Obviously as a Cubs fan you have to have an opinion on the signing of Alfonso Soriano. The expectation of how one might react is probably either (a) unbridled optimism or (b) complete despair. Needless to say, I fall pretty much square in the middle.
Things I Like About the Alfonso Soriano Signing
* It signals a willingness to spend money. You don't have to spend to win, but it usually helps.
* It signals a willingness to chase the big prize. This is a team that, historically, has not done much to go after premium free agents, even when they were entering free agency as Cubs (the Greg Maddux fiasco in 1992). Between Ramirez's re-signing and Soriano, the Cubs are showing the fans that the new goal is to chase the top of the free agent class.
* It's a power bat in an outfield corner (or possibly center field, where power bats are typically lacking, save Griffey), something lacking since Alou and Sosa left town.
* Soriano is pretty close to a five-tool guy, and although it was a rich contract, you never know - in five years it could seem like a bargain.
* Along the lines of the first one, other players might be more willing to sign with the Cubs if they think the team is desperate to win.
Things I Don't Like About the Alfonso Soriano Signing
* A willingness to spend money is nice, but 17 million a year on one guy comes dangerously close to breaking the bank, and this is with no new starting pitchers yet signed.
* The team that wins the big prize isn't always the big winner. Witness Texas landing Alex Rodriguez in 2000. Their problem was not having enough money left for pitching either.
* It could seem like a bargain in five years - but on the other hand, in five years Soriano will be approaching 36 and the deal could seem like an albatross. Not every player is going to be Bar- well, let's stick with someone clean and say Hank Aaron. The typical drop-off point for a clean player seems to be 34 or 35; Soriano's contract will only be half-over at that point. Even if you assume that he can duplicate last season for four more years, are the remaining four going to be worth it?
My guess as to the eight years is that other teams were offering seven for 17 each - Beltran money - and Soriano said to the Cubs, "I'll sign with you if you up it to 8." I suppose if you're opening the purse to win now, what's 17 million bucks in 2014? Cubs brass probably figure that an aging, salary-crippled team in seven years isn't going to matter to anyone if the Cubs can win a title or two before that, and of course they're completely right. That said, we need to see what happens with the pitching before we anoint the Cubs NL favorites, or even NL Central favorites.
The one thing I think is interesting is that Derrek Lee signed this huge extension early in the '06 season, which at the time was semi-unprecedented for the Cubs... and since then he's become only the third-best paid player on the team, and once Zambrano either signs an extension or files for free agency, Lee could drop to fourth. This for a guy who nearly won the Triple Crown in 2005! He seems like a guy who doesn't really care about the money, though, so hopefully the exploding salaries aren't going to turn the clubhouse into the Bronx West. I'm a little worried, though. I've expended so much energy railing at the Yankees for their destructive-to-the-sport salary practices, and yet how can I complain when the Cubs are willing to do similar? I think it's safe to say the Tribune payroll is never going to be pushing 200 million dollars in a single season, so at least there's always that to fall back on.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Monday, October 02, 2006
Dust in the wind
It's been all but assured since the middle of the season that Baker wasn't going to be back. The Andy MacPhail thing was surprising, but then, is there any reason to really be disappointed about that? MacPhail ran the Cubs for twelve years after winning two World Series in Minnesota, and the Cubs only made the playoffs twice. Meanwhile, they had five 90-loss seasons, including this year (a whopping 96), and just one 90-win season (and even then, it took 163 games to get there). For those keeping score at home, the Twins rebuilt for a few years after MacPhail's departure, but are currently in a string of six straight winning seasons, with 90 wins and a division title in four of the last five. The Cubs, of course, haven't put together that many merely winning seasons in a row since Leo Durocher was managing, and have won 90 games more than once in the same five-year span just once (1984 and 1989) since World War II broke out.
Enough depressing stats. The questions are, what needs to be done to fix the Cubs, and what to do about the players who may be on the way out?
1. Who's the next manager? Speculation has centered on Joe Girardi, as he has demonstrated the ability to get the most out of young players (though there exists the possibility that Florida's youngsters just have a crapload of talent) and appears to be on the way out in Miami even though he could win NL Manager of the Year. Girardi is an Illinois native, Northwestern grad, and longtime former Cub, so he seems like a perfect fit, but aside from the hometown hero aspect, his qualifications aren't deep, and hometown heroes rarely seem to pan out at most levels of sport. Much like US Soccer's search for a new coach, I think the Cubs need a bigger hire, and someone who has shown they can handle the hot seat (Girardi's one year having come in Florida where it doesn't matter if you win since no one shows up until the NLCS anyway). Lou Piniella is a possibility; since 1990 he has six times as many 90-win seasons under his belt as the Cubs do, and for several different teams. He's definitely only as good as the talent around him, though; he may have led the underdog Reds to the Series in 1990, but he couldn't coax more than 70 wins out of the Devil Rays in three years there. He also may not want to unretire. Neither may Jack McKeon, who has done his share of spinning straw into gold. Frank Robinson and Felipe Alou were both just let go by their teams and both have long histories in the game, but between them they have a single playoff appearance in 30 seasons (though Alou was robbed of one in 1994). Bob Brenly, currently in the Cubs' booth, has a World Series title and two 90-win seasons in four years (three and a half really) in Arizona, but that team was an assemblage of veteran talent; whether he could develop young players as the Cubs will likely need to do is questionable.
Really, the Cubs should put out a personal ad looking for the following:
(a) Must work well with young players (Baker seemed to resent playing young guys, even throwing Rich Hill under the bus despite the fact that he supports veteran players throughout the worst of slumps)
(b) Must value on-base percentage (the Cubs have been lousy on this count for years, but Baker didn't help that with his statements that walks and singles "clog up the bases." What?? If you ask me he should have been fired immediately for saying something so idiotic)
(c) Must be willing to put blame where it's due (perhaps the biggest problem of the Baker tenure was the way he walked on eggshells for veterans, even making excuses for them that they wouldn't make for themselves, as when he explained away a poor Greg Maddux outing due to cold weather, followed by Maddux saying that the weather wasn't a factor and he just hadn't pitched well. Maybe his time in San Francisco with Bonds taught Baker a lesson about the necessity of coddling big egos, but this wasn't what this Cubs team needed)
Who fits that description and is available is anyone's guess.
2. Is Hendry going to get it together? All the new managers in the world won't make a difference if there isn't some improvement in the roster. Too many of Hendry's moves lately have been cosmetic, trading minor-league talent for a flashy "impact player," only to see the move blow up in his face, the Juan Pierre deal being the biggest. I still think Hendry is a decent to good GM - his moves for Aramis Ramirez and Derrek Lee rank among the best the Cubs have made in their history - but his recent failings have only been magnified by the Cubs' struggles.
3. What do you do with Juan Pierre? I'm really torn on this one. On the one hand, even in what wasn't a great season for him, he was good for 200 hits. On the other hand, he failed to show up until June, doing the bulk of his damage long after it was much too late for the team to get anything useful out of it. Being a leadoff hitter, he'll command a salary disproportionate to what his actual value to the Cubs seems to have been this year, and he's even stated a desire to play on the South Side. But you can't just let this guy go - you traded three young pitchers to get him (pitchers who've been doing just fine in Florida, by the way). If you're going to mortgage your future like that, you have to have the guy for more than one year. On the other hand, if you sign him to a four-year deal and he keeps doing what he did this year (only showing up when it doesn't matter, not the 200 hits part), what good is that?
4. What do you do with Aramis Ramirez? All of the above, really. He's going to command a hefty salary in the open market, which he seems determined to test. And he was nowhere to be found this season when Lee went down and we needed his bat, like Pierre being mostly absent until June or even later, at which point the abysmal May had long since sunk the season. Sure, he's a 30-100 guy, but what good is that if he can't be counted on when necessary? That said, he fills a position that had been a real bugaboo for the Cubs for nearly three decades, and who are you going to get who's really any better?
5. Who do you go after on the free agent market? The Cubs must have tons of money, yet they rarely seem willing to spend it, except sometimes on their own players. Who's been the biggest free-agent signing of the Baker era, Michael Barrett? Not that he hasn't been good, but that's not nearly good enough. Where is a front-line pitcher (Maddux doesn't count)? Where's a big outfield bat (Jeromy Burnitz doesn't count)? The Cubs need to go after guys like Barry Zito and Carlos Lee, or maybe even Alfonso Soriano. I love Matt Murton and Jacque Jones, but do they really seem like starters on a World Series champion to you? There needs to be more talent. Also, now that I think about it, boot Pierre out and sign someone who can get on base to hit leadoff.
If all this seems like too much to ask, that's probably because it is. But one gets the feeling that there's finally some serious pressure to win on the North Side. Hendry has two years at most to win or he's out, and like MacPhail and Baker, I think he really, really wants to be the guy who brings the trophy to Wrigley. Of course, they both ended up leaving without doing so, but maybe, just maybe, he'll go out and do the right things to, if not fix the club this coming year, get the ball much more rolling than it was for this disastrous campaign.
Obviously a lack of crippling injuries would help too.
Enough depressing stats. The questions are, what needs to be done to fix the Cubs, and what to do about the players who may be on the way out?
1. Who's the next manager? Speculation has centered on Joe Girardi, as he has demonstrated the ability to get the most out of young players (though there exists the possibility that Florida's youngsters just have a crapload of talent) and appears to be on the way out in Miami even though he could win NL Manager of the Year. Girardi is an Illinois native, Northwestern grad, and longtime former Cub, so he seems like a perfect fit, but aside from the hometown hero aspect, his qualifications aren't deep, and hometown heroes rarely seem to pan out at most levels of sport. Much like US Soccer's search for a new coach, I think the Cubs need a bigger hire, and someone who has shown they can handle the hot seat (Girardi's one year having come in Florida where it doesn't matter if you win since no one shows up until the NLCS anyway). Lou Piniella is a possibility; since 1990 he has six times as many 90-win seasons under his belt as the Cubs do, and for several different teams. He's definitely only as good as the talent around him, though; he may have led the underdog Reds to the Series in 1990, but he couldn't coax more than 70 wins out of the Devil Rays in three years there. He also may not want to unretire. Neither may Jack McKeon, who has done his share of spinning straw into gold. Frank Robinson and Felipe Alou were both just let go by their teams and both have long histories in the game, but between them they have a single playoff appearance in 30 seasons (though Alou was robbed of one in 1994). Bob Brenly, currently in the Cubs' booth, has a World Series title and two 90-win seasons in four years (three and a half really) in Arizona, but that team was an assemblage of veteran talent; whether he could develop young players as the Cubs will likely need to do is questionable.
Really, the Cubs should put out a personal ad looking for the following:
(a) Must work well with young players (Baker seemed to resent playing young guys, even throwing Rich Hill under the bus despite the fact that he supports veteran players throughout the worst of slumps)
(b) Must value on-base percentage (the Cubs have been lousy on this count for years, but Baker didn't help that with his statements that walks and singles "clog up the bases." What?? If you ask me he should have been fired immediately for saying something so idiotic)
(c) Must be willing to put blame where it's due (perhaps the biggest problem of the Baker tenure was the way he walked on eggshells for veterans, even making excuses for them that they wouldn't make for themselves, as when he explained away a poor Greg Maddux outing due to cold weather, followed by Maddux saying that the weather wasn't a factor and he just hadn't pitched well. Maybe his time in San Francisco with Bonds taught Baker a lesson about the necessity of coddling big egos, but this wasn't what this Cubs team needed)
Who fits that description and is available is anyone's guess.
2. Is Hendry going to get it together? All the new managers in the world won't make a difference if there isn't some improvement in the roster. Too many of Hendry's moves lately have been cosmetic, trading minor-league talent for a flashy "impact player," only to see the move blow up in his face, the Juan Pierre deal being the biggest. I still think Hendry is a decent to good GM - his moves for Aramis Ramirez and Derrek Lee rank among the best the Cubs have made in their history - but his recent failings have only been magnified by the Cubs' struggles.
3. What do you do with Juan Pierre? I'm really torn on this one. On the one hand, even in what wasn't a great season for him, he was good for 200 hits. On the other hand, he failed to show up until June, doing the bulk of his damage long after it was much too late for the team to get anything useful out of it. Being a leadoff hitter, he'll command a salary disproportionate to what his actual value to the Cubs seems to have been this year, and he's even stated a desire to play on the South Side. But you can't just let this guy go - you traded three young pitchers to get him (pitchers who've been doing just fine in Florida, by the way). If you're going to mortgage your future like that, you have to have the guy for more than one year. On the other hand, if you sign him to a four-year deal and he keeps doing what he did this year (only showing up when it doesn't matter, not the 200 hits part), what good is that?
4. What do you do with Aramis Ramirez? All of the above, really. He's going to command a hefty salary in the open market, which he seems determined to test. And he was nowhere to be found this season when Lee went down and we needed his bat, like Pierre being mostly absent until June or even later, at which point the abysmal May had long since sunk the season. Sure, he's a 30-100 guy, but what good is that if he can't be counted on when necessary? That said, he fills a position that had been a real bugaboo for the Cubs for nearly three decades, and who are you going to get who's really any better?
5. Who do you go after on the free agent market? The Cubs must have tons of money, yet they rarely seem willing to spend it, except sometimes on their own players. Who's been the biggest free-agent signing of the Baker era, Michael Barrett? Not that he hasn't been good, but that's not nearly good enough. Where is a front-line pitcher (Maddux doesn't count)? Where's a big outfield bat (Jeromy Burnitz doesn't count)? The Cubs need to go after guys like Barry Zito and Carlos Lee, or maybe even Alfonso Soriano. I love Matt Murton and Jacque Jones, but do they really seem like starters on a World Series champion to you? There needs to be more talent. Also, now that I think about it, boot Pierre out and sign someone who can get on base to hit leadoff.
If all this seems like too much to ask, that's probably because it is. But one gets the feeling that there's finally some serious pressure to win on the North Side. Hendry has two years at most to win or he's out, and like MacPhail and Baker, I think he really, really wants to be the guy who brings the trophy to Wrigley. Of course, they both ended up leaving without doing so, but maybe, just maybe, he'll go out and do the right things to, if not fix the club this coming year, get the ball much more rolling than it was for this disastrous campaign.
Obviously a lack of crippling injuries would help too.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Lies, damn lies, and statistics
In what has to become a leading contender for Non-Story of the Year, Red Eye (that bastion of investigative journalism) reports that a recent survey shows the White Sox are just a few percentage points behind the Cubs in popularity, "popularity" being defined by how many people attend and/or watch the team's games. Red Eye wondered, "Is Chicago becoming a Sox town?" The answer, obviously, is no. Shouldn't the real story here be "How is it that a World Series champion is still less popular than its fifth-place rival?"
I would hope that the Sox got more popular after winning the World Series, because if they couldn't even do that, that would be pretty pathetic. But lost here is how the Sox were hovering in the high 30s to low 40s, a good 15-20 points behind the Cubs every single year. Even after winning the World Series, the Sox couldn't completely close the gap, and that's with, according to the data, 71% of announced Cubs fans saying that they watched at least one Sox game this year. You think that's going to happen when the Sox are sitting at home in October again?
Ken Williams appears to have started something of a renaissance, and good for him; if only Jim Hendry could say the same. But the Sox aren't going to win forever; their success of last year owed to a dominant pitching staff, most of which has already regressed to the mean, and while their offense is pretty impressive, its biggest booster this year is already in his late 30s. This isn't really the new Yankees (although, considering their recent propensity for signing aging guys to overly-long deals, maybe it is).
But all this really gets away from the point. Everyone in Chicago - Cubs and Sox fans alike - knows that this is really a Cubs town, at least baseball-wise. When (if) the Cubs win the World Series, the explosion will be ten times what it was in 2005. Bet on it. I imagine that's why the Sox fans are desperately trying to get their licks in now; when the Cubs are on top of the baseball world, there won't be more than a few thousand Sox fans. (The other thing is that while I think the bulk of Cubs fans want a World Series more than anything, I'm betting that the majority of Sox fans would trade their title if it meant the Bears could win the Super Bowl. That's the demographic that a lot of Sox fans are in - the working class South Siders who care more about football than anything. Yet another reason why the Sox only draw when bandwagon fans are flocking to the park; you can't go to a lot of Sox games if you're saving up for Bears tickets.)
So, good for the Sox, I suppose; enjoy it while you can. But remember: if you're one of the best teams in baseball, and you still can't top a lousy Cubs team in popularity... well, you're not more popular than the Cubs and you're never going to be. Sorry.
I would hope that the Sox got more popular after winning the World Series, because if they couldn't even do that, that would be pretty pathetic. But lost here is how the Sox were hovering in the high 30s to low 40s, a good 15-20 points behind the Cubs every single year. Even after winning the World Series, the Sox couldn't completely close the gap, and that's with, according to the data, 71% of announced Cubs fans saying that they watched at least one Sox game this year. You think that's going to happen when the Sox are sitting at home in October again?
Ken Williams appears to have started something of a renaissance, and good for him; if only Jim Hendry could say the same. But the Sox aren't going to win forever; their success of last year owed to a dominant pitching staff, most of which has already regressed to the mean, and while their offense is pretty impressive, its biggest booster this year is already in his late 30s. This isn't really the new Yankees (although, considering their recent propensity for signing aging guys to overly-long deals, maybe it is).
But all this really gets away from the point. Everyone in Chicago - Cubs and Sox fans alike - knows that this is really a Cubs town, at least baseball-wise. When (if) the Cubs win the World Series, the explosion will be ten times what it was in 2005. Bet on it. I imagine that's why the Sox fans are desperately trying to get their licks in now; when the Cubs are on top of the baseball world, there won't be more than a few thousand Sox fans. (The other thing is that while I think the bulk of Cubs fans want a World Series more than anything, I'm betting that the majority of Sox fans would trade their title if it meant the Bears could win the Super Bowl. That's the demographic that a lot of Sox fans are in - the working class South Siders who care more about football than anything. Yet another reason why the Sox only draw when bandwagon fans are flocking to the park; you can't go to a lot of Sox games if you're saving up for Bears tickets.)
So, good for the Sox, I suppose; enjoy it while you can. But remember: if you're one of the best teams in baseball, and you still can't top a lousy Cubs team in popularity... well, you're not more popular than the Cubs and you're never going to be. Sorry.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Goodbye again
Most of the talking heads are raving about what a great deal this was for the Cubs - they get rid of a future Hall of Famer, but nonetheless a future Hall of Famer who was having a great deal of trouble getting people out over the last two months, and they upgrade their middling infield defense at the same time. And I guess from that standpoint it does make sense.
Except that the Cubs aren't going anywhere this season, and Cesar Izturis - a pretty good fielder with the bat of Bucky Dent - isn't doing anything to change that, even if he doubled and scored in his first at-bat as a Cub. The infield may indeed have needed upgrading, but Greg Maddux isn't just a spare part, even at his age. The Cubs made a terrible mistake letting him go once. Obviously it's pretty much impossible for the same thing to happen again, short of the Dodgers winning the World Series this year (and even then, it's not like keeping Maddux would have made the Cubs this year's world champs), but from a fan's perspective, I still think it was a mistake. The pundits kept saying how the Cubs owed it to Maddux to trade him to a contender. Why? The guy has a ring, and future HOFers retire without championships all the time. There was no reason Maddux had to leave Chicago, and after all the heartache caused by his initial departure and subsequent success, there was going to be something cleansing about him finishing his career at Wrigley Field. And now that won't happen. Sure, he's going into the Hall with an A on his cap no matter what else happens, but we could have had him retire as a Cub, the same way he started. It was going to work. And then it didn't.
I suppose I should really blame the team for being so bad that Maddux - and, oh yeah, Todd Walker - "had" to be dealt. There needs to be an overhaul of that pitching staff in the offseason - one columnist suggested the Cubs go after Barry Zito, and that probably wouldn't be the worst idea since they need an impact pitcher of some sort to go along with Zambrano, and it might as well be a lefthander - and the addition of another bat to the lineup before this team can prepare for possible contention in 2007. For all the griping about injuries and bad luck, when you look at this year's team, does it really seem like a pennant winner on paper? Probably not. But only a handful of changes are really required to make that leap, as long as everyone currently there stays healthy. (Snicker.)
Wait till next year.
Except that the Cubs aren't going anywhere this season, and Cesar Izturis - a pretty good fielder with the bat of Bucky Dent - isn't doing anything to change that, even if he doubled and scored in his first at-bat as a Cub. The infield may indeed have needed upgrading, but Greg Maddux isn't just a spare part, even at his age. The Cubs made a terrible mistake letting him go once. Obviously it's pretty much impossible for the same thing to happen again, short of the Dodgers winning the World Series this year (and even then, it's not like keeping Maddux would have made the Cubs this year's world champs), but from a fan's perspective, I still think it was a mistake. The pundits kept saying how the Cubs owed it to Maddux to trade him to a contender. Why? The guy has a ring, and future HOFers retire without championships all the time. There was no reason Maddux had to leave Chicago, and after all the heartache caused by his initial departure and subsequent success, there was going to be something cleansing about him finishing his career at Wrigley Field. And now that won't happen. Sure, he's going into the Hall with an A on his cap no matter what else happens, but we could have had him retire as a Cub, the same way he started. It was going to work. And then it didn't.
I suppose I should really blame the team for being so bad that Maddux - and, oh yeah, Todd Walker - "had" to be dealt. There needs to be an overhaul of that pitching staff in the offseason - one columnist suggested the Cubs go after Barry Zito, and that probably wouldn't be the worst idea since they need an impact pitcher of some sort to go along with Zambrano, and it might as well be a lefthander - and the addition of another bat to the lineup before this team can prepare for possible contention in 2007. For all the griping about injuries and bad luck, when you look at this year's team, does it really seem like a pennant winner on paper? Probably not. But only a handful of changes are really required to make that leap, as long as everyone currently there stays healthy. (Snicker.)
Wait till next year.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
So close and yet so far
What a game for Zambrano. 4 RBI - including one of the most impressive home runs you'll ever see a pitcher hit, I think - and a no-hitter into the eighth (only to have it broken up by a guy who once struck out 187 times in a season and who had struck out earlier in the game). And then after giving up the hit and suddenly having two men on and just one out, he strikes out the next two guys.
Also good games: well, everyone. Womack was the only starter who didn't get a hit. Jones continued his torrid pace, going 2-for-4 with his 11th home run and 2 RBI. Cedeno was 2-for-4 and scored twice; ditto for Walker. Ramirez had a run-scoring double. Pierre got on base three times out of five and stole two bases, though he didn't cross the plate. Ohman pitched a perfect ninth. And would you believe that this Cubs lineup suddenly has four everyday players hitting over .300? Walker .312, Jones .310, Cedeno .307, Barrett .301. If you include Womack (though considering his limited sample size, you really can't), it's five.
The downside, if there has to be one: even though Len and Bob talked all night about how economical Zambrano was being with his pitches, he still ended up throwing 126 in 8 innings. Then again, it's hard to be a strikeout pitcher and not throw fairly high pitch counts, and you can't really complain after a game like that - but it's hard to watch Zambrano and not feel like if he could just find another level of control he would be unstoppable. Not that he hasn't pitched great over the last month or so, but I'm talking transcedentally good. Best-Cubs-pitcher-since-Three-Finger-Brown good. Because you see some of his stuff and it is just nasty, and you know no one can hope to hit it. And then he has a little breakdown and starts throwing balls like crazy. Pitchers with tempers have succeeded, but he could stand a more even keel. And I know he probably won't ever have that and I should stop thinking about it... but damn, he could be amazing if he could just settle down a bit.
Wood and Marshall the next two games. It may be overconfident to say it, but the way these two teams are playing right now, there's very little excuse for the Cubs not to get their first sweep since games 3, 4, and 5 of the season, over the Cardinals at Wrigley. These games are, it should not even need to be said, the most important of all - games against division rivals, and ones currently ahead of you at that. The Cubs aren't going to leapfrog three to four teams without beating them head-to-head, and with Houston down as they've been and still pre-Clemens, the Cubs must, must, must take advantage.
Also good games: well, everyone. Womack was the only starter who didn't get a hit. Jones continued his torrid pace, going 2-for-4 with his 11th home run and 2 RBI. Cedeno was 2-for-4 and scored twice; ditto for Walker. Ramirez had a run-scoring double. Pierre got on base three times out of five and stole two bases, though he didn't cross the plate. Ohman pitched a perfect ninth. And would you believe that this Cubs lineup suddenly has four everyday players hitting over .300? Walker .312, Jones .310, Cedeno .307, Barrett .301. If you include Womack (though considering his limited sample size, you really can't), it's five.
The downside, if there has to be one: even though Len and Bob talked all night about how economical Zambrano was being with his pitches, he still ended up throwing 126 in 8 innings. Then again, it's hard to be a strikeout pitcher and not throw fairly high pitch counts, and you can't really complain after a game like that - but it's hard to watch Zambrano and not feel like if he could just find another level of control he would be unstoppable. Not that he hasn't pitched great over the last month or so, but I'm talking transcedentally good. Best-Cubs-pitcher-since-Three-Finger-Brown good. Because you see some of his stuff and it is just nasty, and you know no one can hope to hit it. And then he has a little breakdown and starts throwing balls like crazy. Pitchers with tempers have succeeded, but he could stand a more even keel. And I know he probably won't ever have that and I should stop thinking about it... but damn, he could be amazing if he could just settle down a bit.
Wood and Marshall the next two games. It may be overconfident to say it, but the way these two teams are playing right now, there's very little excuse for the Cubs not to get their first sweep since games 3, 4, and 5 of the season, over the Cardinals at Wrigley. These games are, it should not even need to be said, the most important of all - games against division rivals, and ones currently ahead of you at that. The Cubs aren't going to leapfrog three to four teams without beating them head-to-head, and with Houston down as they've been and still pre-Clemens, the Cubs must, must, must take advantage.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
I'll take two
Phil Nevin's first Cub home run. An Aramis grand slam. Five solid innings from Rusch. Novoa throwing three scoreless and hitting an RBI double (!). And a series won in St. Louis (a place the Cubs struggled mightily over much of the last decade). Even if they don't win the third game - we'll see how Maddux looks and if he's rebounded from May, and it'll help if Pujols continues to be out - you have to consider this series a success. Although it's worth noting that the Cubs needed a lot of help to win these games. They had a ton of hits in both games, but the real breakthroughs in both came thanks to errors. Sure, you need some luck along the way too, but if Gold Glover Rolen doesn't make one each day, we could conceivably be staring at a three-game losing sweep tomorrow. A bit too close for comfort, don't you think?
I love that Jones is over .300 now. The right-field bleachers should make a big "Sorry we booed you like crazy" sign for the next home game. And why has Jones been so much the object of derision with leadoff savior Pierre hitting around 40 points worse than Corey Patterson? Pierre does have 17 stolen bases - putting him on pace for more than 50. He'd be the first Cub since Eric Young stole 54 in 2000 to even top 40, and in fact just the second in 20 years to do so - Ryne Sandberg stole 54 in 1985 (and a 40-year-old Davey Lopes stole 47 in just 99 games that same year - Pierre would be the first Cubs OF since Lopes to top 40). History indicates that Baker teams don't do much running, but it may just be that he hasn't really had the personnel for it. On the other hand, the current team has a pretty decent amount of speed and yet only Pierre has as many as ten attempts (and only two other guys have more than four).
Really, I'd be happy if they just keep winning. Rebound a little bit before Lee and Prior come back, then hopefully rebound a lot at that point. There's no way this team shouldn't be better than last year's sub-.500 squad. Two out of every three games the rest of the way would get them to around 93 wins, which would be good enough for the playoffs, I would expect. Of course, that's probably a little unrealistic ("a little"). Even Houston only got to 89 last year from the 20-32 spot. But you know what they say - you gotta believe.
I love that Jones is over .300 now. The right-field bleachers should make a big "Sorry we booed you like crazy" sign for the next home game. And why has Jones been so much the object of derision with leadoff savior Pierre hitting around 40 points worse than Corey Patterson? Pierre does have 17 stolen bases - putting him on pace for more than 50. He'd be the first Cub since Eric Young stole 54 in 2000 to even top 40, and in fact just the second in 20 years to do so - Ryne Sandberg stole 54 in 1985 (and a 40-year-old Davey Lopes stole 47 in just 99 games that same year - Pierre would be the first Cubs OF since Lopes to top 40). History indicates that Baker teams don't do much running, but it may just be that he hasn't really had the personnel for it. On the other hand, the current team has a pretty decent amount of speed and yet only Pierre has as many as ten attempts (and only two other guys have more than four).
Really, I'd be happy if they just keep winning. Rebound a little bit before Lee and Prior come back, then hopefully rebound a lot at that point. There's no way this team shouldn't be better than last year's sub-.500 squad. Two out of every three games the rest of the way would get them to around 93 wins, which would be good enough for the playoffs, I would expect. Of course, that's probably a little unrealistic ("a little"). Even Houston only got to 89 last year from the 20-32 spot. But you know what they say - you gotta believe.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Phil 'er up
As you may have heard, the Cubs acquired Phil Nevin from the Rangers for Jerry Hairston. Shame about Hairston, I guess, but he was pretty much a bust in Chicago (which makes him equal to the man he was traded for, Sammy Sosa, in his new digs - at least Hairston is still in baseball). Nevin was slumping in Texas, which was why he was relatively cheap (in fact, Texas is paying the difference between the two players' salaries, meaning Nevin was had by the Cubs for under a million).
You can't help but think this will turn out like last year's Matt Lawton deal, another case of too little, too late. Even if Nevin has an immediate impact, Derrek Lee should be back within a handful more weeks at the most, and first base is Nevin's best position. Third is also filled (even if Ramirez's BA is still in the toilet right now, especially since he historically improves in the summer months), and it would be a shame if Matt Murton, who it seems to me has been an excellent left fielder, had to be sat down half the time for Nevin, who may have power that Murton lacks but assuredly has none of Big Red's speed.
As dumb as it would have been to have traded two or three times as much for Nevin when Lee was first hurt, did it make any more sense to trade for him now that he's a three-week rental instead of a two-month rental? I suppose one might hope that he displays some flashes on the North Side and could possibly be rolled over in a month or two for a piece the Cubs could find more use for. Or maybe he'll be quietly discarded like Lawton effectively was.
Part of the value of this trade really depends on your opinion of the Cubs' chances to get anything resembling back into a race. The Astros have been cited as recent comeback kids, and they were 20-32 on June 1 last year (after taking two of three from the Reds in a home series... spoooooky); they also had no player with more than three total at-bats hit .300 on the season (even the Cubs might do better than that). Yet this team went to the World Series!
Oh yeah, they had three starters with ERAs under 3.00 and three bullpen guys under 3.50, and the aforementioned starters - the Big Three of Clemens, Pettitte and Oswalt - won 50 games total. Meanwhile, only two 2006 Cubs have ERAs under 3 - relievers Scott Eyre and Bobby Howry. The Big Three SPs, innings-wise, are Zambrano, Marshall, and Maddux, who are on pace to win 40 if they're lucky. Wood, Prior, and Miller might add something... but they also might not.
Yes, the comparison to last year's Astros helps keep me from wanting to abandon this team for good. And yes, it's totally superficial and I should know better. But I don't. Last year's Astros were just one game over .500 at the All-Star break. The Cubs can't possibly climb up to that level if they start playing better?
Please?
You can't help but think this will turn out like last year's Matt Lawton deal, another case of too little, too late. Even if Nevin has an immediate impact, Derrek Lee should be back within a handful more weeks at the most, and first base is Nevin's best position. Third is also filled (even if Ramirez's BA is still in the toilet right now, especially since he historically improves in the summer months), and it would be a shame if Matt Murton, who it seems to me has been an excellent left fielder, had to be sat down half the time for Nevin, who may have power that Murton lacks but assuredly has none of Big Red's speed.
As dumb as it would have been to have traded two or three times as much for Nevin when Lee was first hurt, did it make any more sense to trade for him now that he's a three-week rental instead of a two-month rental? I suppose one might hope that he displays some flashes on the North Side and could possibly be rolled over in a month or two for a piece the Cubs could find more use for. Or maybe he'll be quietly discarded like Lawton effectively was.
Part of the value of this trade really depends on your opinion of the Cubs' chances to get anything resembling back into a race. The Astros have been cited as recent comeback kids, and they were 20-32 on June 1 last year (after taking two of three from the Reds in a home series... spoooooky); they also had no player with more than three total at-bats hit .300 on the season (even the Cubs might do better than that). Yet this team went to the World Series!
Oh yeah, they had three starters with ERAs under 3.00 and three bullpen guys under 3.50, and the aforementioned starters - the Big Three of Clemens, Pettitte and Oswalt - won 50 games total. Meanwhile, only two 2006 Cubs have ERAs under 3 - relievers Scott Eyre and Bobby Howry. The Big Three SPs, innings-wise, are Zambrano, Marshall, and Maddux, who are on pace to win 40 if they're lucky. Wood, Prior, and Miller might add something... but they also might not.
Yes, the comparison to last year's Astros helps keep me from wanting to abandon this team for good. And yes, it's totally superficial and I should know better. But I don't. Last year's Astros were just one game over .500 at the All-Star break. The Cubs can't possibly climb up to that level if they start playing better?
Please?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)