that is, in rare fashion, even lower. But when you get a guy with a career OPS+ of 68, you're getting a guy with an OPS+ of 68.) Wednesday's game, the 9-4 loss to the Marlins, featured multiple abysmal baserunning blunders. And this team still can't take walks - they're twelfth in the league and no Cub is on pace to draw even 75 free passes. Dusty Baker may be gone, but his stink remains.
A lack of power. Part of the reason the Cubs have been struggling is that their decent team BA isn't translating to runs, and part of that reason is that there has been a surprising power outage at Wrigley so far. Most years the Cubs hit home runs like crazy - this year they haven't even done that. With 47, they're in the bottom half of the league, and 13 of those have come off the bat of Aramis Ramirez. Alfonso Soriano, who hit 46 last year to get himself a fat contract, has four, putting him on pace for about 13. In Wrigley Field.
Lou Piniella. Sure, it's not Lou's fault that the players on this team do things like hold team meetings before games and then get beaten 9-0, but doesn't it seem like he's just going through the motions? Here's some Lou chatter from today's postgame press conference, much of which has seemed typical of every post-loss press conference in the last month:
So what's the solution, assuming there is one? Some possible alternatives:
1. Trade Barrett.
Between this and last year's Pierzynski fiasco - although who doesn't want to punch A.J. Pierzynski - is he more of a distraction than he's worth? You can't hide Barrett on defense - last year's NL Gold Glove winner, Brad Ausmus had one passed ball, while Barrett had 10, and he's on pace for twice that this year - and his offense, while pretty good for a catcher, isn't irreplaceable. He and Zambrano are both pretty combustible - can you really keep them in the same clubhouse anymore? And remember, this team won the division in 2003 with Damian Miller (bad) and Paul Bako (worse). Ship Barrett out for a good defensive catcher, get some other bat to plug into the lineup... yes?
2. Trade Zambrano.
If the guy's this bad in a contract year, and he's as much of a head case as he is, do you really want to build around him? The problem here - well, one of them - is that Zambrano's stock right now has very likely never been lower, and any trade partner will be well aware of the Cubs' inability to sign Zambrano and may just take their chances in free agency, or at the very least trade as little as possible to get him. And of course if you trade Zambrano, you no longer have an obvious #1 guy (even if Z hasn't pitched like a #1 in more than a couple of games this year). Plus who do you replace him with? Any team trading for Zambrano in midseason probably doesn't have pitching to give away and I'm not exactly relishing another dip into the farm system right now.
3. Do nothing for now and hope this gets the team fired up.
Of course, if it doesn't, either or both guys might get traded in late July anyway.
4. Make a different move altogether.
Ideally, neither Barrett nor Zambrano will be traded, they'll make their peace, and things will be fine. Still, the idea of a trade is appetizing, and if one's going to be made it should be soon. But what trade do you make? Ship the perennially unhappy Jacque Jones out for pitching, which also helps clear up some of that outfield logjam? ...actually, yeah. Go with that one. Jones is hitting .245 with an OPS+ of 68, which makes him the outfield equivalent of Cesar Izturis. Carlos Zambrano is a more valuable hitter right now than Jones is. Of course this raises the question of what you'd get back for Jones... but does it even matter? How about a reliever with a sub-1.6 WHIP? That'd be fine.
Argh. I really hoped this season would be different, you know? And even though there were warning signs, I let myself get talked into it when the pitching started hot... and now it's not as good as it was and no one's hitting. Wonderful.
On the bright side, I discovered possibly the best misery-loves-company Cubs fan site of all time: Hire Jim Essian. Their amusing take on the fight is here.
There are, of course, two ways of looking at this:
1. This is a good team that needed a kickstart, and maybe this will provide it.
2. This is a bad team venting its frustration with a season that, on June 1, appears already to be hopelessly lost.
Historically, teams that fight with each other are not very good teams. SportsCenter today showed video of a few other dugout fights, and they included the 2006 Kansas City Royals (62-100) and 2006 Toronto Blue Jays (87-75 but never a threat to make the playoffs). They did also include the 2002 San Francisco Giants (95-66), but that was Bonds and Kent, who both hit more than 35 home runs that year. Also Bonds' OPS+ was 275. That was clearly superstar egos. Zambrano might have a superstar ego but he sure doesn't have a 275 ERA+.
This team is not as untalented as it looks, although you could argue that it's benefited from some of the starters pitching above their historical averages thus far. (Key case in point: Jason Marquis and his 2.93 ERA.) Of course, Zambrano has sucked, though he's been the one getting the run support, which is why he has five wins. Offensively it's been pretty much an average showing, with the team OPS+ slightly below average (98), but that's not what you want from a playoff team. (Even the 2005 Padres, arguably the worst playoff team of all-time, had a team OPS+ of 104.) The Cubs have scored more runs than they've allowed, even after the -14 in two games against the Marlins this week, so their Pythagorean W-L is over .500, which suggests that they've been the victims of some exceptionally bad luck. But some consolation that is.
Now, on June 7, 2006, the Minnesota Twins were 25-33. Eight games under .500, just like the Cubs are now, and through more games. In their final 104 games of the season, the Twins went 71-33 and won an exceedingly competitive division in which three teams won 90 games or more.
The Twins also had the league's batting champion, the league MVP, and the AL Cy Young Award winner, of course. Also, a team OBP of .347 (although their OPS+ was a mere 101). Also, a team ERA+ of 113 (the Cubs', right now, is 104, though at least that's above average).
Am I looking for reasons to be optimistic? You're damn right I am. I intentionally lowered my hopes prior to the season because the Cubs had failed me too many times for me to assume they would win just because they spent money. But right now this team is failing to meet even my modest expectations. My thought was that, worst-case, they'd stumble around .500 all year. Right now, .500 is looking pretty sweet - they're on pace for 93 losses, which for $300 million would represent a three-game improvement over last year.
I hate overreacting and tossing blame around. But it's June fucking first. Among the people who need to queue up for some share of the blame:
Carlos Zambrano. Great, he's tied for the team lead in wins. He's also 5-5, has been bailed out by some of the majors' best run support, and has looked like absolute shit in a goddamn contract year. A lot of people have speculated that he's hiding an injury - for his sake, I hope he is, because I don't understand how anyone trying to justify a nine-figure contract could play this badly.
The bullpen. In particular, the holey trinity of Ohman, Howry, and Eyre, who have a combined WHIP of 1.78 through the end of May. It happens every year: the swallows return to Capistrano and the Cubs have a bunch of shitty middle relievers. In typical Cubs fashion, Neal Cotts pitched badly enough to get demoted to Iowa, while the guy for whom Cotts was traded, David Aardsma, is striking out more than a guy an inning. (Although his ERA isn't so hot either, so I guess whatever.)
A lack of fundamentals. Welcome to another Cub staple. Michael Barrett has seven passed balls this year. Cesar Izturis, the guy who was obtained straight up for Greg Maddux and was touted as a defensive whiz, has a .964 fielding percentage. Remember, he won a Gold Glove in 2004! (For good measure, he's hitting .258 with an OBP of .319 and an SLG that is, in rare fashion, even lower. But when you get a guy with a career OPS+ of 68, you're getting a guy with an OPS+ of 68.) Wednesday's game, the 9-4 loss to the Marlins, featured multiple abysmal baserunning blunders. And this team still can't take walks - they're twelfth in the league and no Cub is on pace to draw even 75 free passes. Dusty Baker may be gone, but his stink remains.
A lack of power. Part of the reason the Cubs have been struggling is that their decent team BA isn't translating to runs, and part of that reason is that there has been a surprising power outage at Wrigley so far. Most years the Cubs hit home runs like crazy - this year they haven't even done that. With 47, they're in the bottom half of the league, and 13 of those have come off the bat of Aramis Ramirez. Alfonso Soriano, who hit 46 last year to get himself a fat contract, has four, putting him on pace for about 13. In Wrigley Field.
Lou Piniella. Sure, it's not Lou's fault that the players on this team do things like hold team meetings before games and then get beaten 9-0, but doesn't it seem like he's just going through the motions? Here's some Lou chatter from today's postgame press conference, much of which has seemed typical of every post-loss press conference in the last month:
"I only have so many players that I can play. You know? And it's about time some of them start playing like major leaguers! Or, get somebody else in here that can catch the damn ball or run the bases properly! All right? That's all I can say!"Also, Lou said "What am I supposed to do?" about 15 times. Hey, Lou? You're the fucking manager. Have you given any thought to managing? We all know this team is better than it's playing right now, but dumping all the blame on your players is not the world's classiest move, even if they're not playing well. Also, way to throw Barrett under the bus, since "catch the damn ball" and "run the bases properly" are both things that Barrett has not done in the last three games.
So what's the solution, assuming there is one? Some possible alternatives:
1. Trade Barrett.
Between this and last year's Pierzynski fiasco - although who doesn't want to punch A.J. Pierzynski - is he more of a distraction than he's worth? You can't hide Barrett on defense - last year's NL Gold Glove winner, Brad Ausmus had one passed ball, while Barrett had 10, and he's on pace for twice that this year - and his offense, while pretty good for a catcher, isn't irreplaceable. He and Zambrano are both pretty combustible - can you really keep them in the same clubhouse anymore? And remember, this team won the division in 2003 with Damian Miller (bad) and Paul Bako (worse). Ship Barrett out for a good defensive catcher, get some other bat to plug into the lineup... yes?
2. Trade Zambrano.
If the guy's this bad in a contract year, and he's as much of a head case as he is, do you really want to build around him? The problem here - well, one of them - is that Zambrano's stock right now has very likely never been lower, and any trade partner will be well aware of the Cubs' inability to sign Zambrano and may just take their chances in free agency, or at the very least trade as little as possible to get him. And of course if you trade Zambrano, you no longer have an obvious #1 guy (even if Z hasn't pitched like a #1 in more than a couple of games this year). Plus who do you replace him with? Any team trading for Zambrano in midseason probably doesn't have pitching to give away and I'm not exactly relishing another dip into the farm system right now.
3. Do nothing for now and hope this gets the team fired up.
Of course, if it doesn't, either or both guys might get traded in late July anyway.
4. Make a different move altogether.
Ideally, neither Barrett nor Zambrano will be traded, they'll make their peace, and things will be fine. Still, the idea of a trade is appetizing, and if one's going to be made it should be soon. But what trade do you make? Ship the perennially unhappy Jacque Jones out for pitching, which also helps clear up some of that outfield logjam? ...actually, yeah. Go with that one. Jones is hitting .245 with an OPS+ of 68, which makes him the outfield equivalent of Cesar Izturis. Carlos Zambrano is a more valuable hitter right now than Jones is. Of course this raises the question of what you'd get back for Jones... but does it even matter? How about a reliever with a sub-1.6 WHIP? That'd be fine.
Argh. I really hoped this season would be different, you know? And even though there were warning signs, I let myself get talked into it when the pitching started hot... and now it's not as good as it was and no one's hitting. Wonderful.
On the bright side, I discovered possibly the best misery-loves-company Cubs fan site of all time: Hire Jim Essian. Their amusing take on the fight is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)