Many of us thought, at least, that the Cubs playing a bad San Diego Padres team this week could help them get back into the NL Central or wild card race.
Not so far, anyway; The Cubs lost 6-3 to the Padres, have not won in five tries in San Diego this season, and stayed six games behind the Cardinals, who lost to the Dodgers 7-3.
This recap isn't going to be much about last night's game, which was lost despite a pretty good outing from Ryan Dempster and Derrek Lee's 24th HR. Instead, I'm going to say "J'accuse" at team management, because it's necessary. We have been over the many failures of this team on this site numerous times, but I thought it would be instructive to go over all of them in one place, right here, and to point fingers -- yes, I want to point fingers -- at the two men most responsible for this debacle: Jim Hendry and Lou Piniella.
The Cubs lost their 2008 postseason series in a sweep to the Dodgers and looked bad doing it. In so doing, LA used not a single lefthanded pitcher. Thus, manager Lou Piniella declared (perhaps not in these exact words, but the message was clear): "We're not lefthanded enough."
Thus armed with a mission from his field manager, Jim Hendry set out to make the team more lefthanded, and to make other adjustments.
He set his eyes on a lefthanded hitting, power-hitting, run-producer for the middle of the lineup, since his previous year's acquisition to do just that (Kosuke Fukudome) had failed at the task. In order to acquire one, it would be necessary to clear off some contract space, because there would not be an unlimited 2009 budget. Therefore, a useful fifth starter (Jason Marquis) and a valuable hitter (Mark DeRosa) were traded and Milton Bradley was acquired. This created holes in the rotation and offense, and Bradley was paid far more than a couple of the alternatives (Raul Ibanez and Bobby Abreu) would have commanded had Hendry waited a while. Had he done so, he might have been able to sign Abreu and keep DeRosa. Though Bradley is a useful player, he has not done what Piniella and Hendry expected, and that has left holes in the offense most of the year until Lou finally figured out that Bradley could contribute batting second.
It was further decided that last year's closer, Kerry Wood, should go get more money from another team (his "reward") instead of offering him arbitration to stay, and another closer, Kevin Gregg, was acquired by trade. We all know how that worked out. While Wood has not had a good year in Cleveland, it is impossible to know how Wood, whose family lives here and who has a strong emotional connection to the Cubs, would have done in another year on the North Side. He has remained healthy -- in fact, his only injury last year was not related to his elbow trouble -- and certainly would have been a better choice than Gregg, who, although he did have a couple of decent months, has been pretty bad.
The trade of DeRosa led to the signing of Aaron Miles, who we were told would replace DeRo as a versatile bench player. He has been nothing short of awful. For those who will call me a "DeRomantic", I point out simply this: he has had a good year with Cleveland and St. Louis, and would have been a useful fill-in while Aramis Ramirez was out.
Further, there is the issue of team leadership. This is an unmeasurable factor that drives statistically-oriented people nuts; however, I have absolutely no doubt that it exists and it does matter. DeRosa and Wood were team leaders and DeRo's positive clubhouse presence was noted by several Cardinals within days of his acquisition. Without those two, this team has no leadership. In that sense, I compare it to the 2004 team, which lost its 2003 leaders -- Damian Miller and Eric Karros -- for somewhat similar reasons. Miller was dumped, despite the fact that the pitching staff loved him, for Michael Barrett because Hendry thought a catcher should hit better than Miller, who had a bad offensive season in '03. About the only off-season move that truly worked was letting Henry Blanco walk and naming Koyie Hill backup catcher. With Geovany Soto not hitting and injured (and how you let a guy like that show up as out of shape as he was is beyond me), can you imagine where the Cubs would be if Blanco had been his backup this year? Hill caught 26 games in a row and the Cubs went 16-10, despite Hill hitting only .194 in those games.
Hendry and Piniella, of course, are not responsible for the large number of injuries that have hit this team -- but Hendry, at least, IS responsible for not putting together a roster that could take injury depletion better. There is no doubt that standing pat on a playoff team is not wise -- the Cubs did it in 1999 with their '98 wild card team and failed miserably. However, I maintain my position that Hendry took a 97-win team that simply went cold for three bad days at the worst possible time and blew it up for the wrong reason.
Then there's the matter of Lou looking like a lost little boy most of the time this year. He's nearly fallen asleep at the wheel a couple of times -- last week's failure to have John Grabow warming up with the three best LH hitters in the NL due up and Carlos Marmol walking the world was inexcusable. (And now he wants to make Marmol the closer? I shake my head in dismay.) Is it because Lou's embarrassed that he asked for this kind of team and it's failing? Or is he just past his managerial prime and wants to go home?
The strange thing is, despite all of this, this flawed, injured team still has time to make up a six-game division (or five-game wild card) deficit. There are still good and talented players on this Cubs team who are playing below their potential. They need to start winning the games they ought to, against bad teams like the Padres. Start tonight, please. I haven't given up yet, so don't you either. Go Cubs.
0 recs | 897 comments
How
can we lose 5 in a row to the Padres? Great effort against a AAAA team. Cesar Carrillo throws a quality start against us? What else can go wrong?
VillanuevaExperience - August 19, 2009
Carrillo's ERA coming in was 30.86
Only one game of course, but I was listening to the pregame on XM and the San Diego play-by-play guy said “we wont bother mentioning his ERA” when going over the starters. oh well.
RTGrules - August 19, 2009
Repeating what I said almost 10 days ago
…when people were looking at the ‘bad’ Padres team — it was playing well. Almost as well when they were on their 10 game winning streak. I said — another possible ambush is ahead. The AAA call-ups gave the team an infusion of energy. Gonzalez was white-hot.
This is exactly as I predicted. You all were looking at the Dodgers. No matter if the Padres are in last or first, the Cubs cannot win here. The Dodgers have had a bad second half. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Cubs take 3 out of 4 there, FYI.
Anybody who is surprised about this did not look at what the Padres were doing prior to this series.
I warned everybody.
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - August 19, 2009
That would be really strange.
I had hoped for a 4-3 trip. It would be weird to do it by winning only 1 in SD and 3 in LA.
Let’s hope that happens, and the Padres stay hot while they are playing the Cardinals.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Not 10 days ago, the 14th...
Last line of Al’s post : Go Padres.
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - August 19, 2009
And don't be expecting a victory tonight.
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - August 19, 2009
They're the '09 Cubs.
Why would we expect that?
Goodie1969 - August 19, 2009
FYI
Gonzalez did hit the HR last night that put them ahead, but other than that hasn’t done much of anything else in the series, so he has cooled off since you wrote that little tidbit 15 days ago.
JFCubFan - August 19, 2009
Cooled off at Petco, naturally.
He was NL player of the week prior to the beginning of the Cubs series. He must leave SD to really put up those big numbers. LH bats die at Petco. 1 more year. He’d do OK at Wrigley.
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - August 19, 2009
You are absolutely right
Checked his stats on baseball-reference: 22 HRs away, 11 at Petco.
Are you suggesting he replace our current 1B’er? Another fanpost can be started on this topic alone for the BCB masses to pontificate upon adnauseam.
JFCubFan - August 19, 2009
Adrian
It sure feels like the Padres will ponder dealing Adrian in the next couple of years … but as for 2010, I don’t think we should ponder it. Come 2011, depending on how some bats develop, we can ponder it then. But let Lee play out his contract – he’s definitely earned it, and it allows us to see how our youngsters develop. Maybe Rebel Ridling will show improved contact ability to go along with his good glove work and his raw power. Maybe Jovan Rosa puts it together. Maybe Josh Vitters doesn’t stick at 3rd.
(I am aware that you aren’t suggesting to make a move, just felt like commenting on it)
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
The Padres
had lost four games in row going into the Cubs series. They might have played well against the Mets and Reds, but the bottom line is the Cubs needs to beat temas like the Padres to have any hope of making the playoffs.
VillanuevaExperience - August 19, 2009
Well said Al,
I really hope both are gone when Ricketts takes over the team!
cubdreamer - August 19, 2009
I haven't "Given Up"...
I am realistically looking at the situation that is the 2009 Cubs, and don’t really see it happening this year.
Too many “things have to go right” in order to win, and this team has had much of that this year.
CubFanSince1970 - August 19, 2009
Should have said...
“hasn’t had much of that this year.”
Sorry for the typo.
CubFanSince1970 - August 19, 2009
Well said
So many things have gone wrong this year. There’s still time, but the Cubs need to win 8 out of 10 starting TONIGHT or it’s gonna get really ugly really quickly.
DKT - August 19, 2009
I'm not a pessimist...but...
This is not a good team. They don’t deserve to be in the playoffs and unfortunately they won’t be. I hope I’m wrong, but sometimes you just have to be real.
bergs55 - August 19, 2009
The problem is Redundancy in the Roster
I wouldn’t say it’s not a good team.. I think the problem is redundancy on the roster.
DL in the NL – Soriano. Bradley. Hoff. Fox
Good but not Specialist Lefty – Grabow. Gorz. Marshall.
Underperforming and average 2B – Baker. Font. Miles. Freel. Blanco.
Last year the diversity of the team made it so the team put on the field in the 1st inning played completely different than the guys in the 7th. You’d swap Fuku with Reed, DeRo with Font, Marshall with Eyre etc. There’s a distinct difference between how they play and it would screw up the other side. But this year so many players are exactly alike in both “style” and “role” that it doesn’t matter who gets put in a game.
CrankyShoulder - August 19, 2009
I say 50% Hendry/Lou and 50% Players
Injuries aside… There’s no way Hendry/Lou can be blamed for severe under-performances by Soriano, Soto, Fontenot and Marmol.
Had they (or a 2 or 3 of them) performed up to their potential, the Cubs would be in the thick of this NL Central race.
digitalbenjamin - August 19, 2009
maybe they can't be blamed for the underperforming,
but you can certainly blame Lou for not taking action earlier. At the very least, Lou steadfastly refused to move Soriano from the leadoff spot, when everyone with half an IQ point could see he was killing the offense with his lack of anything remotely resembling production
Illicat - August 19, 2009
I agree with you on Soriano in the lead-off spot.
digitalbenjamin - August 19, 2009
Soriano has sucked in the 6 hole for awhile now
VillanuevaExperience - August 19, 2009
Soriano and Soto, yes
You can’t blame management for those two being awful. Although the coaching staff should’ve done a better job of getting Soto into shape, and keeping him that way. I also agree that Marmol’s collapse isn’t entirely managements’ fault. But they also should have done a better job of not overusing him.
But handing the 2B to a guy who is totally unproven as a MLB regular was simply moronic. I trusted, and still do, Fontenot to crush right handed fireballers. That’s about it. Getting more left handed was a good idea, but a good RH bat is better than a poor LH bat.
WittyUserName - August 19, 2009
Al...
I know you are optomistic and what now, but i must say i am proud of you. This is the first time you stepped away from being a Cubs fan (hoping that things will be ok), and said hey there are too many failures with this team. You hit the nail on the head.
I disagree about Blanco though, he was a huge team leader in that clubhouse, he helped all the young guys and he was definitely a go to guy for info. With that said, Hill has done a great job.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
I know Blanco did all those things...
… but I wonder where the team would be right now without Koyie Hill.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
No doubt...
I agree, we would be some where near the bottom, not in the middle.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Do you seriously think Koyie Hill has somehow kept this team in contention? He's barely average.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
anyone have the teams record with k hill catching on hand
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
29-19 in games Hill started.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Those wins must be because of Ryan Theriot and Lou.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
It's called correlation not causation.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
And yet.
The team went 16-10 with him starting. Maybe the pitching staff was handled well during that time.
I guess you don’t believe in any factors other than those that can be measured on a stat sheet. Sad.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
How did this team win 97 games last season without Koyie Hill starting?
It’s sad that you think a catcher who is not even good enough to be an everyday starter has somehow been a major factor in keeping this team above .500. There are many factors that go into player performance and talent is the biggest one.
Why do you feel the need to belittle anyone that understands that statistics represent how a player has performed? What you fail to comprehend is that stats are the outcome of all the factors that go into performance. That is what is truly sad.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
And you fail to comprehend that there are other factors beyond statistics.
Truly, indeed, a sad life you must lead.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
That's truly funny, you are judging the relative value of someone else's life.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
i would be curious
to see this sentence diagramed:
galloway0023 - August 19, 2009
The team went 16-10 with him starting.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
berselius - August 19, 2009
That's one of my favorite charts.
Evah.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
And both nonsense.
But I’m sure you are both smugly proud of yourself.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
you do understand what they're getting at...
don’t you?
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
That someone is making fun....
of the biggest fraud perpetrated on man-kind along side y2k.
blackhawk24 - August 20, 2009
Oh my.
Wreckard - August 20, 2009
Obviously, the Cubs should blow up the team and build around Koyie Hill
since he has such a big role in how the team performs. The Cubs are glad to have him, otherwise the pitchers would have been pitching to no one, forcing every ball to go to the backstop
berselius - August 19, 2009
some people are in a pissy mood today
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
Not all of us have your legendary patience...
nor your ability to turn the other cheek.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
JC leads by example
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
WWJP
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Yeah well,
Making claims that the Cubs went 16-10 while soto was down due to the Might Prescence of replacement level catcher Koyie Hill is enough to get my dander up. That’s just completely ridiculous
berselius - August 19, 2009
because the catcher position never has an effect on a pitching staff.
are you really this obtuse?
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
Are you just trolling the blog at this point?
berselius - August 19, 2009
are you calling into question my comment?
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
actually...
I think he’s questioning all your comments.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
I didn't think it was a serious question
It’s like getting a haircut on the day of a job interview, landing the job, and crediting it to the haircut instead of your vast body of work that made you qualified for the job to begin with
berselius - August 19, 2009
Never underestimate the intangibles that a good haircut brings.
People get haircuts, they aren’t robots.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
It IS the kind of intangible that doesn't appear on my resume spreadsheet
berselius - August 19, 2009
Not really.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
youre right
im an idiot
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
This type of conjecture:
is absolutely absurd. It’s not that people don’t believe in those factors… it’s that you misunderstand and abuse the lack of quantification they have.
Sure, team chemistry exists and has an effect on the game. “Clutch” probably does, as well. But so does luck and random variance, and I think you too often rely on the processes that cannot be quantified to explain the things that can be explained by simple variance about the mean… or to defend positions that cannot be defended by rational means. For an example of this, just take a look at your “logic” on Kerry Wood in the main post.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
So let's see.
What I said was:
And you’re saying that’s not true? You’re saying that Kerry Wood, playing for the Cubs, would have a 4.71 ERA and 15 saves in 45 games, exactly what he’s done in Cleveland?
You know as well as I do that there are other factors, including the team around him and external factors that are impossible to quantify.
If you don’t believe the last part of that sentence is true, I think you live a truly sad life, failing to understand possible emotional effects on anyone’s job performance.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
This is the problem, right there.
Here’s your argument, in 4 steps:
1.) Make a vague statement, such as “Wood may have done better here,” that you have absolutely no evidence for.
2.) In the place of solid evidence, use logic that leans on something unquantifiable, such as team chemistry.
2.) When someone points out that your recommendation is based on something unquantifiable, attack them for dismissing anything that cannot be quantified
Don’t you see how your logic runs in circles here?
It’s not that I think things that cannot be quantified are not important… it’s that the things we cannot quantify are just that – unquantifiable. It does not mean they do not exist. However, it does mean that when you’re making decisions based on those things the uncertainty is huge. I have no idea if Wood would have been better in Chicago, and — here’s the important part — neither do you. He may have been better. He also may have been just as bad as he’s been in Cleveland. And that uncertainty does not mean it would have been a good idea to keep him.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
counting double fail
3 steps, numbered wrong.
See? That’s why quantifiable things are nice. You know when someone screwed up.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
And you’re saying that’s not true?
What you said is true, but that doesn’t mean it would have been a good idea to bring Wood back.
Here’s an example of how your logic is faulty:
It’s impossible to know how good of a water polo player I would have been if I had taken steroids. Therefore, if I had taken then maybe I would have been a scholarship-caliber player.
It’s difficult to refute that argument because of the qualifications I put in there. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good argument. Same thing with your post on Wood.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
Wait wait wait
So you’re using a statistic to prove that statistics obviously can’t measure everything in the game of baseball.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Not what I said.
All I said is that maybe the pitching staff was handled well. Can you quantify that, compared to Geovany Soto? I’m not doing the math, but maybe you’d like to.
I believe there was a positive effect to Hill starting, that perhaps can’t be measured. Or is there another reason why the Cubs are 29-19 with Hill as the starting catcher and 31-38 with Soto? Coincidence? Chance? I doubt it.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
And by the way...
this sort of thing can be quantified, or at least we can place an upper limit on its effects. All it takes is a little searching on google to find this stuff. And after reading it I can tell you with 99.99% certainty, that your conjecture that the stuff you claim cannot be measured is not responsible for the Cubs’ record with Hill in the game.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
quick comment
I’m not trying to get in the middle of this thread. It’s gotten pretty ridiculous, but I thought it would be important to point something out.
Al, if I’m understanding you correctly, you are essentially saying that, for one reason or another, what it is, Koyie Hill is better for the pitching staff than Geovany Soto? Essentially, that the pitcher’s are performing better. The problem is, even with an older, basic statistic such as CERA (catcher’s era, the earned run average of pitchers pitching when the catcher in question is playing), the pitching staff’s ERA has been better with Geovany Soto (3.96) vs. Koyie Hill (4.44). That statistic seems to correlate a lot with your argument. Sure, wins and losses isn’t exactly ERA, but the primary component you are drawing into question is the P-C dynamic, as we certainly can’t draw relationships with other variables.
(I would add, for the other side,
a) I’m only using CERA as a reference point to Al’s argument
b) Certainly, ERA has little meaning. I wonder if there is a CFIP stat that is easily found.
c) I also recognize James and uh … the BP guy’s work on CERA noting it’s flaws).
Now, one quick comment about statistics in general. All statistics basically have some sort of meaning, as it comes from our daily life. The question is how we read the statistics. I am quick to use the easily attainable statistics these days, as it’s easier to find, but there is a part of me that thinks there is a bit of over-analysis at times. Problem is, there really isn’t a better option at hand right now. Bill James has noted in recent years that there needs to be a better balance between traditional scouting and sabrmetrics. Is it possible he’s tooting the company line, being a company man now? Perhaps, but he had to be open-minded to accept that sort of job.
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
...okay...
If he’s making his pitchers pitch better… wouldn’t that be quantifiable?
Or is he making them better in a way that doesn’t actually influence their statistics, but makes them win…. intangibly? Or something?
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Koyie Hill's impact is like porn, you can't define it but you know it when you see it.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
The myths of the Bradley signing are frustrating to me
Raul ibanez signed a 3 year 31.5 million dollar deal. After a hot start he’s cooled off considerably the past two months. You think over 3 years he’s better at baseball than Bradley?
Abreu was signed at the last minute, if the cubs waited that long this place would have melted down. Are both driving in runs better than Bradley? Yes, but that’s not what Milton is. Is it his fault Jim hendry didn’t know that?
I’d bet after three years of Milton Bradley getting on base at a disgustinly good rate most cubs fans will be happy that 40 year old Raul ibanez isn’t wasting away in rightfield trying to catch a baseball.
nji232 - August 19, 2009 via mobile
Didnt...
Ibanez get hurt?
And why was Milton brought to the Cubs?
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Yes, Ibanez got hurt
But Al said Bradley was paid far more than Ibanez, which just isn’t true. Three of the Big Four (Bradley, Ibanez, Dunn) all got paid roughly the same amount – $10M/yr – with Dunn landing only a 2 yr contracdt. Abreu was the anomaly here at only $5M for 1 yr. Still don’t know how that happened but it did.
And I presume Milton was brought here to be a LH slugger presence in the middle of the order. Slugger does not always equate to hitting home runs so I’d say Milton has failed in that regard. Yes OBP has been great and I do not foresee a slump like he went through at beginning of year to happen again. But I was expecting him to pretty much pepper the ivy with line drive doubles A LOT. And that didn’t happen this year. Next year, it might.
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
In any case...
…. there is no doubt that better production could have been had for the SAME money, if not less.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Correct
It could have been the same for a 37 yr old paid 10 million a year until he’s 40 or paying Abreu and then being in the same position in 2010 needing a right fielder. You can’t fault Hendry for bringing in the AL leader in OPS.
KyCubsFan - August 19, 2009
Definitely not less.
As long as the Cubs were in the market, the bottom was not going to drop out as it did for Abreu. And I’ll still contend that Bradley was the only player defensively capable enough out of that free agent class to work in an OF with Soriano in LF and a RF in CF.
There was really no good option out there. What hamstrung us was Lou’s demolition of Felix Pie by trying to remake his swing at the ML level – had they left him down on the farm, he could have had enough trade value to help us get a better player via trade.
DGU - August 19, 2009
I agree, but....
Bradley became one of those “Hendry guys,” who started to get mentioned at every trade deadline and in every offseason. That’s why I think Teahen will get his big payday in Chicago in the future. It’s always just a matter of time before Hendry will bend logic and salary cap backward to put those “Hendry guys” in a Cubs’ uniform. It was unavoidable after that lunch meeting with Bradley, even if the other guys suddenly decided they preferred the Cubs and offered to take a little less money or less years (Dunn, etc.) – Hendry just liked the cut of the guy’s jib, and he could justify the signing (LH hitter!). It was a done deal, just had to clear the salary for him.
But I am unapologetically in the “time for a new GM” camp, so I am a little biased. Too many bad contracts, too many times caught bidding against ourselves for players (did he really think he had to outbid KC for Jones? Really?).
I like Lou’s fire and straight talk, but he seems to lack the ability to tell a veteran they’re going to have to take a new assignment – at the very least he waits until too much damage has been done to finally have the change. Loyalty is one thing, as is being a “player’s manager;” but at some point you gotta have the gumption to “demote” someone from their preferred job based on performance. In baseball, you can’t wait until Spetember to do this…..
I’ll actually go so far as to say I’d like to see both of them (Hendry, Lou) thanked for their services, but dismissed. I can’t take another year of entitled position philosophy from Lou, and I can’t take any more bad contracts and semi-annual bullpen reboots for Hendry.
This is Chicago, the Cubs, and a HUGE market. We have to do better than this. We have the most expensive last-place offense I’ve ever seen, and more than an handful of recent castoffs are seeing great success elsewhere in favor of guys Hendry just likes “because.”
Let’s reboot for 2010, and I don’t mean just the bullpen.
The Jade Scorpion - August 19, 2009
One of Hendry's...
…biggest faults is he falls in love with certain players and he loses objectivity. That can be death for a GM, and I believe we have seen this surface for years.
One thing I admire about Kenny Williams is he respects his players, but he also stays very objective about their capabilities and is never afraid to trade someone if it means making the TEAM better. You always have to keep what is best for the team first, but you also have to be able recognize what is best for the team at the same time.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Yes it is Hendrys fault.
Goodness he is a GM, he knew of Bradley’s track record, the injuries, the melt downs and inconsistent play. He fell in love with Bradley, had the blinders on and focused on him, period. It freaking baffles the mind.
Grockcubs - August 19, 2009
Here's the thing
We haven’t had a meltdown or an injury since what, early June? And since the All-Star break, he’s been one of the more consistent on-base guys (not a slugger, but definitely not a bust either)
Bradley, behavior and injury wise, has been, all things considered, pretty good.
Worf - August 19, 2009
Pretty good hitting singles.
Not driving runs in, which is not his thing but irinically it’s what brought him to ther Cubs. That’s why it’s hendry’s fault, not bradley, for not realizing what Bradley could and couldn’t bring to the team.
Fraggin Judge - August 19, 2009
Uh, yeah, Bradley's "meltdowns" have all but disappeared...
…and his play has been relatively consistent for some time now. Of course, he still hasn’t hit for much power.
daver - August 19, 2009
More meltdowns = more HRs?
CaliCub - August 19, 2009
It's worth a shot.
Somebody get me an empty Evian bottle…
daver - August 19, 2009
I don't mind the Bradley signing
He may be somewhat overpaid but he’s fairly productive. The problem was signing him to be a power bat when it seems he’s more of an OBP type of guy.
Mapmaker - August 19, 2009
Not productive at all and especially not against any good righthanded pitching
Itchy - August 19, 2009
If you are going to make patently redic claims like that...
… would you please at least attempt to back it up with some sort of evidence?
Show me how he hasn’t been productive. Seriously.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
If you think he's been productive in any way besides his OBP I'd like to see it
He’s done nothing against good pitching, drives in no runs, routinely gets platooned, can’t hit from the left side, and has no speed, other than those things, he’s done great!
Itchy - August 19, 2009
Huh?
i do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
Allie - August 19, 2009
And as i said below...
… the same could be said, and to a greater extent, for a majority of this Cubs team this season. Hence the situation we are in today.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
YES!!
He is, was, and always will be better that worthless malcontent Mitlon Bradley!
Itchy - August 19, 2009
worthless?
Bah.
elgato - August 19, 2009
Yes, worthless
A minor league call up like Fox could produce what he has for the MLB minimum.
Itchy - August 19, 2009
Milton's 102 OPS+ begs to differ...barely.
daver - August 19, 2009
Fox's OPS+ is 121
Itchy - August 19, 2009
Now check their plate appearances.
daver - August 19, 2009
NICE
stuartscottslefteye - August 19, 2009
The obession
of Milton Bradley’s OPS is borderline comical. I guess this is the only stat that must be used in the discussion.
Bottom “freaking” line he will struggle to knock in 50 runs, score 70 runs and 15 homeruns, all that for 10 million dollars, great great ballplayer, But his OPS is 800, big freaking deal.
Grockcubs - August 19, 2009
Not the only stat...
…but it’s generally regarded as the quickest and dirtiest way to get at a player’s true offensive value. And, uh, actually an .800 OPS player is a big freaking deal because that would be, in layman’s terms, a “good” player. And such players generally help their teams win baseball games. That said, Milton Bradley’s OPS is not .800, it’s .778.
daver - August 19, 2009
Good Evaluation-
The pathetic performance of Alfonso Soriano, however, cannot be discounted. His lack of energy and hustle are the main reasons I have lost much interest in this team, this year. Last night was a perfect example- he fails to run out a ground ball hard, and then allows a key run to score by playing poor/ lazy defense once again. When Hendry signed Soriano following 06, it was necessary to show fans the Cubs would make a big move, following the passes of the previous years. What the Cubs do w/ Soriano now, is beyond me. I would love to see what this team could do in the remaining games, if management would sit, or shut him down, and give his at bats to Fox, Fuld, and Hoff. Their appears to be zero leadership on this club from Hendry, to Lou, to anyone on the squad.
Slakkr - August 19, 2009
Lou and Hendry...
Wanted this team, this team is not good – of course they are not going to show leadership. They took a good team and made it bad.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Could we please give up the notion that Micah Hoffpauir is a major league hitter?
You could somewhat make the argument for sitting Soriano in this prolonged slump for guys like Fuld (for his defense, and “energy” I suppose) or Fox (for his power, although his gawd-awful defense was on display in left field Monday night).
But Hoffpauir, and his .702 OPS? Really? There isn’t another white guy we could give it to?
GoBackToSchaumburg - August 19, 2009
Easy with the "white" stuff
I agree with that “Hoff” is really an average player, but to put labels and get racist about it is uncalled for.
Grockcubs - August 19, 2009
I'm fairly certain
that the white guy comment was mocking the person GBTS was responding to. And given that Hoff is one of many average or below average white players (see, e.g., Theriot and Fontenot) that get far more love than their numbers deserve, I think the mocking was entirely appropriate.
Holtzmaniac - August 19, 2009
You know Micah is in Iowa, right?
daver - August 19, 2009
aw hell
I gave up on ‘em, but I’ll still watch ‘em. If they make the playoffs, it’ll just be a disaster again.
Floyd10 - August 19, 2009
+1
rec’d.
Exactly how I feel.
Canadian Cubs Fan - August 19, 2009
I'll watch em too
Always do. I’d feel like I was a traitor if I stopped, then started again when they won. Too much guilt from Mom I guess.
+1
ASpecialGuestAppearance - August 19, 2009
if the cardinals pull a mets and completely collapse and the cubs take the division
i wont be heartbroken if they get swept again
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
What this leads to, Al.............
…………in my opinion, is the dismissal of Hendry and Piniella. It’s time to blow up not only the team, but the entire organization, and this must be the mission of the new owners.
Hendry could make himself useful by placing Soriano, Zambrano, Dempster, Fukudome and Bradley on the waiver wire. See what happens. A salary dump is in order, so even if a trade can’t be worked, unload these guys and start fresh.
Further, go ahead and dangle Lee and Ramirez on waivers. Again, there might be takers and the future of the team could be improved. After all, these guys are not getting any younger.
By the way, anyone who has not turned the page on the 2009 Chicago Cubs needs to get religion. And quickly.
tville - August 19, 2009
So you're saying Hendry should dangle all those guys on the waiver wire...
…even though common sense dictates that no one is going to pick up those contracts much less trade for them. And then Hendry and Lou should be summarily fired shortly thereafter. When exactly should all this begin?
daver - August 19, 2009
And further...
… “blowing it all up” means we probably start over as a team as bad as the Nationals, and be that way for several years. Is that what the naysayers want?
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
I'm willing to try.
Use the farm, Al, along with the remaining pieces. Use free agency to fill the holes in a practical fashion. The 2010 crop will be lean in relative terms, but I’m sick of the spending that leads us to the same rotten conclusion.
tville - August 19, 2009
There's no doubt...
… that the organization needs to be built up in many areas. Add to it. Get more scouts.. Build a better farm system. But that doesn’t mean you have to blow it up.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
People who say this team should be "blown up"
have no idea what they’re talking about.
This isn’t Minnesota or Kansas City. There’s no need ever to blow up a team in this size of a market.
Plus, this team isn’t as bad as it’s been playing. And on top of that, with whom are you going to replace these players?
The Cubs’ fan base never would stand for 3-4 years of rebuilding. Nor should it have to.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
Nor Pittsburgh!
daver - August 19, 2009
♫Dubuque, Dubuque♪
♪Dadadadadada, Dubuque♫
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
LOL
Haven’t heard that in years.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
Isn't using free agency to fill holes what got us into this mess in the first place?
daver - August 19, 2009
YES and trading away all the minor league talent
KyCubsFan - August 19, 2009
Hell of an outing by Ricky Nolasco last night!
daver - August 19, 2009
Makes me miss............
………..Juan Pierre.
tville - August 19, 2009
"ALL of the minor league talent"?
You mean guys like Fox, Hoff, etc., for whom the white-boy peanut gallery is clamoring?
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
"in practical fashion"
There was nothing practical about Soriano. Same for Bradley. And Dempster.
tville - August 19, 2009
Meet Alex Rios.
tville - August 19, 2009
Exception that proves the rule.
daver - August 19, 2009
And it's so damned troublesome.........
………..to place a guy on waivers. Such the effort.
It would simply suck if Jim had to do his job.
tville - August 19, 2009
Do we know for sure that he didn't place anyone on waivers?
daver - August 19, 2009
Almost everyone gets put on waivers.
The Rios claim is an outlier. I would bet something like that doesn’t happen again.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
He probably placed nearly everyone on waivers
It’s SOP.
You do it right after the deadline. People clear or they don’t – but you don’t wait until before the deadline.
If you do it all at once, it doesn’t send a negative message to players.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
Seems like you're a little confused about the facts here, tville.
daver - August 19, 2009
How so?
tville - August 19, 2009
See Al and Shanghai's posts directly above this one.
daver - August 19, 2009
Listening to Dibble and others on XM yesterday.........
……….I’m not so sure the waiver issue can be taken for granted.
Yes, it is a normal course of action, but only the Cubs know for certain if these players have been placed on the wire.
And with all due respect to Al and Badger, their opinion is as valid as mine.
tville - August 19, 2009
No offense taken
However, a few minutes of surfing should lend credence to the claim.
I’d take anything Dibble says with a grain of salt – which he would promptly throw at me.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
Hey, it's a free country. Believe what you want.
I’m just pointing out that an opinion like that is not likely to be widely accepted.
daver - August 19, 2009
Then don't say I'm "confused about the facts".
Seems my opinion is more in line with the MLB hosts on XM. This group of paid professional might have a greater insight than say, bloggers.
Again, no slander meant for the BCB community, but……….
tville - August 19, 2009
Again, no offense taken
But I’m not making this up. I have formed my opinion from reading different sources.
I have also stepped back and thought about it – which is more likely? That all players are put on waivers right away, so that possible deals can be worked out later, or teams wait until September 1 is near, and are less likely to get players through?
Also, wouldn’t only putting a few players on waivers send a stronger signal that a trade was possible, thus increasing the likelihood of a claim being made?
I also don’t think the MLB hosts on XM are guaranteed experts.
Finally, no slander meant to you, but by extrapolating your logic, don’t you think Jim Hendry knows more about being a GM than you?
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
Jim's being paid to do that job..........
……….and I’m not. Guess he knows better.
As for the XM crew, former GMs and current alike are interviewed all the time. It is likely most players have been placed on waivers, but there is sufficient evidence to the contrary (again, based on the comments of these folks).
At the close of “The Show” on XM 175 yesterday, the Soriano case was specifically discussed. It’s conjecture on everyone’s part, but if Hendry has not placed these guys on waivers, then he should (which was my initial post).
tville - August 19, 2009
The entire team was already waived.
That’s SOP, as has been mentioned before. Did you really expect someone to claim our expensive players? The Rios case is unique.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Rios is unique............
…………because there wasn’t even a lame swap of players involved.
The Larry Walker case didn’t involve as many seasons, but money was clearly at stake. That went down as a trade, officially, because the Cards sent a few bums back to the Rockies. There are likely other cases more in line with the Walker deal than the Rios situation, but it all ends in moving $$$ off the payroll.
IF the aforementioned Cubs’ players have been waived with no results, so be it, but IF they haven’t, they should be.
tville - August 19, 2009
They already have.
That’s a matter of routine.
Do you really think any other team would take those contracts?
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
That's the same question...........
………..J.P. Ricciardi was asking himself earlier this month. No one bit on Wells, but he moved Rios.
It can’t be known until it is explored, and if the Cubs have waived the roster, at least due diligence was served. It’s unfortunate Kenny Williams had already made up his mind on Rios.
tville - August 19, 2009
Again...
… you are expecting too much if you think any of our contracts could be claimed a la Rios. It’s a once-in-a-decade anomaly.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
OK, maybe "facts" was the wrong word.
But charging Jim Hendry with gross negligence, which is essentially what you’re doing, based on what some satellite radio guys said puts your opinion in a pretty dubious light.
daver - August 19, 2009
something like that may not happen again for 10 seasons.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
In fact, it was 11 years ago that the Randy Myers waiver claim went down.
So yeah, there’s about a 10-year statute on these types of waiver claims.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
Or 10 minutes.
It is not common, but can be done.
Don’t recall what Larry Walker was owed by the Rockies in 2004 (believe they were on the hook for at least $12 mil in 2005), but that so-called trade was all about money. The players sent by the Cards to the Rocks were meaningless.
tville - August 19, 2009
But that was a deal and
IIRC the Rox put up some coin to the Birds in that deal.
Rios was: “OK ChiSox, you can have him”. Jays saved ~$60M but got nothing in return.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
Yes, put Soriano and Bradley on waivers
Itchy - August 19, 2009
Sigh..again...this has probably already been done.
daver - August 19, 2009
couldn't you just hear the other 29 GM's laughing?
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
Every GM in the AL would laugh at Hendry for putting Bradley on waivers
Ozzie Montana - August 19, 2009
Not out of the question
but the team sale will have to be 100% complete first.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
Barf
You must be pining for those glorious Cub teams of the early 1990’s.
MikeIowa - August 19, 2009
At least you knew they would be disappointing.
These recent teams are filled with hope and grandeur only to disappoint.
In the end, losing is losing. Not winning it all is not winning it all. I’m willing to chart a new course to reach the finish line.
tville - August 19, 2009
Gonna disagree with you there
I’d rather have hope and a playoff appearance than the grinding drudgery of unremitting suck.
MikeIowa - August 19, 2009
I understand, but............
………..I’m sick of the gut wrenching BS. These last two playoff appearances, coupled with this season’s tremendously disappointing performance, has me yearning for the sound of popping beer cups in a semi-empty Wrigley Field.
tville - August 19, 2009
you think winning is easy?
Assuming someday in the not-so-distant future, the Cubs do win it all, I’d lay good money that it’s not gonna be a wire-to-wire cakewalk. There’ll be plenty of gut-wrenching BS to go around along the way. I suggest you get prepared now, otherwise, I foresee this conversation in your future…
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Change "Colonel Jessep" to............
…………“Cubs Ownership” and the story is complete!!
tville - August 19, 2009
Got that right, BH
Did all Cubs fans get spoiled by the way the regular season went last year? You would think the last thing Cubs fans would be is spoiled, but apparently there’s a first time for everything.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
Probably more anxious than spoiled
I think had October gone the Cubs’ way, there wouldn’t be half as much angst if they were 10 games under as there is today.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
You might be right
about that. But once you’ve won one WS, what do you want to do more than anything else? Win another one.
Who knows, though? We all might be basking in the glow so much, we might not even realize a baseball season has been going on since April.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
if the cubs win the world series and never win another one in my lifetime
i really wont care. but thats just me
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
Oh, I want them to win every year
But I do think a lot of the reactionary stuff would go away after one.
Only one way to find out . . .
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
I believe the angst and hunger
will increase even more. If just coming close in 2003 turned this fan-base upside down can you imagine how psychotic it’d get after they win it all? It’d be a zoo around ChiTown just like the Bronx.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
I'm sure it'd be EXACTLY like what happened in boston.
We’d all become “we were there when they sucked!” snobs.
Everyone else would become Cubs fans.
And then… inevitable backlash.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
And it'll be awesome
… b/c it happened to us.
Allie - August 19, 2009
let's wait until the end of the year to talk about blowing anything up
digitalbenjamin - August 19, 2009
The calendar may not say the season is over.............
……….but the results clearly speak to such a conclusion.
tville - August 19, 2009
Comments like this...
… prove that you don’t truly understand the nature of the team you cheer for. This Cubs are a big market, big spending team with a payroll of $135,050,000, third in the MLB. And that is well under million short of the #2 team, the Mets, meaning we more or less tie for the second biggest spending team in baseball at more than $10,000,000 higher than the Red Sox. Obviously nobody touches the #1 Yankees.
What do those teams have in common? They do not ‘blow it up’. They do not ‘rebuild’. $120,000,000 plus teams adjust to their failures. The adjustments worked poorly this season, it seems. They worked well the two before.
But to think that either side of this team – the on field side or the off field business side – would accept several years of minor league players and being a laughingstock is just plain crazy. This is a big market team committed to contending every year, much like their high spending counterparts in Boston, New York and LA.
Imagine the fan uproar if we went from fielding a team of all-stars (former, granted) to a team of journeymen and minor league palyers. It ain’t happening main.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
The only way it's blown up
is if the new owner says so.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
And ditching former all-stars...
… beloved (D-Lee) or otherwise (Soriano) for a team of unknowns and a few seasons of guaranteed suckitude wouldn’t be a great way to introduce oneself to the Chicago Cubs fanbase.
Like i said… it just ain’t happening.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
Not just that
how do you blow up a team with SEVERAL long term contracts?
Unless you swallow several million dollars on each player… how does this work out?
Allie - August 19, 2009
You don't.
This suggestion is asinine at best. You want Sori gone? Fine, but you’ll either have to take on another equally bad contract, or you’ll have to pay a huge chunk of his salary elsewhere.
Either way, not productive.
$40, $50, $60 million dollar teams rebuild. Sometimes with success, i suppose. $135 million dollar teams aren’t in the position to operate like that, due to both the position they are in with the players they have, and the fans expectation that they not be crappy for the extended period of time it takes to rebuild.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
Not so asinine..........
……….as exhibited further down in this post.
tville - August 19, 2009
Guess who'll win if the new owner says "shed payroll"?
It won’t be us. I’m all for keeping D-Lee but the Cubs have to consider some big changes.
Regardless, if Ricketts comes in and says, “lower the payroll to $100M-110M” guess what’ll happen.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
That's not rebuilding.
That’s cutting payroll. Very different.
And also a very real possibility i suppose, although it wouldn’t be a popular way for a new owner to greet a fanbase.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
yabbut as a new owner, if he doesn't do it now, when is he going to do it?
sure it wouldn’t be popular, but assuming Ricketts has (or will have) some kind of long-term strategy, and part of that strategy involves taking actions real similar to blowing it up and/or cutting payroll, it’s probably best to do it right at the beginning.
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
I would tend to agree
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
I understand your point...
…but even if the players the Cubs have on the field next year only amount to 100-110 mil, I would almost guarantee they would for forking over at least 20 mil per annum for long term deals that had to shed through trades.
If the Cubs fall short of the playoffs this year, I don’t think it would be wise to try and make a run at it again with the same mix of players. That would mean needing to shed some of these big contracts and that will be very expensive indeed.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Soriano = allstar?
Only by the silly ASG vote-early-vote-often-Chicago-style system.
It may not happen but don’t think for one minute it won’t be attempted. Just because a couple thousand of us typing away on our computers don’t hear about player movement doesn’t mean its not discussed.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
First things first.
If you think the team on the field is the sole reason why fans flock to Wrigley, then you truly don’t understand the nature of the team you cheer for.
The Cubs would draw +2.5 million at Wrigley regardless of the players on the field, and could probably do so for several years. They ultimately would have to put a better product out to maintain the draw, but taking 2 years out to rebuild is not going to punish ownership’s pocket book.
tville - August 19, 2009
Have you forgotten September, 2006?
Times have changed at Clark and Addison. A crappy team WILL translate to reduced attendance.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
I agree...
…I figure the Cubs have built up about 2 years of good will where they would draw 3 mil per season with non-playoff contenders. Beyond that, you would see attendence erode and they would be down to 30K per game vs 40K if the team didn’t start to win.
I would not be surprised if the Blackhawks did not become the hottest ticket in town for the next 3-4 years, and maybe beyond.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
You mean the same 2006 season...........
……….when they drew more than 3.1 MILLION FANS?
Taking two years to juggle a line up and gear towards a more effective team will not dramatically harm this team’s revenue stream.
tville - August 19, 2009
Yes, 3.1 MILLION FANS!
With a lot of EMPTY SEATS!
It’s pretty well documented that the TribCo noticed the no-shows at the end of the year. As they say, today’s “no-shows” become tomorrow’s “no buys”.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
Paid attendance........
……….still means income to the team, whether asses are in the seats or not.
Between existing season ticket holders and those who are ready and waiting to fill in for defectors, this team has a VERY long way to go before attendance becomes a concern. I’m looking at two years of rebuilding, and even if the gate dips, the money saved by reduction in salary will more than offset such damages.
Seriously, this ball club can withstand a two-year stretch of mediocrity.
tville - August 19, 2009
Withstand, certainly
But that wasn’t your original point.
If they blew the whole thing up, had a crap 2010 with little hope for 2011, they would draw significantly fewer fans.
Season tickets would still sell, because people would want to have them for when times got better, but individual ticket sales would be down in 2011.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
My point has always been.............
……….this franchise can afford to take two years “out” and still not suffer financially.
Significantly fewer? Still believe +2.5 million would be achievable given Wrigley and its environs. If 1.5 mil are gathering in K.C. and Pittsburgh each and every year, somehow I think the Cubs would get a million more than these teams during a brief rebuilding program.
tville - August 19, 2009
Maybe
But I still disagree with the premise that the bulk of the fans are there for the beer garden.
That certainly was the case at one point.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
Not sure I said that.
Not sure I even intimated that.
What I did say is that the team will draw in the short term even with a less-than-contending product on the field.
tville - August 19, 2009
I so want to get involved in this discussion
but I don’t have time!
Professor, I think tville is right on this one. I do want to be on the record saying that Wrigley is still an overpriced beer garden, yet it’s the Cubs’ 10th player.
chilango2 - August 19, 2009
I agree, you won't see a half empty wrigley.
But that is a simplistic way to look at it. Fans in the seats does not equal revenue as a whole. They’ll be spending less while there, they’ll be watching less on TV, they’ll be less likely to attend spring training and cubs conventions, they’ll care less about getting the hot name on their back (because there will BE no hot name)…
A crappy product dwon’t sell as much. This is a fact.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
Late 2006 I did...
Tix on the order of 35,000-37,000 were sold. Some nights late in the season, there wasn’t enough people there to fill the UC for a Blackhawks game.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
You didn't say it, you're right
I inferred it from:
You are also correct that they could survive a couple of down years, and chilango is right about the home field advantage.
But, the revenue would go down significantly. The days of, “We lost, but Sammy hit a homer! And those halter tops!” are gone.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
True...welcome to the days of...
“We lost, but Milton walked twice! And that beer thrower!”
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
I suppose that's better than,
“And that tire fire!”
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
Understood.
There are people who like to simply say to their friends “we were at Wrigley”. Beer guzzlers or not, the place attracts people. They don’t even have to be fans of baseball let alone the Cubs!
tville - August 19, 2009
Exactly
And “beer connoisseurs” from around the world will pay to drink a $7 Old Style there.
Andrew does bring the discussion full circle with his comments above.
chilango2 - August 19, 2009
Ah.... Sammy homers... yes, those were the days.
oh, and halter tops, too.
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Correct...
…the first phase of a drop off are always no shows. Even though they have the revenue from ticket sales, no shows reduce ballpark spending by quite a bit. The next step would be for fans to not buy tickets, if the team continues to struggle.
Most people will say there is a long waiting list for season tickets so this would never happen, don’t fool yourself. If the club struggled for an extended period, the demand would drop dramitcally and the waiting list would evaporate.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
There were many games late in 2006...
eight I witnessed personally that did not have 25,000 there with announced “attendance” in the mid to high 30’s.
MPH is right on…especially that last part!
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
The fans in the seats are NOT the only sorce of revenue.
Think people will be lining up for the bleachers, entering two hours early (and buying beer) to see BP with no name players?
Think no namers will sell the same jerseys numbers that Sori and Zambrano and DLee sell?
Think merch numbers in general keep up if the team isn’t in the think of a playoff hunt?
Think the cubs will get the same advertising revenue if the team is a boring waste of time to watch for a few seasons?
Yes, there is a mystique to Wrigley, and people will always go to some extent, although those who replied to you quicker than i did have dispelled that to some extent. But if you think revenue keeps up if the quality of product goes down, you are sorely mistaken.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
I believe you are missing the mark..........
……..in a number of areas.
Yes, merchandising will take a slight hit, but not EVERY name player will be gone. Since I am suggesting a two or three year window of time, I don’t believe a precipitous drop will occur. And plenty of fans buy Cubs merchandise without a player’s name because of cost so the impact should be minimal.
People will STILL come to the park, so advertising will continue to be sold. Don’t think the Cubs can get top dollar drawing 2.5 mil instead of 3.2? Don’t see this as a downward death spiral either.
However, I believe you are waaaay off base on the bleachers. This is a nearly foolproof situation. People will be out there morning, noon and night, even if the Bad News Bears were playing. I see it every time I’m there and it will take more than 2 or 3 bad seasons to eradicate the bleacher ballyhoo.
Again, we’re talking about a two year window of time where the team is overhauled, with some guys going and some staying. To pronounce this approach as the death of the Cubs and their revenue streams is, I believe, unrealistic.
tville - August 19, 2009
No, i belive you are missing the mark.
1.) If you believe this team can be “rebuilt” in two seasons with the contracts (and NTCs!) it has, you are mistaken. Truly clearing the books of these guys will take far longer than 2 years. Even IF we can some how get rid of Soriano, we’ll be paying him to play on other teams far past two years from now… AND we’d likely have to take a different crappy contract to ditch him.
2.) You are sorely mistaken if you believe people will continue to spend the same amount they are now on a future crappy product. Seriously, look around you. We’ve got people here, where some of the biggest Cubs fans congregate, already promising to devote their attention to the Bears. If this team bottoms out, goes years without a chance of making the playoffs, let alone contending for a World Series, interest WILL wane. And even if you personally didn’t see it while sitting in the bleachers on a Saturday afternoon, trust me… the cubs front office would notice.
Sorry man… i WISH we could do it your way. I’d gladly take two years sub-par play for the promise of a decade of core guys who are fundamentally sound and who’ll push this team to the top again. But that isn’t the Cubs we cheer for. They are firmly entrenched in the big market big spending world now, and escape is nearly impossible.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
I agree with a number of your points.
Two years is likely too short, but I believe it is enough to make an impact. Let’s look at those who’s contracts are up at the end of next season (2010):
$13M – DLee
$16M – ARam (his option to return for 2011)
$10M – Lilly
$ 3M – Miles
That’s more than $40 million that could be shed at the end of next year.
By the end of 2011, Fukudome ($13.5M) and Bradley ($12M) will also be off the books. Dempster ($14M) is gone in 2012 leaving only Zambrano and Soriano as the ugly contractual ducklings beyond.
Further, this fall’s crop of free agents is said to be light. Who knows? Maybe the Cubs can move one of these players sooner?
It would be tough to “turn it around” in two years, but I think they should try to make strides by shedding salary and inserting some farm talent.
tville - August 19, 2009
What farm talent?
It was all traded away for the team we see on the field today, unfortunately.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
To which players
are you referring that we traded away our farm talent to acquire. Ceda for Gregg. And who else?
Also we have,
Vitters
Cashner
Jacksons (Brett and Jay)
Castro
Lee
Carpenter
Searle
ConcreteCoda - August 19, 2009
In addition to Coda's comments..........
……….I’d say Theriot and Soto remain as low-cost players, although I’d prefer to see Theriot moved to 2B where his defense might not be such an issue.
Jake Fox seems to be worthwhile, and if Lee is gone, put Fox at 1B.
It doesn’t have to fall entirely to these young players. By shedding the payroll as outlined it frees the Cubs to pursue other free agents.
tville - August 19, 2009
What farm talent would you wish we hadn't given up for DLee, Harden or Aramis?
Zambrano, Marmol, Soto, Wells and Theriot are all products of the farm system. Lilly, Dempster, Fukudome, Bradley and Soriano were all free agent pick-ups. What farm talent was traded away that could even be a decent back-up?
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
Ugh.
Acapulco, tville and Concrete alike…
If you are claiming our farm system is in great shape and can step up to make up for the loss or release of a majority of our starting roster, you obviously haven’t been paying attention this season.
Sure, we could bring up guys to fill in the positions. But fill them well? If they could do that, we’d be winning games, and would have been in spite of the injuries so many here would like to blame this season on.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
Is there a reason you aren't answering the question? Please name names of who was unfortunately traded away?
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
David Aardsma and Dontrelle Willis.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
Yes, there is a reason.
I’m not inclined to spend an hour researching something i can figure out in about two seconds via common sense.
What has been a major complaint on this site this season? That when a player goes down (like Rami) we don’t have anybody to adequately fill in and be productive. Then, we end up moving guys around (our infield is a prime example) or playing dudes like Miles, and all of the sudden we are a mediocre team 6 games out of the division come august.
So tell me who is down in the farm system just bursting with talent and ready to go on a MLB roster? Vitters is a year away at best. Beyond that, you’d have to ask the minor league guys like Josh.
Fact is, if the farm system was full of dudes ready to step up to play in the big leagues, we wouldn’t be where we are right now.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
Research? If you need to research your own assertion maybe you shouldn't be making it.
You shouldn’t need to do a lot of research to back up your claims if they have merit.
The real fact is our farm system has accounted for DLee, Ramirez, Zambrano, Wells, Harden, Theriot, Soto, Marmol, Guzman. I didn’t even have to do any research. What team could lose it’s best hitter, in this case Aramis, and expect to replace his production with someone at AAA?
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
I don't need research to make it.
I need 2 seconds of critical thinking.
You are on here hyping our farm system. Cool. I agree, some great guys have come out of there. Others will (and have) claim the farm system blows. Cool. Sort of irrelevant to the point i was making originally.
You can not expect to 1.) be able to easily ship off all these guys with big contracts and 2.) be able to easily replace them with players that will make the onfield product of the Chicago Cubs up to the expectations of most of their fans. If a product doesn’t meet expectation, people stop paying for it. That is a cycle big market teams do NOT embrace.
Big market teams spend. Small market teams rebuild.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
I never hyped the farm system just asked you to back up your false assertion.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
Not completely my contention, but............
………..Theriot (2B), Soto © and Fox (1B/OF) are position players with experience.
Experienced arms Marshall and Wells work in the rotation with Guzman and Marmol in relief.
Does that leave some holes? Of course. A number of those could be filled by the farm within the next two years.
And as these old salaries are shed, the ability to secure other free agents (hopefully better ones) will further cement the squad.
tville - August 19, 2009
Ok...
And how is that different than what has been going on for the last 5 years or so?
Look… there are multiple approaches to running a team. You can go all moneyball, you can make like the twins and pound fundamentals and hope it pans out, you can spend like the yankees, on and on and on.
The cubs have clearly shown themselves to be in the “spend like the yankees” group, which makes sense as they are a big market team making big money, and as the Yanks (and the Boston under their new ownership) have shown, you CAN buy championships with enough money.
I’ve always been of the opinion that what the cubs spend shouldn’t be a complaint. I’d much rather have a free spending team swinging for the fences then a situation like the Arizona Cardinals had for years, where the owner was so cheap that there was literally no chance to win.
Anyways, back to the original point that began this little discussion. Rebuilding isn’t how this organization (and i don’t just mean the players on the field) is built. Shedding the contracts is one thing… it’d take years and patience. Accounting for the fact that the fans won’t accept it is another. And beyond that, changing the organizational philosophy from “spend spend spend” to whatever it is that you propose (i can’t actually grasp what that is so well, other than you want the crappy / highly paid players gone, which we all agree on but isn’t quite as feasible and easy as many here seem to believe) won’t be easy.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
I partially agree
Yes, the people that are spending money now would probably not continue to spend the same amount of money if Cubs entered into a 2-3 year rebuilding effort. However I think there is a decent backlog of people out there who don’t have the opportunity today to spend money on the Cubs but would gladly step in and replace those folks who decided to take their dollars elsewhere (Hawks, Bears).
Also, if we get rid of Soriano (and that’s a huge if), taking on a different crappy contract is not the way to do it. I think the better way to do it is include enough of his salary until another team bites. Put your non-Cub GM hat on and play along…
Now I don’t know if $9M is the right number or not, but there surely is a number where other GMs would at least return Jimbo’s calls. Then you put what ever savings you do realize back into the team, either in the farm system or some mid-level FA to play left. Or you stick Fox out there. Sure defense will take a hit, but he’s a crowd favorite and plays the game right. He’s the kind of guy that will get your team through those 2-3 years of crappiness until the time is right to make the big push.
You’re right in that this isn’t how a big-market team does things. But we’ve spent our money foolishly these last few years and we’re going to have to do things differently if we want to quickly turn it around. Or we can just wait out the bad contracts or we can throw more money at the problem. Lots of approachs.
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
I really think you're a touch off base on this...
Wrigley is really only a major draw — regardless of situation — for about two months in the summertime. Kids on break, tourists on vacation, and a slowed down work situation allow a ton of extra folks to come out. Get a tan. Have some drinks. You’re right in that regard.
However, before and after that time, the Cubs compete for eyeballs and entertainment dollars with a ton of other venues and products in town. If they’re not competitive, people are not coming to the park in May; they just aren’t. If they’re not competitive, 40,000 drops to 32,000 in September. That’s a big problem.
Most of their operational costs are covered by tickets, but the big money is in concession (beer) and merchandise. And a crummy product makes for bad advance and season ticket sales, which is terrible for cash flow, and off-season acquisitions.
Bleacher bums will leave them when the weather cools. We’ve seen that as recently as the 2006 season.
Damen Jackson - August 19, 2009
Let's do some quick math.
If we accept the “slack” months being Apr/May/Sep with the other three being the peak; capacity set at 41,000 (although true capacity is higher); with 40 games played in each three month stretch, here’s a loose calculation:
Apr/May/Sep attendance running 75% of capacity = 30750/game; 1,230,000 total
Jun/Jul/Aug attendance running 90% of capacity = 36900/game; 1,476,000 total
That exceeds the 2.5 mil I’ve suggested as a threshold of pain for the two seasons needed for reconstruction.
tville - August 19, 2009
And still ignores no shows, as well as revenue that takes place outside of wrigley...
… you think the cubs share of advertising revenue for TV stays the same if the team sucks? Really?
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
It doesn't...
And the multiplier effect per ticket decreases, to boot.
I mean, I think you’re still too fixated on the ticket sale tville. That’s just not where the Cubs make their real coin.
Damen Jackson - August 19, 2009
It is a big part, i'll grant him that.
And it is probably more resistant to tanking during a bad season than about any other teams besides the Yankees and Red Sox…
But it isn’t everything. If Dome is replaced by No Name Guy X, merch revenue plummets. If the team is getting trounced and people file out of Wrigley in the 6th every other afternoon, revenue goes down. If its not worth tuning in to see the team, advertising revenue falls. If the rooftops can’t fill up every afternoon, the cubs don’t get their 13% or whatever it is, and revenue falls.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
I'M FULLY AWARE OF THAT, BUT............
…………PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE MY POSITION OF “SQUEEZING” THE TALENT ON THE FIELD FOR A MERE TWO (perhaps three) SEASONS.
For god sakes the franchise will not go broke if the Cubs cut back the talent level on the field in 2010/11/12.
tville - August 19, 2009
I don't see the Cubs...
taking a position that they’re capitulating on any season. It’s simply not a strategy that large market teams employ, for a variety of reasons already discussed.
Damen Jackson - August 19, 2009
And all I'm saying is............
……….they should.
tville - August 19, 2009
That may be...
n/t
Damen Jackson - August 19, 2009
maybe you should send sam zell an angry letter about it
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
You may think this.
Doesn’t make it right.
We are more like NY and Boston than Tampa and KC. Sorry dude, it is what it is.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
Doesn't make it wrong either.
They’re different approaches, that’s all. There’s not a right or a wrong way.
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Agreed.
But i’d venture to say you WON’T see a big market team go the rebuilding route.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
That goes down and...
concessions go down. Revenue from the rooftops goes down.
As long as they can avoid the 2006-like collapse, they’ll be OK. After all, 2006 is what resulted in: ALFONZO SORIANO
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
Pardon me while I stand and applaud, Al
You hit about 12 nails on the head.
First, a question: I had to go to bed early last night and missed the end of the game. It was 4-3 when I turned off the TV. I saw the highlights this morning.
On the inside-the-park home run, it looked like Fukudome ran about six miles after the ball and no other Cub was in sight. Had Bradley already gone in to take the cutoff throw? If not, isn’t it his job to help backup on that play?
Worf - August 19, 2009
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when I saw it...
… where was Bradley?
Didn’t matter, since at least one run would have scored on the play regardless.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
It matters a lot
if it is true that he wasn’t backing up as he was supposed to, regardless of the outcome of the game. As we discussed at Wrigley last week (thanks for the chat, I enjoyed it), a huge change in Lou is that he does not seem to hold players accountable for playing fundamental baseball as he did in the past.
At any rate, excellent writeup today as usual.
paulucla - August 19, 2009
Amen!
It matters one helluva lot when Bradley gets a free pass from hustling because people won’t take their kool aid glasses off long enough to ever hold a Cub player accountable. Bradley is worthless and provides the same amount of production as a minor league callup, Jake Fox.
Itchy - August 19, 2009
I don't really like Bradley...
But he can be a solid #2 hitter for this team, however, too bad that’s not exactly what we signed him for and needed this offseason.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
He's not even a solid #2 because he's so bad batting lefthanded
Itchy - August 19, 2009
He's got his OPS from the left side up to .760...
…and that’s with a very impressive .393 OBP. Pretty sure no minor league callup is going to get on base at that rate.
daver - August 19, 2009
But . . . but . . .
Jake Fox surely would do the same or better hitting left-handed, because he isn’t making $10M . . . .
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
♪♫ It's all about the Hamiltons, bay-bee!!! ♪♫
daver - August 19, 2009
JUST WATCHED IT AGAIN.....
No Bradley….Maybe another disconnect in the teams defense , If I am right wasn’t it Lou that flew to the west coast . ( To meet and had dinner with Bradley ) Bingo sign him up .
cubs north - August 19, 2009
He blew it
plain and simple.
Couple that with the fact Domer doesn’t break too well on contact makes for some scary situations.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
It matters. It shows what's wring with many players in this team, including Bradley.
They play horribly! Lack of hustle and fundamentals.
Fraggin Judge - August 19, 2009
"wring" = wrong
@#% keyboard!
Fraggin Judge - August 19, 2009
Dome went to his right after the ball, i.e. towards left-center, and the ball kicked back across center towards right.
so yeah, the ball did travel a long way through no-man’s land, especially with center field being so big at Petco. But the ball was rolling for most of the time, and towards the end, it was rolling slower and slower… and still no Bradley in sight.
I hesitate to judge without the evidence of a wide screen angle, but common sense and extrapolation tells me that Bradley just stood there in the beginning. And I would have to guess he still wasn’t moving after the ball hit the wall. I don’t care how big Petco is, even I – had I started running at that point – would have gotten to the ball before Dome did.
Of course, I would have JJones’ed the throw back to the infield, but that’s beside the point…
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
That's why I asked about Bradley going into shallow right to take the cutoff
But maybe someone who was there can answer where exactly he was.
Because if he didn’t run or run hard, that IS a problem, even if only one run scored on the play.
Worf - August 19, 2009
I'm going on memory now...
…but I seem to recall that at the very end of the play, after Dome picked it up and whirled and threw, there was another Cub player coming into the picture from the right. Camera didn’t stay long enough to clearly see who it was, but I presume it was Bradley.
Of course, might have been Lee hustling over… ;-)
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Pretty sure it was Bradley.
Would have loved another camera angle to see if there was a good reason it took him so long to get there.
redward - August 19, 2009
There was a reason, but it wasn't a pretty good one. He was watching the game until then, instead of backing up.
Fraggin Judge - August 19, 2009
The key word "embarrassed"
The whole Cub team should be.
I agree fully Al, The signing of Milton has been beaten to the pulp, I never liked it and especially at the cost it cost the Cubs. I too am a DeRosa guy, it is beyond the life of me how people don’t see the value of him over Bradley/Miles and Fontenot combined.
I don’t know for fact, but it appeared from the outside that no real strong effort was made to sign Wood, they, Hendry assumed Woody wanted this or that, does anyone know if the Cubs actually make an offer to Wood?
I believe in clubhouse cohesiveness and leaders in the clubhouse but it appears this club is lacking both. Hendry has put together a mix match of players that really don’t perform together, the construction of this team is horrible.
I am in strong favor of letting Hendry and Lou go, this team needs a new fresh look, Because the players, Bradley, Soriano, Dempster, “Z,” and Dome, who have had poor to average years can’t be moved because of horrid contracts, except “Z”.
This team lacks heart, lacks a strong belly, somehow it needs to find it.
Grockcubs - August 19, 2009
Both sides
agreed that no offer was made to Woody. He was shown the door. The only debatable part is what Woody would ultimately have been willing to accept to stay (i.e., what kind of Cubbie discount he was willing to give the organization).
paulucla - August 19, 2009
They may say they are
but I doubt it. Looks like they’re just collecting paychecks.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
Reality?
I agree with the points about DeRo and Wood being leaders, but I think we need to look at the reality of the situations here:
1) Wood isn’t just bad this year, he’s bad AND expensive AND required a 2-year deal with a vesting option to sign. Seriously, here’s his contract details from Cot’s:
2 years/$20.5M (2009-10), plus 2011 option
signed by Cleveland as a free agent 12/13/08
09:$10M, 10:$10.5M, 11:$11M club option
2011 option guaranteed with 55 GF in 2009 or 2010 (becomes a club option if it does not vest)
Now, I’m going to guess that Cleveland isn’t going to allow him to vest, as he’s short this year, but he’s 15-5 on save attempts with a 4.71 ERA. How warmly would we be thinking about him now if he was here with that failure rate and that contract? Seriously. Hendry letting him go was a smart move. I didn’t think so at the time, but in hindsight, I think he saw this situation clearly.
2) Yes, Miles stunk. I don’t think Hendry is getting enough credit for admitting that and picking up Baker, though. Baker is 6 years younger than DeRo, much cheaper, plays the same 2 key positions (2b/3b), and is probably just as effective as a hitter (it’s always a little dicey adjusting for players leaving Colorado, but he had decent career stats there). Add to that 2 things – DeRo hasn’t hit well for STL, media raves about how great that move was for them aside. And, if DeRo had been here, we’d never know what Jake Fox could do. Clearing playing time for Mike Fontenot certainly looked like a worthwhile goal last offseason. I know that most people thought he’d be at least fine against RHP, and possibly much better all-around. I have a hard time complaining about the GM making space for good, cheap players – as long as the money saved is used to address other needs.
3) Jason Marquis? Seriously. I realize he’s having an amazing year in Colorado, but I’m glad we got to discover Wells and Hart and find out what Marshall could do as a starter instead of paying him his hefty (obviously very reasonably in light of his 2009 though) salary.
4) The maligned Fukudome move seems to be paying off this year. Just like “Godzilla” in NY, he appears to have taken a full season to acclimate. He’s been one of the most devastating hitters in the league vs RHP this season.
Now, this braintrust has obviously not been perfect, but I think a lot more of the blame has to go to the players than you make it sound – Soto and Fontenot laid eggs, Soriano and Bradley both have long track records, and until the past month+, neither had done much of anything. I actually give Lou some credit for his dealings with Bradley, inasmuch as we haven’t heard “boo” from the guy for a while, and he’s been hitting.
BobbyMac - August 19, 2009
While you may be
right about Woody, you may also be wrong. It’s just not fair to project his Cleveland numbers on to what they would have been if he stayed a Cub. It’s also pretty clear he would have accepted significantly less to stay with the Cubs.
paulucla - August 19, 2009
Pretty clear to who?
You are making things up.
Holtzmaniac - August 19, 2009
No, he isn't.
He was never offered the chance for that. There were other factors, too.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
You just contradicted yourself
Holtzmaniac said paulucla is making things up by saying Wood would have taken less to stay a Cub . . . you said he wasn’t making things up, then refuted what paulucla said.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
Yes, he is
and so are you.
Hendry came out and said the Cubs and Wood never discussed a one year deal, something Wood never refuted.
If Wood wanted a one year deal with the Cubs, he should have asked for it. But only an idiot would ask for a one year deal when they knew a multi-year deal is a possibility, especially when an extensive injury history is involved. And Kerry Wood does not appear to be an idiot.
Did the Cubs want Wood back? Probably not and whether they should have is a different topic. But the notion that Kerry Wood was going to stay here for a one-year deal when more years and more money were guaranteed elsewhere is a figment of some people’s imagination.
Holtzmaniac - August 19, 2009
You're talking about two different things.
Had the Cubs and Wood discussed a one-year extension BEFORE Hendry told him to get himself more years elsewhere, a deal might have been made.
There were other factors involved. I have heard some things that, unfortunately, I cannot post here.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Aw, man....
Are these “off-the-field” kinds of factors? Or would even that be saying too much?
D98 - August 19, 2009
They're not off-the-field factors.
That much, I can say.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Thanks
D98 - August 19, 2009
We don't know...
… what kind of one-year deal Wood would have accepted to stay a Cub. Further, though he is having a bad year in Cleveland, we also do not know whether he would be having that same bad year in Chicago, where his family (and presumably, his baseball heart) is.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
If Wood is having a bad year because he's not a Cub
Then I woudn’t want him, anyway. Just like if Soto can’t suck it up without Blanco around, then he doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude needed.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
That's what I wondered about Geo going into the season
But now it’s more about the WBC affect, his weight issue and the pot incident.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
Exactly
If these guys can’t make it without their “security blankets,” they’ll be useless for this team.
Acutally, it might help explain the bad performances we’ve seen in the postseason, at least as far as mental wherewithal is concerned.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
Wood's down year
likely has less to do with his feelings about not being a cub and more to do with changes in pitch selection, league difference, lower K:BB ratio and a rebound in his HR:FB ratio.
ConcreteCoda - August 19, 2009
I suspect that's true
Except for league difference – it usually favors the pitcher when the batter hasn’t faced him before.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
Respons...
1) He is on a bad team – his numbers are skewed, and he made his first move to the AL. You dont think he would have signed a 1 year deal with the Cubs for cheaper? He wanted to stay here but the Cubs didnt want him.
2) Jake Fox? Really, so you are happy with losing DeRo because we would not have found out about Jake Fox. What did we find out, he can sit on the bench when we need him? Really? Jeff Baker has been nice, but he is the poormans version of DeRo.
3) With our constant pitching injuries (I blame Rothschild) we would have found out about Wells and Hart at some point during the season.
4) Isnt it fair to assume Hendry and Lou gave up on Fukudome after last season? If they would have realized that only 1 japan player had a successful first season in the MLB, maybe we would have never gone out and gotten Bradley right?
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Baker is much younger than DeRo.
He may yet turn out to be a rich man’s version of Mark.
daver - August 19, 2009
Who doesn't hit for power...
And can’t play the corner OF positions and 1B like DeRosa?
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
Actually, Baker played some 1st base last Friday.
And he is driving the ball more of late.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
I have to say, I'm slowly coming around on Baker
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
His last 8 games have been impressive, at least
if he can continue to work on getting the ball out of his glove quickly, I think he’ll be fine.
Now, I don’t expect him to hit .500 the rest of the way, but he’s looked much more comfortable at the plate recently.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
Baker deserves to play the rest of the year
and see what we have. I would like to see him play some 3rd and outfield. He may be the most versatile player we have but if he never plays anything but 2nd how will we know?
mrcubsfan - August 19, 2009
In his time with the Cubs
he’s played 1B, 2B, 3B. So I think they’re looking at him at some different spots.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
I knew first for like 3 innings
but did not remember any 3rd base.
mrcubsfan - August 19, 2009
It's mainly been as a defensive change that he's moved from 2B
or entered the game at 1B or 3B, but it doesn’t appear that the Cubs are afraid to use him around the infield.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
You think Jeff Baker couldn't play the 3 easiest defensive positions?
There’s a reason Adam Dunn keeps rotating among them
GoBackToSchaumburg - August 19, 2009
There's a difference...
Between playing them, and playing them well.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
Huh?
Since when does Baker not hit for power? In 333 PAs for the Rockies last season, he hit 22 doubles and 12 home runs. He currently has a .952 OPS with the Cubs. And in his major league career he’s played the following positions: 2B, 1B, 3B, RF, LF.
How ’bout getting your facts straight before you decide to start hating on a player, hm?
daver - August 19, 2009
Saying a player doesn't hit for power...
Is not “hating” on someone.
Baker in 2008: 12HR, 22 doubles .468SLG, .791OPS
DeRosa in 2008: 21HR, 30 doubles, .481SLB, .857OPS
Baker has 2HRs this year, DeRosa has 21. I can safely say DeRosa has a bit more power than Jeff Baker.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
Sigh...look at their plate appearances.
daver - August 19, 2009
There is a reason they have such a difference in plate appearances
DeRosa is a FAR better player than Baker, which is not"hating" on Baker- just a fact.
tommy veryzer - August 19, 2009
or because baker was out with a broken wrist for half of the year
hmmm…..
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
Or because DeRosa is older...
…and has had much more time and opportunity to prove himself one way or another. All I’m saying is give Baker a freakin’ chance.
daver - August 19, 2009
their slg % are nearly identical
according to your own stats
El Borto - August 19, 2009
Well..
yes but this team was built to win now, not necessarily down the road. Does that make more sense? DeRo would have helped more now, which is when we needed him.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
or at the worst, a RH version of last year's Fontenot
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
I assume by "poor mans Dero"
You mean you have to play him way way less than Mark DeRosa to do the same things?
GoBackToSchaumburg - August 19, 2009
*pay him
GoBackToSchaumburg - August 19, 2009
Bradley was Edmonds replacement. If anything, I think it’s fair to think that Hendry/Lou realized that Fukudome probably could handle CF based on his excellent defense in RF in 2008, something I certainly never expected when he was signed.
BobbyMac - August 19, 2009
I agree that Baker appears to have been a good pickup.
Of course, I still would’ve preferred to have DeRo around for depth purposes earlier in the season alone, but Baker may turn out to be a decent “save” in that department.
daver - August 19, 2009
It was a very good scramble, no doubt about it
Of course, Lou decided to rest him for TWO days — the rainout and the Monday game — to give Miles a shot…
When Jim does something right, Lou does something wrong. When they both do something right, the players don’t execute.
Worf - August 19, 2009
Yeah, I didn't get Lou's decision to rest Baker either.
daver - August 19, 2009
Great post
I agree with much of what Al wrote, but this fills in the gaps where he and I disagree. Well said.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
Few things Al
On the gameboard signing. Could it be that a guy like Abreu came at a cheap price because guys like MB were signed sooner? I think so. Abreu would have cost the Cubs close to the same dollars as MB (per year basis at least).
Leadership. I’m glad you jumped on that. Everytime this topic is mentioned there’s some sabre-geek out there discounting it. The Cubs miss this badly.
IMO the BS surrounding the teams’ sale complicated things. I’m not saying a quicker sale would have opened the money floodgates but at least there would be a definitive answer.
I’m more PO’d at Hendry than at Lou. Lou’s made mistakes, many of them. Hendry’s utter lack of judging the market trumps it because the lack of a good roster affects Lou’s decisions every day.
Just like now: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/8FC79251720FE9018625761700107F0A?OpenDocument Smoltz is going to sign with the Cards. I’d really like to know how much Hendry tried here; any deep goat insight?
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
I don't know whether the Cubs had any interest in Smoltz.
As I wrote yesterday, I wish they had. Interestingly, if DeRosa were still a Cub, maybe Smoltz would have signed here. DeRo was one of the players lobbying management hard to sign Smoltz — they were friends from their Braves days.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Wainwright too
I think, though, that is has more to do with picking the winning horse than friendships. If we were the ones six games up, I’m pretty sure Smoltz would be more interested.
Worf - August 19, 2009
Possibly.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Tough decision for Smoltz
Sign with a team that is playing well, has the best player in baseball, and is one of the top teams in the NL.
or…
Sign with a sinking team with one of the most overrated and overpaid players in baseball, one that has had nothing but bad luck, and that is slowly sinking towards Pirate territory.
Tough decision. Can’t understand why he would go to the Cardinals. Hell, if he signed with the Cubs, his arm would probably just explode, taking out Jake Fox with shrapnel.
Ross - August 19, 2009
Especially galling to me
is not showing up in shape.
We can directly trace Zambrano’s second injury to not following the training program. It is NOT unreasonable to think that if Soto had shown up in better shape, he wouldn’t have been injured.
The injuries to Lilly and Ramirez were game-related. The injury to Dempster pissed me off because it was so stupid, but he worked his ass off trying to get back in.
I just do not understand needing to have someone hold your hand and make you work out. I really hope Soto learned his lesson.
Worf - August 19, 2009
I agree...
The one thing, and only one thing, that gives me any hope or solace is the fact that these guys should have a fire lit under them after this season. I expect Soto to come back better, same with Fontenot. I don’t trust Zambrano to follow through on his promises. But the rest of these guys will be embarrassed to the point that they come into the season ready to go, rather than coasting.
Ross - August 19, 2009
I haven't heard anything
that makes me think Fontenot doesn’t give 100 percent.
His 100 percent just isn’t as good as we thought.
Worf - August 19, 2009
It was a mistake...
…to assume Fontenot could be an everyday player based on the part-time play he had before. We saw this with Matt Murton, Corey Patterson and others.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
How was this a mistake?
I am not saying you are wrong, but what did you see that made you think he couldn’t be a full-time player? His statistics have always played out to a league average player, perhaps overmatched by some lefties, but nothing extraordinary. His .320 season was an outlier, but what did you see that caused you to think he would hit .220.
And what would be acceptable? Is .270 with a dozen homers acceptible for Fontenot.
Again, I am not calling you out, but I want to hear your full opinion on this.
Ross - August 19, 2009
IMO...
…the Cubs needed to upgrade the SS or 2b position for sometime. Neither Theriot or Fontenot are stellar defenders (Theriot is really a 2nd baseman) and I don’t think Fontenot’s offensive abilities are strong enouph to offset another mediocre fielder up the middle (where you have to be strong).
I have nothing against the guy, and I think he plays harder than most guys on the team, I just saw signs of him being overmatched at times which let me to believe he would come back to earth big time.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
What makes you so sure Fontenot is a less than stellar defender?
daver - August 19, 2009
My eyes...
…of course it is only my opinion and I could be wrong.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
OK, because (and I know you probably don't want to read this)...
…UZR and RZR both rate him as above average at second base.
daver - August 19, 2009
♪Doctor, my eeeeeeeeeyes . . . .♫
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
Nice job Al.
First and foremost I am a cubs fan and will watch and hope and dare to believe we are going to win.
Second, the injuries have taken a huge toll on this team and in reality may be the single downfall of this team, albeit with bad off season moves. As I said last week in a post, the young players on this team have done their job, from Wells to Hill to Blanco to mid season Jeff Baker.
Third, this team needed Soriano more this year than ever. I put much of the failure directly on him. It is flat out embarrassing to know he is on our roster for what, 5 more years? He has let us down and could have been the guy to have taken over in Aram’s absence, along with professional hitter DLee, to lead this team. He failed.
Last of all, the trades you described are right on. The loss of DeRo we all knew was bad from the start and now the failure of Gregg is something we have to endure. Hendry needs to be blamed just as he does for handing In Dusty We Trusty Baker a rotten lineup in ’06. We should be more consistent than this for $140 million.
I can’t put as much blame as others on Lou. I might be in a minority but as a high school coach of 33 years, all you can do is play what you got and if you ain’t got much, what do you do? Sure he made some blunders, but what hurts worse? Soriano or Pinella. At the end of the season Soriano let this team down the most.
mrcubsfan - August 19, 2009
Couldn't agree more.
While I remain positive that this flawed team can still get in – where absolutely anything can happen – it just grinds me that we can’t beat poor teams like the Padres. Would it kill guys like Bradley and Soriano to dive for a ball in the outfield? There were 2 plays last night in the early innings where just a touch more effort on their part would have gotten an out and saved at least a run.
I think you are spot on with Woody and DeRo. There are no stats to back up their leadership in the clubhouse but it’s no doubt a factor. You think the 2004 Red Sox would have won without some of those “idiots” in their clubhouse? I just don’t understand how you mess with a teams chemistry like Hendry did this past offseason. I’m not going to get too deep into the bro-mance with DeRo b/c it’s been beaten to death here but let me say this…you know the GIDP on a 3-1 count in Game 3 of ‘07 sat with him all offseason and into 2008 and what does he do in Game 1 of ’08? Hits a 2 run homer in his first AB. That’s a guy I want on my team.
Keepin’ the faith…barely…
TeddyThunder - August 19, 2009
Winning produces chemistry
Not the other way around.
And what did all that “great chemistry” get the Cubs in the postseason? Nothing.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
I completely disagree
If you told me before the start of the season that:
Aramis Ramirez was going to miss 2 1/2 months with injury -
Geovany Soto was going to hit .220 and miss a month and a half -
The front four pitchers were going to miss time on the DL, two at the same time -
Mike Fontenot was going to be awarded the 2nd base position and hit .225 -
Alfonso Soriano was going to hit .243
The Bull Pen was going to accumulate 17 blown saves by mid August -
I’d have said this team should be 15 games below .500. We’ve had a lot of players hurt and a lot of players underperform their career averages. management can’t see that kind of stuff coming. It’s a miracle they’re over .500.
This debacle is on the players, 100%.
brianp88 - August 19, 2009
It's somewhere in the middle
Who is the backup?
The first part of this sentence is just as much a problem as the second. And that part is on management.
What was Gregg’s track record coming in?
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
Alfonso Soriano
Let’s face it: Alfonso Soriano stinks. He’s lazy as hell in the outfield, and he is behind in the count 0-1 about 90% of the time. He routinely strikes out on the most ridiculously bad breaking balls. He’s too stupid to think about changing his approach. Right now, he’s the single most overpaid employee in the United States.
Soto can’t get it together, Fontenot is not a first-round caliber player, Milton Bradley (despite his high OBP) is extremely unclutch, and Kevin Gregg is Kyle Farnsworth, except that he doesn’t throw nearly as hard.
Zooty Zoot - August 19, 2009
Re: Third base. The bigger problem, IMHO, was that Fox was not allowed to try playing the position, despite ASKING for the chance. When he finally was given the chance, he performed adequately.
Re: Fontenot – I love these “I told you so” people who will fall all over themselves to say how they knew Fontenot couldn’t be an everyday player. He had a fine season last year and deserved the chance to play everyday. If you thought he was going to fail, yay for you and congratulations. Perhaps you should buy a lottery ticket.
Re: Gregg – 63 saves over two years was his track record. Yes, he had blown some saves, but Rivera and Papelbon weren’t available. What else could you have done. Please don’t say Wood.
Ross - August 19, 2009
he was also tied for the league leader in blown saves last in limited appearances as closer
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
Make this green
It’s all on the players and bad luck
berselius - August 19, 2009
Management...
Created this disaster. They had no back-up plan for any kind of injuries and built such a shaky bullpen. And what about the lack of depth in the rotation, if Randy Wells didn’t come out of nowhere, we’d be even further in a hole.
They made Fontenot the starting 2nd basemen, they went into the year without a backup 3rd baseman, they went into the season without a decent bench or versatile bat off the bench. It’s on the players to perform, but this team was not built to realistically win a championship.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
I do agree that this team lacked depth going into the season - particularly at 3B.
daver - August 19, 2009
After the Corey Koskie...
Experiment didn’t work out, they gave up on the idea of having a backup 3rd baseman.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
Well, they had one in Fox.
But they were too stubborn to try him at 3B until Ramirez was nearly back from his injury.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
One of the bigger gaffes of the season, IMHO.
daver - August 19, 2009
I would agree.
Especially when the guy is begging to try it at Triple-A.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
...and hitting .450 and slugging .750.
It was remarkable that it took so long to figure that out.
D98 - August 19, 2009
As Daver said above
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
Look at the discussions
on BCB at the time. The majority of people were certain that Fox was not capable of playing 3rd defensively. A scout had called him terrible. So it wasn’t just Lou who wasn’t willing to give Fox a chance and get his big bat in the lineup.
tharr - August 19, 2009
And that goes right back to the problem of player evaluation.
The Cubs, including Lou, did not evaluate Jake Fox properly. That is a problem and a problem that, unfortunately, has reared its ugly head far too often.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
I'm not convinced yet that they're wrong.
You don’t really expect guys to break out lof the minors like Fox has at age 27, or learn 3b on the fly when he’s been awful everywhere else he’s played
berselius - August 19, 2009
If given a long stretch of games...
…I do believe Fox’s defense would be exposed as well as his bat. Against big league pitching with advanced scouting reports, I would think Fox’s offensive productivity would suffer.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
He's not going to be a Gold-Glover at 3B by any stretch
But why, when he was crushing the ball at Triple-A and begging to play third base, would the Cubs not at least see what they had there?
That’s the part I find puzzling/troubling. If Mike Fontenot/Aaron Miles was a better 2B/3B combination than Fontenot/Fox, I could understand. But the Cubs, whether through stubbornness or ignorance, failed to use Fox as he could have been used for 2 months while Ramirez was out.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
I don't disagree...
…but let me add this; when you have a situation with a career minor leaguer like Fox, the manager and GM have to intially rely on the reports from the Cub’s minor league people. I am sure the report Lou got about Fox said the guy was a liability in the field, and since Lou has not seen the guy near as much as the minor league people, he has to go off at that – at least to start with.
Why Fox was not playing third at AAA is a very good question. The person that should have made that happen was Hendry, not Piniella. those folks in the minors report and work for Hendry, not Lou.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Right.
And I’d place far more blame on Hendry/Fleita for not getting Fox time at 3B the minute Ramirez went down.
It would have been nice to have the 121 OPS+ in the lineup over Fontenot/Miles.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
agreed, where would this team be without the unexpected emergence of Wells
…and Fox? Fighting with the Reds for 4th place.
JB 23 - August 19, 2009
and thats where I lose it regarding the lack of an owner
I simply cannot believe DeRo gets dealt in essence for gameboard if we have an owner.
How awesome would it be to have that flexibility.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
+ 1
I too completely disagree with Al on this one. brianp88 nails it. It just ain’t are year. We are close enough that, save the Ramirez injury, we would be right in it.
I am disgusted by those who blame this on Hendry, and I am particularly disgusted with those who call for Hendry’s dismissal. Seems you guys missed the fact that we’ve been in the playoffs three times this decade. Seems you guys missed the fact that the Cubs were a bottom tier team for most of the previous, oh, 50 years. Hendry is the best thing to happen to this team since Dallas Green. He deserves far more patience from this fanbase.
I just think it’s unbelievable that Al focuses on a couple of moves that he disagrees with and blames the whole season on that.
MikeIowa - August 19, 2009
"Save the Ramirez injury, we would be right in it"...
So a GM building a team, that completely collapses after it loses one player, is not a failure? He left absolutely no back-up plan to account for an injury to Ramirez, given his history of injuries and DL stints.
Hendry did build teams that made the playoffs in ’07 and ’08, but he has also handcuffed us with ludicrous contracts and no-trade clauses left and right.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
When did we collapse?!?
Last I checked we were a .500 team
MikeIowa - August 19, 2009
And being a .500 team...
Is not a failure for the 2009 Cubs? Going from 97-wins to this disaster is not a collapse? Being 6 games out of the division, possibly more after these 4 games in LA, is what exactly?
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
Mediocrity
. . . which is what you get when a 97-win team gets slammed with injuries and underperformance of its stars.
MikeIowa - August 19, 2009
The Cardinals have had injuries...
The Dodgers have lost people, injuries are just an excuse when you fail to prepare for them. Going from a World Series contender to mediocrity is a collapse.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
The Mets have been slammed with injuries.
The Cubs have had one serious injury (Aramis) causing an extended absence, and the expected series of bumps and bruises which have caused SPs to miss a couple of starts.
Underperformance, sure.
D98 - August 19, 2009
The Angels beg to differ.
cubsforever - August 19, 2009
And let me add . . .
. . . that I’m not saying the team has no holes, and I’m not saying every Hendry move has worked out brilliantly. But what team doesn’t have holes? Are we disgusted because he’s not a seer; that he cannot peer into the future and foretell injuries and performance declines? That he couldn’t patch every hole and have a quality backup for every position?
I just think that’s wildly unfair.
MikeIowa - August 19, 2009
He had no quality backups...
At any position, except maybe for a good defensive backup in Koyie Hill.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
Actually, the outfield was fairly well covered.
The infield, of course, is another matter entirely.
daver - August 19, 2009
Really?
Given Soriano’s and Bradley’s injury histories, our only proven backup Major League OF was Reed Johnson. I can’t call Micah Hoffpauir playing everyday for an extended period of time covering the outfield depth.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
Going into the season...
…the Cubs had Soriano, Fukudome, Reed Johnson, Joey Gathright and Milton Bradley on the 25-man. So we could say:
LF: Soriano/Reed Johnson
CF: Fukudome/Gathright
RF: Bradley/Fukudome
I know everyone hated Gathright, but he was a very good defensive outfielder. And though I didn’t want to see the Hoff anywhere but first base, he probably could’ve played left field serviceably enough if Soriano had gone down – just like Fox could right now. Left field is one position where you have some wiggle room with a defensively poor player.
daver - August 19, 2009
I forgot about Gathright...
But if he had to play the OF for any extended period of time, we’d be doomed (more than we are now). He’s a late inning pinch-runner/defensive replacement only.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
Right, but that's true of almost any backup player.
That’s why they’re backups to begin with.
daver - August 19, 2009
I agree...
But I’ll just say that we were in a better position as far as OF depth last year with Edmonds, Dome, and Soriano, and RJ coming off the bench and DeRosa able to play out there without a loss of productivity at the plate.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
Here's what I haven't missed
Outbidding the Royals by millions to get “power hitter” Jacque Jones.
Signing Bradley to be a slugging RBI hitter, which he has never been.
Signing Aaron Miles, Neifi Perez and Glendon Rusch to two-year deals when the market for one year was questionable for each.
Carrying Perez, Enrique Wilson and Jose Macias at the same time.
Destroying Sosa in the media so they could trade him, effectively destroying his trade value.
Thanks to the reminder from N Oakley, signing Fukudome to be a “power hitter”.
Giving Samardzija $10M and a NTC, then promoting him rapidly despite Samardzija having done nothing to earn it.
Go ahead and be disgusted with me. I am disgusted with Hendry’s talent evaluation, fascination with “toolsy” players and short middle infielders, and penchant for spending like a drunken sailor.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
You missed . . .
2003, 2007, and 2008 (which was the best Cub team since the 30’s.) So go ahead and cherry-pick the deals that didn’t work out and ignore the brilliant deals that built the most successful Cub’s run of our lifetime.
MikeIowa - August 19, 2009
No, I remember those years just fine
2003 was a decent team that got hotter than hell for 6 weeks. 2007 was an ok team; 89 wins is nice but not great.
2008 was the best team in a while. The response to 3 games was to overreact.
As far as most successful Cub run of my lifetime, the bar is set pretty low for that. Clearing it doesn’t mean I’ll accept failure.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
He also spent...
…money like a drunken sailor in 07 and 08 to get those teams. He had to to cover the myriad of mistakes and organizational flaws that have permeated over the years. As in many circumstances, extended spending sprees to build winners bite you in the ass, and that is what is happening right now, especially with Hendry’s poor roster selection.
In my mind, if Hendry and Rothschild survive the ownership change, I will have little to no faith the organization is going in the right direction for long term success, not just short pockets of success. I am hoping beyond hope that Ricketts sees this (or has people who see this) and makes his first move in changing the organizational leadership (GM specifically). Regarding the manager, that person will end up doing as well as the organization is strong above him, and I would trust the new GM to hire whoever they want.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Well said...
I agree you pinned the 2 guys i want gone – Hendry and Rothschild.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
So wait.
The 2008 pitching staff did well under Rothschild. The 2009 staff hasn’t. Frankly, I think he makes no difference at all.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
"Frankly, I think he makes no difference at all"
Then get rid of him and save the money. Why employ folks who make “no difference”. I can be the pitching coach for a lot less money if nothing is expected from me.
cubsnlinux - August 19, 2009
Let's get Smoke to opt...
…out of being a sports agent in SD, and Tony Gwynn out of his coaching/analyst job. There’s two of the best right there.
LeSaboteur - August 19, 2009
1 year AL...
The constant injuries, the horrible miss-management of the bullpen. The fact that we can never seem to get a pitcher to go 7 innings. It is the same song and dance as it was under Dusty – what is the constant? Hmm the pitching coach.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
And i have said it before...
What pitcher has gotten better as a Cub? I guess Dempster? I mean why was Scott Eyre so bad for us and he is been pretty decent for Philly?
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Randy Wells?
Kevin Hart had a nice run at the end there, too. Gorzelanny hasn’t been horrible so far. I guess these all are relatively small samples, though.
daver - August 19, 2009
So wait a minute...
Randy Wells and Kevin Hart have had 1 (ONE) good season….this is their platform for success, if Rothschild stay pitching coach, and they get better, then you are correct. But it is their first season with Rothschild. My contention is that not one pitcher has gotten better as the years have gone on.
I am holding hope for Guzman, but it is tempered by the Marmol success drop off.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Scott Eyre had a bad two-three months
Out of his entire tenure with the Cubs. . . and never saw the mound again.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
Yet some guys get to crap the bed without consequence
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
My point was in response to HIGGY
That Rothschild isn’t Voldemort.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
shh!
dont say his name!
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
Rothschild...
…is not a difference maker at pitching coach, and it is time for an upgrade.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Hendry and Rothschild...
…have been the two consistant pieces through all the Cubs huge ups and downs over the past decade (longer for Hendry). Good baseball organizations should not incur the rollar coaster ride this organization has had, and if there was strength in the right areas, it would happen. Spending large amounts of money can patch for a short duration, but it won’t hide the blemishes forever. I think it is great the Cubs have been willing to spend big money the last several years, but you still have to pick the right pieces and not be spending out of desperation.
It still baffles me how Hendry got away from the formula that propelled the Cubs within 5 outs of the World Series in 03. Clearly, it was by mistake, but he actually got it right and it turned out to be a blessing his 5 tool guy (Patterson) went down mid-season and forced him to make moves. If Patterson would have stayed healthy, the scouting reports would have caught up with him (as they did in 04) and that club never would have made the post-season.
The last 10-15 years have taught us a few things; assuming you make the playoffs, the teams with the best record the last 30-40 games of the season are dangerous. Also, it is critical to have a balanced lineup that can produce runs in a variety of ways (power, contact, OBP and speed). The 03 Cubs of Aug and Sept had this, and it made them more difficult to apply any one scouting report to shut them down. The 07 and 08 Cubs were much more prone to being shut down with a one dimensional scouting report (and a pitcher who executes it) and that is exactly what happened.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Don't forget that it doesn't hurt
to have TWO dominant hard-throwing pitchers.
Mapmaker - August 19, 2009
"most successful run..."
Sadly, I think the 1984-1989 6 year period outranks this most recent run.
Two NLCS appearances in 6 years, with some putrid teams in between, definitely tops 1 NLCS appearance in 6 years and 2 NLDS o-fers, with some putrid teams in between.
At least in the 80’s run, our last-place team (1987) had Hawk winning the MVP, and they were competitive through labor day.
2006 was the most miserable team I’ve ever had to watch. At one point we had 10 second-basemen on the 25-man roster. Who was watching that squad?!
And at least in the 80’s, our NLCS teams were honorable, played the game the right way, and weren’t relying on their juiced-up players to save the day with 3-run shots.
D98 - August 19, 2009
I have to disagree with that
There was no NLDS in 1984 and 1989, so to say they got to two NLCS but 2007 and 2008 didn’t is disingenuous.
Plus, they were competitive (if underacheiving and unlikeable) in 2004.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
It was tougher to make the playoffs in 1984 and 1989, too.
Without the division realignment, the 2007 Cubs would have been a 3rd place team. Of course, the 2008 Cubs would have lost in the NLCS to LA, instead of the NLDS. So I guess that evens out.
Bottom line – in the 80’s, the Cubs were within shouting distance of the pennant twice. In the ‘00s, they’ve been that close once.
D98 - August 19, 2009
Actually...
… had the divisions not been realigned, the Cubs would have wound up playing the Astros in the NLCS in 2008. Of the “old” NL West teams, Houston had the best record in 2008. (Two games better than the Dodgers.)
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Conversely
In the ’00’s, the Cubs won one postseason series. In the ’80’s, they won zero.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
That's certainly true.
I suppose they were pretty equivalent six-year runs.
The difference now being, that the Cubs have decided to take advantage of the inequities inherent in the system, and after this run, should be able to avoid the long fallow period they had in the 1990s.
D98 - August 19, 2009
Spending Like A Drunken Sailor
I’d much rather have my team spend like a drunken sailor than not spend $ at all, like the Pirates of the world.
brianp88 - August 19, 2009
Spending just for the sake of spending is stupid
How about using those dollars wisely?
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
I am with you Shanghai
Spending money to just spend money is foolish. He spending has put the Cubs in the bind that they are in. Want to try to trade Dome, Bradley, Soriano, Dempster, Miles, not going to happen.
And I am tired of hearing the Ramirez excuse, sure he is excellent hitter, but freaking enough. Teams work through injuries, every team gets them.
Grockcubs - August 19, 2009
Yep
The Cardinals lost their ace earlier, a shortstop, and two third basemen for an extended peroid of time.
Sure, losing Ramirez hurt. But that’s not been the only issue.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
I'll say this until I...
…am blue in the face, but trying to trade Dome is foolish. To suggest so, you would have to be out of your mind.
He may not be Ichiro (and may never be), but he is a highly solid player, a core player to build a devastating outfield. He plays ++defense, and has had a very productive second half. Keep this up in Year 3, and you’ll have a monster of an outfielder.
LeSaboteur - August 19, 2009
Speaking of the Pirates
Our road out of this mess probably runs through Pittsburgh again. They just acquired a bunch of young players. Eventually, those players are going to hit arbitration (in 2-3 years, generally), and Pittsburgh will want to unload the good ones instead of paying them.
What I’m saying is, Andrew McCutchen would look pretty nice in pinstripes, along with Alderson and Clement. And all we’ll have to trade Pittsburgh are some more 20-year-old prospects! And if those work out, we can get them back three years later, too!
D98 - August 19, 2009
You know what sucks more than the Cubs right now? MLB.TV
I’m getting up pretty early these days, so my plan for this week is to not even try to watch the games and do everything in my power to NOT learn the results of the game the next morning. I wanted to be able to come into work in the morning and watch the condensed game first thing. I was assured by an MLB rep on Twitter that condensed games are posted within 90 minutes of the game airing.
So it worked just fine yesterday (even though a co-worker spoiled the game for me when I walked into the office). But this morning there is NO condensed game posted and, when I tried to watch the entire WGN video broadcast, my media player froze up in the second inning and then, inexplicably, went back to the very beginning of the game.
And when I tried to re-start the media player, it wouldn’t work at all – just sat there forever “loading” the game. Finally I just gave up and looked at the frickin’ score. After seeing that, I suppose I got off easy.
daver - August 19, 2009
The good news is that you haven't really missed anything worth watching.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
My plan seemed so flawless - naturally, MLB found a way to screw me over anyway.
daver - August 19, 2009
I may be labeled a heretic for saying this and cast out from BCB forever...
..but truth is, I thought Blanks’ inside-the-park home run was worth watching. To see a guy that big move around the bases that fast was pretty entertaining. And it’s not like he was gasping for air, waving for the oxygen mask afterwards. The dude’s an athlete.
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Kinda like Soto's inside-the-park HR last season in Houston?
daver - August 19, 2009
Oh, if we all could have jobs like that… ;-)
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Hey, I was checking and responding to e-mails at the time!
And condensed games are only, like, 15 minutes long.
daver - August 19, 2009
Effort
Just watching the first few innings last night, it looked like both Soriano and Bradley had chances to make difficult catches to prevent runs.
While neither one seems to get good jumps on flares and sinking liners, perhaps diving and selling out for your teammates would send a positive message and at least show that the big-money players on this team are interested in winning games.
Would either one have made a catch? Who knows. But if either one of them was willing to sell out for the benefit of the team, maybe that helps rally the troops.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
Yeah how many times do we have to hear
“he didn’t really get a good jump” ?
tony412 - August 19, 2009
Great question.
In Bradley’s case, I could understand not diving – if the ball gets by, 2 runs score instead of 1 (though I think he still needs to lay out).
With Soriano, it was a flare – it’s not going to roll particularly far past him if he misses it, and at worst, 1 run will score and there will be a man on 2nd/3rd with 2 outs instead of 1st.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
If you're talking about the 1st inning thing...
Yeah, I think I’ll give Milton the benefit of the doubt there. That early in the game, you’ve got to play it safe.
Of course, his throw to the plate was about 100 feet off line…
Worf - August 19, 2009
Yeah, I'm willing to give Milton a pass there in the 1st.
I can understand the reason for playing it on the hop.
Soriano’s play was the one that made it 3-1, I think. I didn’t see any reason why he couldn’t dive there.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
Milton did the right thing
I think the pitching staff can handle one of those a game. I think you would start to get ticked beyond that…. Anyone can chase down a ball.
truelinkfence - August 19, 2009
I was at the game with a friend
and we were trying to remember one example of Soriano laying out for a ball. Has he ever dove? Has he ever dove and made the catch?
paulucla - August 19, 2009
hop is required
Its in his contract. I almost forget this guy is even on the team.
truelinkfence - August 19, 2009
Here's a question,
The other day someone posted that Soriano does the hop as a timing mechanism to catch the ball. Anybody ever been taught a timing mechanism for catching a fly ball? At first I accepted it, then I went back and thought about it, and I said, hold on a second here.
Marttisdad - August 19, 2009
Thats what I understand the hop to be
Not sure why?? or what purpose it would serve. Instinct is a wonderful thing IMHO.
truelinkfence - August 19, 2009
That's what's so funny
It seems to go against all logic usually taught for catching a fly ball.
Marttisdad - August 19, 2009
I don't think Soriano was "taught" the hop.
I believe it’s something he came up with on his own to make himself more comfortable catching fly balls.
daver - August 19, 2009
In which case wouldn't he do the hop
on more difficult fly balls and not on the easy ones?
Marttisdad - August 19, 2009
No, because easy fly balls...
…usually take longer to get to him. I think it’s during those long moments when Alfonso is waiting for a routine fly ball to reach him that he gets anxious (for lack of a better word), and he uses the hop to channel some of that nervous energy. On harder hit fly balls, he’s too busy running and stretching for the ball to feel the same sort of anxiousness.
daver - August 19, 2009
Interesting idea
I’ll stick to my thought that he’s weird, ha
Marttisdad - August 19, 2009
Well, he's definitely a, uh, "unique" player.
daver - August 19, 2009
With all that energy
one would think he would DIVE!
truelinkfence - August 19, 2009
It's not timing - it's a security blanket.
The Cubs have an $18M outfielder on the MLB roster who needs to hop in order to feel comfortable catching a fly ball.
And we signed him to be a centerfielder.
D98 - August 19, 2009
Honestly, the hop is the least of Soriano's problems - and the Cubs for that matter.
And was he really signed to be a centerfielder? I know the Cubs tried it briefly at first, but that seemed like an outside chance to begin with.
daver - August 19, 2009
Agreed about the hop - I could not care less.
I just find it kind of odd that an MLB player does something that would earn a highschool kid some extra time after practice every night.
Yes, Soriano was signed to be our centerfielder – I also find that odd, considering that the Cubs are an MLB organization and presumably employ scouts who should have been able to tell our general manager that Soriano had never played CF in over 900 career games to that point, and that he was a pretty mediocre LF, too, and a bit of a head-case about catching fly balls.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/cubs/2007-04-01-bonus-soriano-cover_N.htm
“The five-time All-Star, whose image is splashed on a huge billboard in downtown Chicago, signed an eight-year, $136 million free agent contract to lead off, play center field and spark an offense that was among the more inefficient attacks in the NL in 2006.
…
Soriano opens the season as the center fielder — another question. A year ago he balked at the move from second base to left field before accepting it. Now he is willingly adapting to another change.
“It’s not too different to play center field now. … I have one year experience in the outfield,” he says. “It’s my second year. I feel more comfortable and more relaxed.”
D98 - August 19, 2009
Hm, yeah, I guess the plan was to have a Murton-Soriano-Jones OF in '07.
Seems so long ago now.
daver - August 19, 2009
I think the hop at this point
is as much a habit as that weird glove thing Dempster does before each pitch. It may have started as a good idea — apparently Dempster did it to avoid tipping pitches — but now it’s just a habit
Worf - August 19, 2009
Actually it is taught
With no apologies to No. 12 whose play speaks for itself, infielders are taught to take throws and have their feet moving in a manner in which they get set to throw. It’s a short little crow hop, much shorter and quicker than OF’ers use, but it is taught and it is common, particularly when you watch college infielders throw the ball around the horn.
It isn’t taught as a timing mechanism to catch fly balls but Soriano’s background as a middle infielder is apparently why he does it. LIke a lot of middle infielders, it’s more comfortable than playing catch flat-footed.
krummy12 - August 19, 2009
Well, there ya go.
daver - August 19, 2009
Never. Ever. Not once, at least in Chicago.
chilango2 - August 19, 2009
It's going to be a weird next couple of years.
It seems like this team is mediocre, there’s not a tonne of high end talent in the minors, they certainly don’t want to go to the bottom to start over. It’s going to be very difficult for this team to build towards a true winner.
They remind me of so many hockey teams in the NHL. In hockey, you have teams that are always great, and just know how to do it, but a lot of other teams have to go to the basement to build through the draft and add impact players.
Problem of course is the difference in the NHL and MLB draft.
Marttisdad - August 19, 2009
berselius - August 19, 2009
Reply fail.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
All Aboard the Fail Train!
Nice to have you on board, Al. Can I get you anything to drink? What?
Oh I forgot to read the last paragraph.
EamuCanoli - August 19, 2009
It's very clear to anyone with 1/2 a brain, on how to fix this team...
WE NEED TO GET MORE RIGHT-HANDED!!!
digitalbenjamin - August 19, 2009
What if we really shake things up
Let’s skip right handed, skip left handed, skip switch hitting, what if we go ambi-dextrous?
Marttisdad - August 19, 2009
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
How about...
Screw left-handed, screw right-handed… and just get guys that could flat out hit? Crazy.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
YOU JUST FIGURED IT OUT!!!
All screw ball pitchers!
Marttisdad - August 19, 2009
Soriano
must be plaed on waivers. The Cubs really need to to bring in the young kids that have shown they can play big league ball. (Fuld, Fox, ) Cubs need to stress feilding fundementals and speed. I don’t see why they can’t build around Lee, Ramirez, Fukudome, Bradley, Wells, Lilly, Marmol (hopefully) etc… Dump him and change uniforms.
questdoc - August 19, 2009
Not. That. Simple.
daver - August 19, 2009
I'd bet anything that he's already passed through waivers.
It’s pretty likely that Hendry put the whole roster through waivers on Aug. 1 – either no claims were made, or claims were made on players who we then clawed back.
In any case, there is no way anyone would ever take the Soriano contract off Hendry’s hands. We’d probably have to include a top prospect and $10M annually.
D98 - August 19, 2009
Thank you.
I will work to make this green.
Though if Soriano was claimed, Hendry could just say “take him.” Which is probably why Soriano passed through waivers unclaimed.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
I will help make it green
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
and three makes green
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
tville, please read this
daver - August 19, 2009
TRADE HIM FOR LIND
VillanuevaExperience - August 19, 2009
Most Untradeable Player in Baseball In A Bad Way
With that fat contract having five more years on it, nobody wants Soriano.
memphiscub - August 19, 2009
Marmol is going to close?
Wow. Well, maybe that is designed to motivate him to get through the control issues? or just the last act of desperation on the sinking ship.
The offense took a huge hit with the Aramis injury but it might have weathered it better if they at least were quicker at using Fox at 3B.
I don’t think there is any way that the team can withstand the disappearance of the Soriano torrid hot streaks, and MB’s LH power, unless they had a guy like Derosa, too.
I give Pinella credit for not letting the MB thing explode, working with him, and helping him remain a solid contributor in No. 2 slot. However, not sure why Dome is continually cast as an RBI guy instead of leadoff hitter? Also give Pinella credit for batting Soriano down and leaving him there.
Bright spots this season have been Wells, Hill, Guzman, Lee’s return,and that it looks like Fukudome is a decent player.
I am not going to make the same mistake with Soriano and MB that I did with Lee, so I am going to expect a return of power from both. It’d be great if we had two young studs that could push them out but at least if MB under performs power wise he won’t be here that much longer.
Finally, your comments on the Cardinals’ players comments on Derosa reminded me that Cubs players were making those same comments on his return to play v. Cubs. I was more perplexed that MB was making comments about what a great guy Derosa was and how the clubhouse liked him so much, etc…I don’t know how much it matters but when the replacements don’t produce as expected it then becomes a bigger issue and that’s primarily what has happened with the Cubs this season.
I give Hendry/Pinella credit for making roster changes (although too slowly) to improve the depth. But the real issue for the O has been lack of power from 4 guys expected to bring it. 2 are primarily due to injury (one of those to laziness) and the other 2 are a mystery.
I am hoping still for a hot streak but 2nd best is staring to become my priority ( .500 finish).
DudeVf11 - August 19, 2009
Despite feel rather depressed about our chances....
…we shall fight on the grass and dirt,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Team, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the basepaths,
we shall fight on the pitchers mounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the stands,
we shall fight in the box;
we shall never surrender…
With my apologies to Winston Churchill
eths - August 19, 2009
but the cubs are a bunch of inglourious basterds this year
cubsgocubs - August 19, 2009
You surely don't mean....
eths - August 19, 2009
You have GOT to understand the concept of NSFW
You’re just being inconsiderate at this point. Stop it.
And by the way, you’re nowhere near as good at this as santoswoodenlegs.
Worf - August 19, 2009
Few people are.
Doesn’t mean they can’t work at it.
Flatley - August 19, 2009
+1
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
Not mocking, seriously asking....
Is that really Not Safe For your Work?
Maybe i’m naive (i work in marketing at a concert and theatrical promoter, so i regularly have art of questionable ‘work safeness’ come across my desk)… but there seems to be nothing there offensive other than maybe the “Bastard”… but i think we see worse than that in the text of comments very regularly here.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
It's the smoking I bet.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
Half-naked woman
It could be safe. Could be not. The point is, I don’t know.
And it’s not the first time this poster has done that.
Worf - August 19, 2009
Fair enough... different work places, different rules.
I was just confused to see this image, of all the stuff we see up here, draw attention.
The average window card for “Chicago the Musical”, which i spent the better part of two months last year working on seems far more provocative.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
I call for some restraint!!
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
At first glance, "BASTARD" in 36 pt bold font...
…is probably going to be more offensive than “fuck” in 10 pt regular font.
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
You cussed
I’m telling…
j/k obviously.
chilango2 - August 19, 2009
Oh, I've pretty much given up on my "why do you feel the need to type-swear" crusade here
People have taken a pretty liberal interpretation of Al’s “I don’t mind the occasional fuck” policy, and evidently anytime the Cubs blow a game or Miles does anything is free license to let loose like a drunken sailor, so I guess I’ve reached the point where I just gotta say “fuck it”. ;-)
So those of you out there who were holding back out of respect for me (and there have been a few), I appreciate it and thank you for it, but it’s no longer necessary. Let ’er rrrrrrrrrip!!!
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Yeah!
May I say, fuck yeah! even.
chilango2 - August 19, 2009
I dub this review..
… the Drunken Sailor thread.
I think i’ve seen it a half dozen times.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
I blame myself
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
Dang, the hiccups didn't post.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
this is safe for any workplace
show me an employee handbook that says “no pics of women wearing dresses”
joeschmitt - August 19, 2009
Then get back to work.
What a silly thing to complain about.
stuartscottslefteye - August 19, 2009
huh?
So where is the problem? If you feel offended, that was not my intention.
eths - August 19, 2009
♪♫ Aces high!!! ♪♫
daver - August 19, 2009
Iron Maiden?
Excellent!
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
Always think of that song when I read that Churchill speech.
daver - August 19, 2009
And tonight, opening for Iron Maiden...
Wyld Stallions!
I sometimes think of that movie when I hear Iron Maiden.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
Yeah, a late 80s classic.
I saw Megadeth open for Maiden once.
daver - August 19, 2009
That had to have been good
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
Y'know, I don't even listen to metal that much anymore...
…but I’d probably still rank that as among the Top 5 concerts I’ve ever seen. Just two bands totally committed to their music and completely locked onto their audience.
daver - August 19, 2009
Still Going Strong Too
I saw maiden last year and megadeth this summer and they were both amazing with iron maiden being one of the best shows i have ever seen.
hoppy91 - August 19, 2009
Supertramp included an actual recording of Churchill giving that speech in one of their songs
I think it was on the Even in the Quietest Moments album. Awesome album, awesome song, and one kickass of a speech.
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
One of the most underrated bands of all time
Wonder why…
chilango2 - August 19, 2009
Have we really played 5 games in SD this year?
Cubs and Hawks fan - August 19, 2009
Yup...
Tonight will be the 6th.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
swept there in late may
p/o the 8-game losing streak.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
So if the Cubs don't win tonight...
daver - August 19, 2009
... Add it to the long list of disappointments that have made up this '09 season.
Blue W - August 19, 2009
Blue W
pretty much summed it up…
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
How is that though?
I though we play SD 7 times this year, with 3 being in CHI or SD and the other 4 in CHI or SD….thats how it normally works when we play a team outside of the NL Central.
Cubs and Hawks fan - August 19, 2009
No, it's nine games.
There’s usually one outside-the-division team the Cubs play three times. This year, it’s San DIego.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Even the years they play 18 interleague games?
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
Hmmm.
Hadn’t considered that. I’d have to look at schedules.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Is there any way to get rid of Soriano in off season without getting totally screwed?
cubsgocubs - August 19, 2009
No.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
Define totally screwed
We’re already screwed by having him, so how bad could it be?
Itchy - August 19, 2009
Agreed completely.
The trade, in and of itself, would be awful. Either taking on a Chan-Ho level contract, or sending $50M to the taker, and receiving nothing in return.
However, if the Cubs could save enough $$ from the $90M still owed to Sori to allow them to sign a better player, I’d be all for it.
D98 - August 19, 2009
There's one way, but it's a long shot.
The Cubs can place Soriano on irrevocable waivers in the offseason. If any team claims him, he is the property of the claiming team, contract and all.
The Red Sox did it to put Manny Ramirez in his place in 2002 or 2003.
Bill Potter - August 19, 2009
I'm all for this
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
Nothing will happen, but a message will certainly be sent.
I, for one, wouldn’t mind shaking things up in that regard, just to see what happens.
D98 - August 19, 2009
Messages
Lou sent a message to him earlier this season by benching him for multiple games. The response? He pouted just the same way he did when Washington moved him to LF and he complained that when he was healthy, he should be playing.
Until his pride is attacked with more regularity than that, the guy will continue to produce just the way he is right now. Lazy, apathetic and oblivious that his skills have significantly declined. Never a good combination.
krummy12 - August 19, 2009
berselius - August 19, 2009
There's always next year
Even if I do disagree about the chances of this team to do anything this year, there’s always next year. While I’ve been pretty vocal about the negative, I’m going to go over the positives that I’ve seen this season.
1) Derrek Lee: While he can never repeat his 2005 season, Lee has practically carried this team on his back. Forget the jabs about DP Lee. He’s figured it out. Here’s hoping he has a good 2010 season.
2) Ryan Theriot: What can I say about him? People complain about his arm at short, but his bat isn’t the problem.
3) Jeff Baker: Jim Hendry has a knack for getting little pieces to help the team. Baker is this season’s version of Reed Johnson and I wouldn’t mind having him stay in Chicago.
4) Ted Lilly: He was our lone All-Star representative and I like to think if he hadn’t caught the injury bug himself, the Cubs would be in better fortunes right now.
5) Kosuke Fukudome: If Lou ever stuck with a good thing instead of shifting the lineup like a drunken sailor, then we’d have our regular leadoff hitter. Fukudome had a second-half skid in 2008, earning the nickname Flukudome. He’s shown that he can adjust in the majors and I’m glad he’s on the team.
6) Jake Fox: I’m not going to say he’s the future, but he’s been a big part of this team’s attempt at contending this year.
Now on to the rehashed negatives:
1) Aaron Miles: Stick a fork in him. He’s done.
2) Milton Bradley: This is a strange negative because what he does is important for winning ball games. However, Hendry signed him to be a left-handed power bat. As Bradley’s splits show this season, he’s a right handed batter that can bat switch. He hasn’t produced in the RBI department because he’s not that type of player. This was a horrible move because we didn’t need more OBP guys.
3) Alfonso Soriano: I wouldn’t trade 2007 and 2008 for anything, but Soriano is likely in his decline phase now unless he figures out how to change his approach. From what we’ve seen, it’s not likely.
4) Mike Fontenot: Mike got his shot and he blew it. He’s a backup infielder at best and a starter for the Nats or Pirates at worst.
5) Geovany Soto: Soto took a nosedive after his remarkable 2008 season. He showed up out of shape and rode the bench in the WBC. Hopefully this season was a fluke. His 2008 campaign earns him one more chance in 2010.
6) Injury bug: Aramis Ramirez’s shoulder injury made me proclaim the season was over and this was back in May. How we missed his bat in June when we were in the midst of a horrible skid. His bat is worth quite a few wins by itself because we were getting stellar starting pitching at that point. That, in my opinion, is what has come back to haunt us at this point. The Cardinals were able to take advantage and get Matt Holliday and Mark DeRosa before the trade deadline, effectively fixing their problems and allowing them to overtake the Cubs. Think about it. Aramis fields the ball in Milwaukee without shoulder trouble. Where would the Cards be right now? If the Cards win the World Series, they should send Aramis Ramirez a thank you note. That’s right. Geovany Soto and many others have spent time on the DL as well.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
I didn't include the bullpen because I'd be writing all day.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
You forgot...
Randy Wells as a huge positive.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
Right
I didn’t exactly spend hours writing that.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
Good analysis...
Nonetheless.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
I think you ought to trust your gut and reconsider negative #2
If MB failed at being a LH power bat and didn’t do anything else, then yes – he’d be a huge negative. But it sure seems like he could be and is quite effective as an OBP machine at the top of the order. With a healthy Lee and Ramirez following behind, that’s pretty durn good.
I don’t see how you can say “we don’t need more OBP guys”. Sounds like a Dustyism. We can always use more OBP – I don’t care if they’re all a bunch of slaphappy single hitters – 8 guys with OBP approaching .400 is going to get a lot of runs, and frustrate the hell out of the other teams.
I understand MB isn’t doing what we (Jimbo) signed him up for. But he is doing something else that is (or should be) contributing to the team’s success – what little there is.
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
The only thing better than a lineup with a bunch of high OBP guys
is a lineup with a bunch of high OBP guys that can run.
Good Dusty reference.!
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
We play SD 9 times this year
and 6 are in SD? Who does the scheduling?
Cubs and Hawks fan - August 19, 2009
Been like that for years
Either it’s 18 interleague games for NLC teams or there’s extras against other NL teams not necessarily in your division.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
Yep
Same thing happened with SD a few years ago, and with Atlanta (I think) last season. The Cardinals, for example, made two trips to New York this year and played the Mets nine times overall.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
My Two Cents -- For Whatever They Are Worth
While I was cleaning out my desk, I came across my opinions —
DeRosa was moved to make room for Milton’s contract — understandable in the off season from a financial point of view. However, allowing him to return to the NL and to the Cardinals no less, only magnified the financial constraints that the Cubs are feeling from the ever pending sale. The Deadbirds only gave up a marginal ballplayer in Perez. Where was Hendry in all of this? All things considered, I think that Cleveland would have taken the 3 guys that they gave the Cubs when DeRo was shipped to them earlier.
Trading for Heilman — What in the world possessed Hendry to trade for this guy? Listen — last year the Mets arguably had one of the worst bullpens in all of baseball. That’s why they signed Rodriguez and traded for JJ Putz. One of the biggest contributors to that failure was the production of Heilman. What was GM Jim thinking? Did one of his sources know a medicine man with some strange healing powers? Well, guess what, fire the medicine man.
While on the subject of medicine men — and training — what the heck is going on with the coaching staff and trainers? First of all with Soto. I constantly read in this blog that he came to spring training out of shape. So — GET HIM IN SHAPE. Put him on a regimen that ensures that he gets back to the physical condition that he was in during 2008. I just don’t understand. Then how about Big Z. He outed himself the other day, saying that he was lazy and did not recognize the need to do the things necessary to keep himself in playing shape. He needed to do some things that he didn’t like to do.
WHAT ??? Aren’t the ptiching coach and the training staff supposed to make sure that the players are folloiwng some type of regimen? Listen — if I have millions and millions of dollars invested in an employee, I would damn well make sure that he was doing the right things that he need to be ready for the job that I was paying him to do.
That leads me to Larry Rothschild — or preferably away from him as the Cubs should do.
The Big Z thing is only the icing on the cake. We banter continuously about Marmol. What about Larry helping him correct his problems? That’s what they have film for — look at what he did last year and compare it to what has been going on all season.
A few additional thoughts about General Jim and his decision making — and this includes his talent evaluators and scouts. Based on past performance, trading for Heilman was a huge mistake. Signing Bradley was showed more as a move of desperation rather than one with considerable thought. Given Milton’s past and his temperment, why would you want to bring him into your house knowing that he could easily get off track as he did earlier in the season. His early in season reactions to the fans and the media, I truly believe led to his continued poor performance for the first 3 months of the season. He ceratainly acted more like Jacque Jones and LaTroy Hawkins wheh it came to handling the media and fans. Can an insider tell us how his actions affect team chemistry and the overall attitude of the team?
Now on the Lou — I stated earlier in the summer that I thought that he was ready to return to Tampa. My opinion has not changed one bit since then. His continued insistence to use subpar performers like Heilman, Miles, and Gregg boggles the mind.
His continuing poor choice in lineup management — like Monday night when he kept Baker on the bench and played little Mikey. For crying out loud, Baker was hitting almost .500 for a week and he doesn’t play him? His continued insistence on playing Fontenot,, Miles, and others at 3B while Aram was out instead of bringing up and letting Fox play. And let’s not go to the defense thing, we needed a bat — a bat — a bat. Bradley, Soriano, and Soto were contributing absolutely nothing. And the Cubs are worrying about Fox’s defense? Give me a break.
And I will never forget the TV moment when Lou looked over at Charlie Manual and with a wave of his hands seemed to be saying — what are two old guys like us doing here instead of having a pina colada on my front porch in Tampa? Or better yet, maybe Lou could just go to the Rays games and sit behind home plate with Don Zimmer and tell each other old baseball stories. I think the time for that senior moment is long overdue.
ceegeewow - August 19, 2009
¶
daver - August 19, 2009
this should be a FanShot
berselius - August 19, 2009
WORF SHOT!
Worf - August 19, 2009
He could use the "quote" format - it would be awesome.
daver - August 19, 2009
I didn't get past the "...only gave up a marginal ballplayer in Perez." part
a) Perez is not “marginal”, and
b) there was a PTBNL in that deal and he (Jess Todd) is definitely not marginal.
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
I'm glad Al finally said what needed to be said.
I only want to add two things.
(1) I disagree about Kerry Wood. He’s had as bad a year as any closer in baseball. There’s no reason to believe he woul’ve done better with the Cubs. However, Kevin Gregg was the closer with the most blown saves last season. What made Hendry or Lou think this season would be different? Bad signing, regardless of whether Wood stayed or not.
(2) I’m surprised Al didn’t mention the biggest bust of all this season. Alfonso Soriano disappeared from the face of the Earth this season. It’s as if a clone with no talent was put in his place in RF this year. As proven in past seasons, and the playoffs, as Soriano goes so do the Cubs. Thus, this wasted season.
Unlike Al, I’m convinced this year is done. There’s no reason to believe that these players will behave diferently from now on. They are who they are. Even the Padres play better. It’s up to the new ownership to see if they can improve a team with a bloated payroll, with no financial flexibility.
Fraggin Judge - August 19, 2009
Disagree with you on a few points, Al
“Therefore, a useful fifth starter (Jason Marquis) and a valuable hitter (Mark DeRosa) were traded and Milton Bradley was acquired.”
Hendry could have signed Milton while keeping DeRosa (and maybe Marquis — see below).
Keeping DeRo would have been accomplished by not signing Miles ($2+plus mill), not signing Gaudin (around $2 mill) and not signing Gathright ($800,000). DeRo makes $5.5 million this year — and I’m confident another $500,000 or so could have been found to keep him if these other horrible moves weren’t made.
Milton and DeRo could be on this team right now, Period.
I also think the Dempster signing needs to come under more scrutiny. I know everybody likes Demp and that he has gone through a lot of personal issues this year. But committing $9 million to him this year — and $43 million over the next three years was a terrible decision.
The Cubs could have kept Marquis, whose salary they’re paying part of anyway, not signed Dempster, had more money that could have been used for many other purposes in 2009 and (most importantly) had financial flexibility for 2010. I’m not an advocate of blowing the team up, but how are they going to make incremental moves with SO many guys locked up for next season?
I love Kerry Wood, but we can’t assume he would have taken less than $10 million to stay with the Cubs, and we can’t assume that he would have performed better just because he lives in Chicago. I don’t have any problem with the decision to let him go — but I totally agree that Kevin Gregg was a terrible replacement.
Finally, I don’t think we can give Hendry (or Lou) credit for bad decisions that allowed for the emergence of Randy Wells, Jake Fox or Jeff Baker. Fox and Wells were midseason callups, and Baker was a trade made after the offseason moves started to look bad. Had the Cubs acquired Baker in spring training — realizing that Ramirez might need more of a backup — then this is a different argument.
Even if Hendry’s offseason decisions looked better six months ago, he’s GOT to be judged by the results. And they aren’t there.
There are a lot of other things to talk about — Soto’s inexcusable decision to be out of shape, Soriano, Lou’s increasingly questionable decisions. But I’ll end here.
elgato - August 19, 2009
Agreed on all fronts.
Although I think that Al is correct that the Cubs front office tied the DeRosa and Bradley situations together in their minds. It is, as you note, an objective fact that keeping DeRosa would have been revenue-neutral, even if Bradley were added. Doesn’t the Gathright Era seem like a long time ago?
The real irony is that, if Miles is unconditionally released prior to the 2010 season, he will wind up costing the Cubs exactly the same money that they would have paid DeRosa, over exactly the same time period.
I can’t blame them for ditching Marquis. I agree that the Dempster signing was a bit gaudy and outlandish. The bottom line is, this front office has been given every advantage in an unfair system, and has failed pretty spectacularly.
D98 - August 19, 2009
Aye
This season was also put through the meat grinder when Aramis Ramirez went down in May. I stated above that this was likely the moment where it went down the tubes because his bat could have made the different during that skid in June.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
the Miles signing was tied to the DeRo trade
And why in the hell did they tender dumpster-fighting Gaudin a contract?
As much as I personally like Dempster, Hendry overpaid by a lot — and should have kept Marquis because he would have had money to play with in 2010.
elgato - August 19, 2009
Agreed on Gaudin.
That was a real head-scratcher. Non-tendering him could have saved almost $2 million.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Which comes back to the need for a new GM
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
Yes. I'd forgotten about that one.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
It's kind of remarkable how cavalier they are with Two Million Dollars
I know that the Cubs are a huge organization, but no matter who you are, two million dollars is just a gigantic amount of money. It’s a life-changing amount of money. I don’t understand how the Cubs organization can be so cavalier with such large amounts of money.
D98 - August 19, 2009
I'd say they're inconsistently cavalier
$2 million for Gaudin? Sure! $2.2 million for Aaron Miles! Definitely!
$5.5 million for DeRo? Well, that’s a lot of money.
elgato - August 19, 2009
A lot of little bottles make one big bottle
Just remember that when you’re hitting the booze. It’s the same thing with money.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
Yes, but that's more than $2M. (sarcasm)
They don’t seem to understand that $2M + $2.2M is in the neighborhood.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
Now I'll make you angrier
Change the $2.2M for Miles to $4.9 cuz he has $2.7M for 2010 and I’m pretty sure it’s NOT an option.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
Oh, I know
I was just talking 2009 money.
elgato - August 19, 2009
Agreed. I don't see why:
Miles couldn’t have been Scales and/or Blanco, and Gathright couldn’t have just been Felix Pie.
daver - August 19, 2009
Gathright could have been Sam Fuld, too.
Oh, wait. He is.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
response to my post, Al?
elgato - August 19, 2009
Well, I agree with a lot of what you said.
It just goes to back up my point that Hendry and Piniella made changes to this team that didn’t need to be made, and could have accomplished the same result while keeping some key parts that they got rid of.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
I'm just really tired ...
of hearing that Milton’s presence was the reason we lost DeRo. It definitely wasn’t.
What about the Dempster contract? Still a fan?
elgato - August 19, 2009
I'm certainly not, but it wasn't the worst deal
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
It was last offseason's most expensive
elgato - August 19, 2009
It's all the little deals that followed the Dempster deal that sucked
Signing Bradley, Aaron Miles, picking up the option on Rich Harden’s contract, Joey Gathright, Chad Gaudin, etc. Meanwhile, DeRosa was traded. Wood was let go in free agency. Nothing was done to address the left-handed power issue even though Bradley was supposed to be that guy. How useful would Raul Ibanez have been when Ramirez went down due to his shoulder injury?
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
Ibanez couldn't have played right
Now, that Abreu guy could. And Orlando Hudson sure would have looked nice as a Cub this year.
elgato - August 19, 2009
Maybe, but we're arguing the same thing
The Dempster signing wasn’t a big deal by itself. They did not address their problems whatsoever. Instead, they just made them worse.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
I think the Dempster signing was a big deal by itself
$52 million
elgato - August 19, 2009
I have no idea why they didn't pursue Abreu
other than they thought the money was going to be higher than MB.
OH I understood was since he was type-A they’d have to give up higher draft picks.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
Raise your hand if you forsaw the FA market collapsing last October
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
raise your hand if you knew ...
that the Cubs had tons of money on the books in the coming seasons — and if you thought committing $52 million to a guy after one very good season was a good idea.
elgato - August 19, 2009
Who else was going to pitch for them?
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
as I said earlier, I would have kept Marquis
Rotation of Z, Harden, Lilly, Marquis, Marshall.
And there’s that Wells guy — though I understand why he wasn’t being considered at the time.
elgato - August 19, 2009
I guess we'll agree to disagree
I’ve never been convinced Marshall has the stamina to be a full-time starter, but that’s just my opinion.
I had no issue with trading Marquis, but a return would have been nice.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
once we signed Dempster ...
it looked like Marquis would be traded. I’m just saying the moves didn’t pay off.
elgato - August 19, 2009
I can't disagree with that
However, I had no issue with signing Dempster at the time, so I can’t fault it now.
I still believe the Cubs will get at least market value over the life of that deal.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
I hope you're right
But I don’t think you will be.
elgato - August 19, 2009
Nothing wrong with that statement
We’ll see what happens.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
It's all Miles' fault...
But seriously, we needed to get more left-handed there, and now the only guy who can hit in that spot is Jeff Baker… a righty.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
Yeah, that would've worked, too...
…though I think Felix may still be a better overall defender. I think he’s faster and has a stronger arm.
daver - August 19, 2009
the Cubs gave up on Pie
but there were other cheap alternatives to Gathright.
elgato - August 19, 2009
I don't really understand that, either.
Even if he’s never going to be a star, he had positive attributes, and was making the MLB minimum for some time. He could have been a valuable piece, just by virtue of his tiny salary and CF abilities.
I mean, for all the trouble they went through signing the kid at age 17, nurturing and coaching him to great success at every rung in the minor league system… they certainly seem to have bailed on him quickly.
But hey, it was all part of assembling the pieces to get Aaron Heilman.
D98 - August 19, 2009
ugh -- forgot about that
What’s Heilman making? There’s more money for the DeRo/Milton fund.
elgato - August 19, 2009
You're forgetting the $5mm to Kevin Gregg
berselius - August 19, 2009
Well, some closer was definitely getting that money.
They were going to sign a vet arm, without question.
D98 - August 19, 2009
It's $4.2 million
according to ESPN. But point taken.
elgato - August 19, 2009
This is the Cubs
Are we surprised by front office incompetence. I wonder how drunk Philip Wrigley got when he saw how good Joe DiMaggio really was for the Yankees.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
Some Thoughts
There were a lot of things that bothered me about the offseason. I didn’t like the Gregg trade at all. Part of it was losing 6 years of Ceda, part of it was Gregg’s own history, and part of it was the eventual money paid to Gregg. I thought it could’ve been utilized elsewhere. I didn’t like the DeRosa trade. Hindsight has it so that the return turned out alright, but I didn’t like it at the time, and I do wonder what might of been. Look, everyone knew DeRosa wasn’t going to hit like he did in 2008, and he was going to be closer to his 2007 numbers. I disliked the Heilman trade because I thought Olson could’ve been useful as lefty depth. The Gathright move was mystifying.
The thing that bothered me the most about the offseason, though, was the missed opportunity at reshaping the team. I’m referring to Rafael Furcal. Look, Furcal hasn’t had the greatest year, but during the winter, he was about as good a gamble as any of the corner OF’s. Furthermore, maybe Furcal wouldn’t have come. But to not pursue him, by most accounts, bothered me. You get a Furcal, and you finally have a leadoff guy whose history was good enough that Soriano wouldn’t be able to say anything about being moved down the order. You get to move Theriot to 2nd base (assuming the DeRosa trade still happened). You wouldn’t have to carry 4 MI’s on your roster, a ridiculous amount on a 25 man unless there’s a DeRosa/Jeff Baker type, which didn’t come until midseason. Who knows how Furcal’s season would’ve gone here. He was searching for money, by some accounts.
The problem with a Furcal move would’ve been that Hendry would need to get creative to find a lefty slugger. I’ll be the first to admit I wanted a lefty slugger in there as well. Maybe that means getting creative and searching for a youngster through trades. Maybe that means waiting on the market. Early on, most speculation was that, when the merry go round stopped, one OF would be left standing having to take less money.
To defend Hendry on some moves, I will say that I was fine with the Pie trade (for Olson/Williamson). I also was fine with the Bradley signing that came as a result of other moves. Hendry fell in love with Bradley a few years back, and MB was my early guess for our target. I also was fine with moving Jason Marquis. He’s had a surprising year this year, due largely to improved command, but prior to 09, he was end of the rotation filler.
In saying all this, at the end of the day, players need to perform, and ours haven’t. We entered the year as the likely favorites in the NL Central with a roster that, on paper, still looked strong. We’ve had injuries along the way, but the struggles of our key guys haven’t helped.
Looking forward to 2010, our system is in very good shape. As I’ve been saying for awhile, we’ve got a solid system, probably the best in the NL Central, and probably in the middle tier and not in the lower tier. Depending on how things finish, I could see some people ranking us in the top 15 even. The bigger issue is a major league roster that’s stocked with contracts.
First, for people that want to waiver wire some of our top guys and hope they get picked up to save us money – why? Look, Soriano isn’t getting picked up, and Bradley likely isn’t. As bad as the other contracts are, they aren’t bad on an individual level. Combined, it’s a mess. What do I mean by that? If you want to clear space, you can wait till the offseason. Beyond Soriano/|Bradley, I believe most of our contracts can be moved to some degree and net talent in return. Even if we have to pick some of it up, if you wanted to firesale, it’d be better to get talent in return and pick up a bit of it.
In saying all that, I’m not on the side of a firesale. Look, as much as I thought we were the favorites entering the year, one thing was always true about this current Cubs era – we were going to have to get hot at the right time. If the team got hot at the right team, we could go on a nice run. Much as I like Rich Harden, I think he’s going to get a good enough contract on the market that we can’t match. Offer him arb. We’re talking about a 5th starter – I can live with Gorzelanny/Marshall/Caridad or someone else, at a much lower cost than Harden. I’d love to gamble and not sign a veteran reliever, but I think we will. I think Gregg will be let go, and I probably wouldn’t offer him arb for fear he’d accept it. We’ll probably add a vet to the mix, but it’s time to groom a Guzman/Marmol back end. Make Samardzija a full time pen arm and have him concentrate on one secondary pitch. At some point in 2010, Cashner/Jackson/Carpenter could be pen options. Blake Parker and John Gaub, along with Jeremy Papelbon/Casey Lambert and others could fill in the middle relief. If we sign more than one pen arm, I’ll be disappointed, unless it’s a top closer and one.
The lineup’s the issue, and I’m not sure what options are out there to reshape it. There is, though, only one position that can be realistically looked at, and that’s MI. Plan A, for me, would be to find a top of the order MI, but I’m not sure who is out there. Well, there is Chone Figgins, but I’d be wary of giving a big deal to a 32 year old speedster. Not pretty. Talk is the Angels may let him go … but I’m not so sold on that either, as they wouldn’t have a leadoff option on the roster. It’d be nice to find a young guy, even in a trade, but realistically, young, quality top of the lineup guys aren’t that attainable, and it’s unlikely the Cubs gamble on an unproven youngster.
’
What’s Plan B? Well … I think we stick with Jeff Baker, have Kosuke leadoff. The key would be to build a strong bench. Jake Fox will have to the the “9th positional starter”. Koyie Hill will likely have a spot. I think Reed Johnson may be gone, which would open up an OF spot. We need a guy off the bench that can play all three OF spots. I’m fine if they want to give Sam Fuld the role. I’d love to be able to find one backup MI instead of carrying two. If we can only carry one backup MI, that might allow us to carry a big lefty bat off the bench, which would give us more flexibility. Not sure that’s Hoffpauir or Fontenot.
Short of it is, I say play out the string with the current era/core. Don’t firesale. Let the contracts clear. One of the issues I have with a fireslae is that, if we move contracts, we’ll likely sign more contracts, which would bog our future down even more. There’s enough hope in the farm system to look forward to, and we can still hope this team gets hot at the right time.
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
Love this post.
I’ve come to precisely the same conclusion. You have to play out the string, hope everyone gets hot at the same time, mourn the loss of Harden, curse the existence of some of these contracts and wait for them to expire.
However, if the right deal came along for Soriano, I’d give it some serious thought, depending on how much salary the acquiror was willing to assume. In that case, I’d see how Fox could perform in LF for a season, and eventually try to get an elite impact bat for LF/RF/1B when one becomes available.
D98 - August 19, 2009
Moving Soriano is the dream
I’d be all for it. Heck, I’d be all for a Soriano/Zito swap if it came down the pike, even if we had to give them a few million to balance out the deals (Soriano has more money left due to Zito’s potential buyout). From 2010-2013, it’s not like Zito is making that much more than Soriano each year. It would mean using our system to find some bench players/middle relievers, but that’s what a good team should do anyways, but to get that 2014 money significantly reduced to the pointwould be awesome
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
Toon, please post this as a FanShot or something
chilango2 - August 19, 2009
thanks
I don’t think I should post the same thing twice.
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
Then save it and post it when somebody coughs up with ridiculousness
chilango2 - August 19, 2009
Rec'd
great read, in total agreement. also would mention that Soto needs a serious off-season workout program…
smash! - August 19, 2009
Bradley still has a lot of value, and a reasonable contract. I’m not sure why you think this.
I’ve never understood why the 9th highest paid player on the team gets lopped in with Soriano’s huge and awful contract. Bradley’s on pace to earn his pay this year (in $WAR) and has a relatively short, relatively cheap commitment.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Bradley has a reasonable contract?
He will get $21 million total for 2010 and 2011. His production isn’t likely to get any better as he gets older. That contract is an albatross.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
An albatross?
That’s a pretty gross exaggeration. He’s an above-average defensive right fielder, he’ll only be 34 at the end of the contract (which is Bobby Abreu’s age now – someone you advocated signing above), and he can still hit (he’s on pace to finish the year right in line with his career numbers).
An albatross of a contract is one where a useless player eats up a huge amount of payroll with a contract that couldn’t be moved, even if you at a lot of the money. Bradley’s isn’t like that at all – he could almost certainly be moved, probably without having to eat much money, if any. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if he would get claimed were he to get put on waivers.
The fact is that for the foreseeable future, he’s still going to be the best option in Right Field. Have you looked at the free agent right fielders available after this season? It’s not pretty.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
okay
i’m reading through my post above, and I probably wasn’t as clear as I should’ve been.
I wrote
What I should’ve said is that, Beyond Soriano/Bradley, I believe most of our contracts can be moved to some degree and net talent in return, and as such, we should wait until the offseason. Short of it is, I’ve got a hard time looking at the current environment and seeing a team plucking Bradley up.
Now, if we are talking after the year, yes, I think Bradley could get moved then. I think we’d likely have to pick up a chunk of the money (best guess would be half), but that’s obviously just an opinion.
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
ooc
which defensive metrics are you looking at? The last time I checked, MB was a below average RF this year. just curious what metric you are judging by.
As for hitting right in line with his career numbers, I’m also curious what projection system you are using. the last time I peeked at the ZiPs updated, he fell short of his career numbers, due to the decreased slugging.
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
okay, reading
your comments below, i’m taking you were simply referencing his 2nd half line being close to his career numbers.
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
I don't think Bradley is an above-average defensive right fielder.
He has a negative UZR, and really, his only good fielding years were several years and knee surgeries ago.
D98 - August 19, 2009
There's a big difference between a -1.8 UZR (Bradley) and a -28 UZR (Dunn)
Like, nearly 3 wins worth of difference
berselius - August 19, 2009
based on how terrible our offense has been all year...
I would be in the camp of people who are willing to find out if that’s true.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
Well, sure. But that doesn't make Bradley "excellent", or even "above-average".
It makes him “below average”.
D98 - August 19, 2009
I wasn't claiming that he was, just pointing out the difference between the two
berselius - August 19, 2009
in a vacuum
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
in a vacuum?
or the 2009 season?
I didn’t know they were playing this season in space. Must be tough to hit in a pressure suit
berselius - August 19, 2009
compare the needs of the respective teams their on to the players strengths.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
their = they're
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
A run is a run, no matter what team you play for
berselius - August 19, 2009
you're missing my point.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
How?
A run cost on defense is equal to one gained on offense. It doesn’t matter what your team’s strengths and weaknesses are.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
what is your point then?
That run production is more valuable to the Cubs than the Natinals? There’s more to player valuation than RBIs
berselius - August 19, 2009
You are only taking the players performance from what they've done in the lineup/ballpark they've played in...
and I understand that it’s the only data we have that can be measured.
I’m not saying what you’re suggesting is wrong, just that you could also admit that simply swapping the players without accounting for the change in ballparks and lineup position/protection isn’t exactly fair. I understand that that sort of thing isn’t exactly measurable, but you get the idea.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
This is UZR, which is much less lineup dependent
Yes, you could maybe stick a park factor in there (though I don’t know anyone that’s published these numbers), but the fact doesn’t change that Dunn is SIGNIFICANTLY worse on defense than Brdley
berselius - August 19, 2009
Again, I'm not arguing Dunn's defensive liability...
but we’re not losing games because of our outfield defense…we’re losing because we can’t score runs when we’re in situations where we should.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
Right, BUT
If we had terrible OF defense, then the games wouldn’t be as close
berselius - August 19, 2009
Close? Scoring 3 runs for this team is like an act of God.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
If you prefer
The Cubs would be losing by even more runs (dying laughing)
berselius - August 19, 2009
What difference does it make if you lose by 2 or 4?
(shaking head at constant dying laughing retorts)
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
I guess your right...
we would ONLY lose games, we’d never win any more because of an improved offense.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
I don't think you understand the notion of "zero sum"
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
The point is
improved offense + crappier defense = spinning your wheels
berselius - August 19, 2009
Are you taking into...
consideration of the defensive play for the person backing up Bradley? I would assume that stat has to be considered, seeing that bradley usually misses between 20-30 games.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
That would be Fukudome, one of the best right fielders in baseball
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Then who plays center?
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Have you not been watching the games?
Reed Johnson or, in the last few weeks, Sam Fuld.
I’m honestly not sure what your point is here.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Then...
Why did we need Bradley this season?
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
That is my point...
You talk about Fukudome being the best RF in baseball, so why did we need Bradley, because he is the best at Right field too?
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
You're moving the goalposts again.
You asked this:
I pointed out that his replacement on those days was Fukudome, who is one of the best defensive right fielders in baseball.
Because Bradley, in addition to being able to play defense well, can also hit well, something Fukudome did not prove he had the ability to do last season.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Thank you...
So Bradley was brought in for offensive purposes not defense.
You are the one moving the goalposts.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
He was brought in for both
Last year we had one and not the other.
Signing Dunn would have given us one and not the other.
Ooookay dude. (dying laughing)
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
And losing...
games 5-1, 4-2, 3-1, 2-1, 4-1….a poor defensive player makes those loses wins!
Ooooookay dude! (dying laughing)
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Where did i say that?
The point that you’ve missed a hundred times in this thread is that a run lost is 100% equal to a run gained.
Dunn’s worth quite a few more runs than Bradley on offense, but costs you a lot on defense. Sure he’d win you some of those games earlier in the season, but some of those 1-run wins would turn around go the other way.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
You might have...
a point if this team was scoring runs and losing games because of poor defense. But that is not the case, we are losing the games i listed above too often. 4 runs in two games in San Diego? Really How does good defense turn that around? So your argument is moot. We need this hitting, like we needed the hitting in the playoffs, where the past 2 years we have scored 12 runs in 6 games. Does it matter if you lose 8-1 or 2-1, a loss is a loss.
Wonder why we lost.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
This is kind of a silly line of reasoning.
You’re basically saying that Dunn would have helped us win the some of the games we lost, but wouldn’t have caused us to lose any of the games we’ve won.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
as i said below...
Enjoy your day buddy!
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
You honestly believe Dunn
is better than Bradley?
Theroid - August 19, 2009
On the Cubs...
…Dunn would be a better fit.
On which one is better, that depends what you are looking for.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
How would he be a better fit?
He can’t field a position!
Theroid - August 19, 2009
his ability...
…to drive in runs, would offset his defensive liabilities – IMO.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
And stats show that isn't true.
There’s no opinion involved.
Theroid - August 19, 2009
Uh huh...
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Well you're clearly incorrect,
but whatever works for you.
Theroid - August 19, 2009
In the...
words of the UFC i am tapping out. I cant keep doing this, yes Bradley has better numbers at certain things over Dunn but Dunn fits this team much better, but what the heck do i know.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
I'd point out that Bradley has yet to play 1,000 innings in RF this season.
So his UZR number may not be wholly reliable.
daver - August 19, 2009
Let me echo that "albatross" is way off the mark.
DGU - August 19, 2009
If that's an albatross
what is the description of Soriano’s?
Both of those deals (given their output) makes me want to puke.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
I hope
For the sake of that albatross comment that you’re saying that Bradley’s “albatross” pales in comparison to Soriano’s “ALBATROSS”.
krummy12 - August 19, 2009
Which team is going to pick up Bradley's contract?
As much as Bradley has behaved this year, he carries around history, and this year, he carries around a lack of power. I really don’t see any contending team picking up his entire salary, but this is only a discussion of hypotheticals. Even in this market, the Yankees are tightening their belts, and by most accounts, the Red Sox aren’t going after an OF (and their system is chock full of OF’s). The Rays don’t have a need, the White Sox filled their CF need (not like MB can play CF anymore), Twins don’t have need, and they are somewhat out of it. Tigers just went and got Aubrey Huff. Rangers don’t really have an OF need, and same goes for the Angels. Who else? NL? Phillies are a no, Marlins are a no (financial limitations there as well), Braves are also unlikely from most accounts, with some of their financial limitations. Cardinals? Unlikely. Dodgers? Unlikely. Giants? There’s a darkhorse perhaps, but even then, I find it a bit unlikely, particularly since it’s questionable if MB this year, right now, is better than what they have. Rockies? Unlikely.
Again, this isn’t a question of Bradley’s performance. No where in there did I question Bradley’s performance. Rather, it’s a simple question of … who is picking him up now and eating that contract? That said, just a hypothetical, as we’ll never know.
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
Plenty of teams would be happy to pick up that contract
He’s being paid like a slightly-above league average player, when he’s much more than that. That contract was a real deal by Hendry
berselius - August 19, 2009
okay
well, i guess this could back and forth, but short of it is, I just don’t see a team out there that would go for Milton right now and eat the contract. If an injury happened, maybe. I just don’t see it right now. Again, I’m referencing putting him on waivers right now and a team plucking him up.
In the end, only time will tell (or we’ll never know … ).
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
I agree with a lot but Cubs were never gonna get Furcal
He already dicked around with us once and this year Atlanta. He wants to be in LA and just uses other teams to drive up the price.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
Plus he sucks this year.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
$WAR (just pointing it out)
(since you did point out earlier that Bradley is performing close to his salary for this year)
$indicates that Furcal is outperforming his salary this year.
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
Fair enough.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
rumor this past offseason
was that he was gunning for money. The Braves, from what I recall, didn’t offer more than Dodgers. Now, he’s struggled, but that’s with the benefit of hindsight.
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
I agree.
I was on the Furcal bandwagon pre-season, but I think Hendry learned his lesson last time and got to watch history repeat itself with Furcal and the Braves this year.
DGU - August 19, 2009
For me
There will always be a part of me that wonders. The Braves didn’t give him a big money deal, and hey, if it was me and the deals were similar, I’d pick the Dodgers as well. I guess it’s a question that can’t be answered, but to not pursue it is something that bothered me. We’ll never know I guess.
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
TLDNR
digitalbenjamin - August 19, 2009
Don't know if it was brought up in the 300 comments before this(not gonna read them all)
but I don’t think that DeRo was a salary dump in order to afford Bradley.Yes, Wood and Marquis were cash considerations to afford Bradley. But the DeRo moving was a 12 cushion bank shot in order to land Peavy. We wasted way too much time trying to land the guy that would never come. (and ironically didn’t need this year). Hendry instead of going 3 way with the Pads and one other team, thought he could get more by trading for the parts by himself and then turning those parts around for PV. Kind of stupid in hindsight. I’ve seen quotes that said that Bradley and DeRo were inter-dependent of one another. So you can’t put the DeRo moving on the Bradley move. We could have had them both.
The DeRo move was bad because it left us exposed in backup of ARam, who has been injured before and shouldn’t have come as a complete surprise. Of course Miles was just plain dumb. I blame those 2 squarely on the shoulders of Hendry.
But during this year, Lou has not been a conscious manager, and has not held the players accountable for their bad play. You cannot fire all the players, yes, but you can sit their asses down and tell them to watch for awhile. If their effort is lackluster and we know that there have been some bad effort along the way, then play someone else.
I come down more on Lou then Hendry, he could’ve salvaged more from this season by better managing.
KaliCub - August 19, 2009
um, why aren't you going to read them all?
I don’t mean to be snarky at all – I’m genuinely curious.
My perception when I read something like that (and you’re not the only one – other folks do this as well) is you don’t want to waste your time reading all the other comments, but oh btw, here’s a comment that you think everyone should read.
I admit, that perception seems very snarky so I hope you can satisfy my curiosity a bit. Just seems to me that if I expect someone to read my stuff, it only seems fair that I should read theirs.
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Wasn't trying to say that the 300 comments weren't worthy of reading,
I have a meeting coming up and if I read all of them I wouldn’t get a chance to make my point if it hadn’t come up before.
If the point was already made with corresponding arguments back and forth, that’s why I put the qualifier out there. Sometimes I don’t have time to read all the live posts while others are here.
KaliCub - August 19, 2009
fair enough
thanks for the additional explanation. Hope you do get a chance to go back and read everything – this has been a most informative post.
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Hindsight, etc.
The fact is that not even last year’s excellent team could have survived 2 months without Aramis, a series of devastating injuries to the starting staff, a season long slump from Soriano, an out of control Marmol and 2 months without Soto, followed by Soto sucking.
You’re basically criticizing Hendry for constructing a team that hasn’t played on the field this season.
First off, Ibanez has the exact same contract as Ibanez – 3 years, $30M. Ibanez is having a great year this year, but I will eat my hat if he’s still worth that kind of money by the 3rd year of that deal.
Second, it’s betrays a lack of understanding of how markets work to say Hendry could have just waited and gotten Abreu as cheap as the Angels did. Abreu, a very very flawed player I might add, signed that cheap because teams like the Cubs – teams with openings in their outfields – had signed free agents.
Not to mention that it could have been an absolutely disastrous gamble – what kind of backseat GM’ing would you be doing now if they’d waited and missed out on all the free agent outfielders?? They couldn’t afford to take that kind of risk. The Angels, on the other hand, could. And Abreu knew that, and had to take half the going rate because of it.
There’s a lot of other major problems with this article (I’m not sure how in any scenario the Cubs could have afforded Wood, who would have been a disaster anyway) but they’re too numerous too enumerate.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
D'oh.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
You are correct about the injuries and slumps.
Just look at the Mets for an example of that. The Mets are missing Reyes, Beltran, Delgado & Wright right now. Imagine if the Cubs had to play much of this year without Ramirez, Lee, Bradley and Soriano all out at the same time.
Also, my choice would have been Adam Dunn for outfield, as you well know. Disagree with me if you will, but I still think Dunn would have been a better addition to this lineup, even with his defense in RF, and would have been cheaper (2 years @ $10m, rather than 3 years).
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
I have said this before...
But all of this goes back to Soriano, plan and simple. We signed a guy to be a run producer, RBI machine, and a leadoff guy. We tried to kill all the birds with 1 stone and it back fired. The move that year was Carlos Lee, plan and simple, you would have a foundation of DLee, Aram, and CLee batting 3,4,5. Then you take all the little pieces and build around it. The theriots, redd johnsons, then fit nicely into a roster and you now have a team. This is basically what the Cardinals have done, Pujols, build around. Seems to be working for them!
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
And might have had enough money to pursue A-Rod the following year
That’s a crazy notion considering the insane deal New York gave him.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
Carlos Lee didn't want to play in Chicago.
daver - August 19, 2009
thats fine...
if we made a move for him. But Soriano was our guy from day one.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
yeah he still needs a team to kill
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
who said that, him?
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
In so many words, I believe he did.
I think you’d really have to go back and research a bunch of articles from that time period for documented evidence. But it’s well known that Carlos has a ranch in Texas and wanted to play close to home.
daver - August 20, 2009
Carlos Lee never even tried to sign anywhere but Houston.
Plus, even the “sweetheart” deal he gave the Astros is considered a terrible contract.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Yea Soriano's is better...
But you know everything.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Neither of them are good contracts.
Soriano was more valuable in 2007 and 2008, Lee’s been more valuable this year. It’s really a matter of who you think will age better.
I know it seems that way to you now, but if you keep trying to learn and grow someday you too will know lots of things about baseball.
Never give up – keep reaching for that rainbow.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Keep moving the goalposts!!
I dont think you want to compare baseball resumes.
But you already know everything there is to know, so i am sure you know me!
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
You keep doing that.
I don’t think that expression means what you think it means.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Final post to you...
The reason no one likes discussing things with you is because you take the stats and break them up per player. Essentially you are Jim Hendry. You look at the player, not how they will impact the team. Sure Soriano was a good signing, but did he fit the teams makeup. Not a chance, we needed stability in the middle, which we are still looking for. Someone to help DLee and Aram out with the offensive side of things.
And the fact that you speak of growing and learning is just childish, and it shows. Your inability to see the other side is what makes people not want to talk to you. Me i dont care, because i love arguing with know-it-alls, like yourself. You can run and find a number and bend it how you want, and your point is right no matter what.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
You're adorable.
So my problem is that I resort to using facts when I could be using conjecture and opinion instead.
That sounds like a pretty good problem to have.
Thank you!
Sure I do, I look at how they will impact the team’s ability to score and prevent runs, the two most important things in baseball.
If it were possible to do this, then Al’s hated “stats guys” would tend to fall on either side of the fence for polarizing players, wouldn’t they? Why is it that they all seem to fall into lock step on issues like Dunn’s defense, Bradley’s value, Zambrano’s value, etc? If the facts could simply be twisted to support any point wouldn’t there be more dissent on these issues from the statistically inclined?
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Enjoy your day buddy!
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Al, you can't compare contracts when Dunn signed after Bradley and Ibanez
The market was well on its way to drying up by then
berselius - August 19, 2009
True enough.
Hendry should have waited, too.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Hendry had to do something
Unfortunately, he was extremely rash in his decision making. Consecutive three and out performances in the playoffs is what separates the great GM from the guy who should be looking for another job.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
I think he signed the right guy anyway
There is a chance he could have gotten him cheaper, but you have to balance that with the chance that they didn’t sign him at all
berselius - August 19, 2009
Or anyone.
The Cubs couldn’t afford to wait. As long as they were on the table, every free agent knew they had to sign someone, and had the money to do it.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
I tend to agree on the Ibanez/Abreu point
As far as the injuries go – yes, losing Ramirez was devastating. The blame portion of that is there was no backup, then they resisted trying Fox until Ramirez was almost back.
The pitching injuries have also hurt, but they haven’t hit all year – even when the starting pitching was lights out.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
I agree...
with some of this, but how is Abreu flawed? Honestly? The guys gets RBIs, he steals bases, and he has a good average. I dont think flawed is the right word.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
If he was a DH then I'd agree.
In the National League they have to play defense as well, and Abreu is pretty brutal as a right fielder at this point in his career.
Bradley was still the best option, and is on pace to finish the year right in line with expectations. All the while playing good defense.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Maybe YOUR expectations.
But the Cubs thought they were getting a middle-of-the-order run producer. He hasn’t done that at all.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Why would they be surprised Milton Bradley is Milton Bradley?
I just don’t understand this argument. He’s never been a power hitter. Yes he sucked in the first half. All players have bad stretches. It sucks that his bad stretch came at a time when nearly everyone else on the team was sucking too, but c’est la guerre, you know?
Since then he’s been himself – putting up exactly what any reasonable person would expect based on his career numbers – in the 2nd half of the season so far.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Exactly.
As i said in a thread yesterday:
Bradley, this season, has done what SHOULD have been expected of him. If Hendry brought him here under the premise that he’d be a power hitter, that isn’t Bradley’s fault. If Hendry gave him a bummer of a contract, that isn’t Bradley’s fault.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
Fair enough...
But why did Hendry sign him, and what did the fans expect?
Personally i was expecting a power hitter at the number 5 spot in the order, and i think that is what the team needed.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Who cares what the fans expected? If that factors into Hendry’s decision making then we’re really and truly screwed.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
The important thing...
…is what the team needed, and I don’t think Hendry found the best match for that.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
I don't think there was a match for that.
The fact is that because of the long term deals in left field and at first base, there really weren’t any left handed power hitters who would have had a position on this team.
Bradley was by far the best fit, and the closest thing available.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Not a good decision...
…to keep throwing big money at players who don’t fit. Hendry did that with Soriano as a leadoff guy, and that has reared it’s ugly head as well. I know Soriano has put up some good numbers in 07 and 08, but how did that help maximize the team’s ability to win big games against good pitchers in the playoffs?
Square peg in a round hole with long term big money contracts = trouble and an expsensive clean up process, and that is in store for the Cubs over the next couple of years.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
This makes no sense
“I know Soriano has put up some good numbers in 07 and 08, but how did that help maximize the team’s ability to win big games against good pitchers in the playoffs?”
There’s a thing called small sample sizes.
berselius - August 19, 2009
Easily answered...
…good balanced offensive clubs are strong at the top of the order. Relying on Soriano to be a kick start for the offense against upgraded scouting reports and good pitchers put the team behind the 8 ball, and they were exposed.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
But my point was that Bradley does fit
I’m not going to defend the Soriano signing, which obviously looks awful after this season, but Bradley is an example of Hendry signing the right guy for the right position, for a reasonable amount of money and a reasonable number of years.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
It's an example of a deal that doesn't look horrible by itself
Compound it with other deals and we have a problem.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
How do you figure?
It’s not a lot of money (9th highest paid player on the team)
It’s not a long commitment
There were no better options last year
There are no better options next year
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Honestly...
You dont think Dunn would have been a good fit? Yea yea the fielding troubles, but you really dont think his bat would have made up for it?
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Adam Dunn had to rely on a deal from the Nats
That should tell you something.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
it tells me the market was awful
and he was asking for far too much when there were other openings.
Illicat - August 19, 2009
His bat doesn't make up for it
That’s the problem. People grossly underestimate the number of runs his fielding costs teams, and are underestimating the difficulty of right field in Wrigley.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
So be it...
But the need in the line-up was a power bat, not an OPS guy. Dunn provided that, Bradley does not and did not.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
What exactly do you think power does to a player’s OPS?
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
It increases it
He may have meant OBP.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
i did...
my bad.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
i meant OBP...
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
No
His defense has cost the Natinals nearly 3 wins this season
berselius - August 19, 2009
and the 31 HRs...
have done nothing?
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
He's only been worth half a win more than Bradley
berselius - August 19, 2009
On one of the...
worst teams in the league.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
What does that have to do with anything?
berselius - August 19, 2009
I asked you ..
How many of his 31 HRs have helped in wins…you came back with a comparison to Bradley.
How can you compare that on two different teams?
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Any Runs you score help in wins
It’s not Dunn’s fault that the Natinals pitching staff is a joke
berselius - August 19, 2009
You'll never win an argument with those guys, because...
… all they’ll ever do is quote stats, rather than look at real-life situations.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
I am learning that..
Thanks Al, i was slowly seeing this converstaion turning into a comparison of everything. Not to much discussion. I will leave it.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
You can never win an argument with these guys because...
…all they’ll ever do is move the goalposts to support their own preconceptions
berselius - August 19, 2009
which you have done successfully!
:)
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
You're telling me...
if you replaced Bradley with Dunn for the first half of this season we’d have lost more games?
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
No
What this says is that Dunn is only worth marginally more than Bradley. In fact, Dunn’s RF numbers are much worse than the LF/1B numbers that he’s put up this year, so it would be even closer
berselius - August 19, 2009
Dunn...
…would have given you a feared bat and RBI’s, which is what the club needed the most with Ramirez on the shelf.
How many times have you seen teams pitch to Bradley with men on base (especially the 1st half)? He was as cold as an ice cube and left a boatload of ducks on the pond. This would have never happened with Dunn and would have changed the lineup dynamics.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Can you quantify the value of a "feared bat?"
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
No you can't...
…which is why all the statistical BS of a player having one or two game difference over another is absurd. It all depends on how any player’s skill fits in with what the team needs, and the right fit tends to put other guys in the lineup in a better position to succeed.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
I like the irony of your signature
juxtaposed with your defense of Dunn (dying laughing)
berselius - August 19, 2009
Offensive value can be quantified, as well as defensive value.
Does it occur to you that the opponents don’t “fear” batters but pitch them according to their demonstrated skills. In other words opponents scout batters and based on a player’s past performance the opponent tries to attack weaknesses? Statistical BS is what teams look at when they are scouting and preparing for the other team.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
I hate to break this to you...
…but advanced scouting reports are put together with a scouts visual observations, as much as pure statistics.
Putting them both together is what completes the report.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
You seem to discount statistical observation which is precisely what scouts use.
I’ve not discounted scouts’ visual observations but they are not the only method of evaluation. Have you ever seen Lou look in his binder before an opponent comes to bat? He’s looking at numerical comparisons not reading eye-witness testimony.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
That's fine...
…but you are failing to acknowldege a huge part of what scouts put in their reports that are independent of statistics.
Whatever, I’m done with this discussion.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
There's also an immense ocean of difference
…between advanced scouts’ eyes and those of even the most experienced and intelligent fans.
I doubt any of us here qualify as that kind of viewer (we certainly don’t have the access, time, and resources to compete there). So the argument is moot, unless you’re going to cite some kind of scout whose testimony supports your point of view.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
I have been lucky...
…to be around several folks who where either major league ball players, coaches and some scouts over the years. Some of these folks were my teamates in college and others I met through contacts over the years.
In regards to scouting; there is still a huge subjective portion of what a scout puts together on any player they are observing. A lot of this is directly related to noting how a players body language changes in different circumstances and how that effects his play. It’s not always whether a player swung and missed at a breaking ball on the outside corner, but how he looked doing it. How a hitter takes pitches is also an indicator of how well he is recognizing pitches, and could be a factor in how the next team decides to pitch to that guy (independent if he has been getting hits or not). They also observe bat speed etc, to determine if a player appears to be tiring or is swinging well but has just been unlucky in regards to getting hits.
This subjective information is put together with the purely objective stuff; a players spray chart of his tendencies etc. and how he hits against certain pitchers and it is all rolled into one summary for the club.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
I understand how scouts work.
I think you missed my point though. Unless you have some substantive quotes from scouts on the subject, it’s pretty irrelevant to the discussion.
Unless you’re saying that the time you spent around scouts somehow gives your opinions on the subject.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Oh, I think reputation plays into it, too
Statistics show that walking Bonds intentionally with the bases empty was silly – and I agree. But a lot of people did it, anyway.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
This is hilarious to me.
Cubs fans would HATE Adam Dunn. As much crap as Bradley takes for taking a walk with runners in scoring position, Dunn does this an equal amount, plus strikes out looking more than anyone in baseball.
Reds fans hated him for similar reasons to why the Cubs fans hate Soriano – he wasn’t “clutch”, he was considered lazy, and he would drive them crazy with strikeouts in situations that called for a ball to be put in play.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
You are absolutely correct. Dunn has always had a rep of being a guy that doesn't do the "little" things.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
Yes because stats happen in Imagination Land, not real life.
GoBackToSchaumburg - August 19, 2009
Stats...
Baseball statistics are just records of real-life events. Some are simple and widely accepted, BA & RBI, while others are slightly more intricate and less understood, wOBA & UZR. But they are all based on real-life situations.
ConcreteCoda - August 19, 2009
How would the stats from the last two years have predicted Soriano did this year?
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
Other than statistical projection models do you know of a better way to predict performance?
Statistical projections vary in accuracy but they are a better tool than people simply guessing. If you want to go through the roster and project players performance based on hunches and gut feelings go right ahead but that method won’t be particularly reliable. You also shouldn’t judge any system of projection based on one individual player. You look at the results of the projections on the whole and that will tell you if a system is accurately projecting player performance. You do realize that front offices use statistical projections to determine the amount of contracts they will give players and for how long? They obviously see the value of statistical measure over just making a wild guess.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
Ugh. I'm not particularly interested in joining the stat debate...
… as we’ve been beating that dead horse here enough.
That being said… i see the value in stats. I understand their place in the sport. I also resent anybody who calls those of us that choose not to go by stats and stats alone ignorant.
There was plenty of “DLEE IS DEAD” statistical lamenting here early in the season. How did that work out?
There is something to be said for stats, and for the newer and more advanced statistical analysis done these days. But discounting anything not based on stats as “wild guesses” as you have is ignorant as well. Just because i don’t spend a ton of time breaking down numbers does NOT mean i’m wildly guessing. I’m capable of noticing things outside of the numbers.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
"real-life situations."
Like the situations that are recorded by statistics?
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
Well we are talking...
Expectations – who sets those expectations? The fans? You? You seem to be a know it all? So again, you tell me?
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
I have no idea where the fans get their insane expectations
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
I'm not sure what the point you are trying to make here is...
… but none the less, Bradley has done this season what should have been expected of him based on his prior body of work.
If you are disappointed in that because you expected a power hitter, that was your bad, not Bradley’s.
If you are disappointed in that because you expected more for the money, that was Hendrey’s bad, not Bradley’s.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
My bad...
I was trying to figure out who sets the expectations.
I definitely know that what we are getting from MB is what i expected, but what did the organization expect? To me i think they wanted more power.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Frankly, i'm not convinced that Bradley was a bad signing or that his contract is an albatross.
If he wasn’t what Hendry or Pinella or whoever is pulling the strings hoped for, than they should shoulder the blame for that.
I suspect a lot of the “expectations” for him were based on what we needed, not what he was capable of. It was known we needed a power hitting middle of the order guy, and we got Bradley. Everyone expected he must be THAT guy. He wasn’t, by any measure, and anybody fooling themselves with last seasons performance in Texas was… well… a fool.
So, in a roundabout way i guess we could blame Hendry for not only signing the wrong guy, but for setting him up to fail in the fans eyes by trying to shove a perfectly good square peg in a round hole.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
I doubt
that Hendry cared what the fans were thinking (otherwise DeRosa wouldn’t have been moved) and as to the other post, I don’t think many people are blaming Bradley or saying it’s his fault. But I do think that, based on Hendry’s comments at the time of the signing, about a middle of the order bat, that he did believe he was signing a power hitter. Was it flawed thinking? Certainly, particularly when MB was protected in Texas and had a hitter friendly park.
That said, I think Hendry simply fell in love with MB a few years back (what was it, 3 years ago or so when the rumors on Hendry wanting MB started) and looked at the board and decided that MB made more sense coming off his season with the bat in Texas. Was it flawed? Perhaps, but not all GM’s use statistics as heavily as others.
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
I disagree for one reason...
…you don’t commit to a guy like that with his injury history, plain and simple. He may end up with decent numbers by the end of the year (because he is a good hitter), but when they needed him most (when they were getting good pitching), he was either hurt, or trying to find his stroke.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Wasnt MB a DH last year?
I am just saying. We seem so hung up on Miltion’s defensive skills i am not sure why. He played defensively in 165 innings last year so that argument is not really relative.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Huh?
That makes no sense whatsoever. He was recovering from an injury and couldn’t play in the field last year. That doesn’t negate years of data that showed he was an excellent fielder, something he’s proven again this year.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
So because...
Bradley was injured, he is excused. But yet, Abreu’s fielding % is .983, and Bradley’s is .982. How does that make him far better?
Oh dont forget, Abreu steals bases, drives runs in, and occasionally hits HRs (i guess him and Milton are the same here)
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
...and is 4 years older than Bradley
berselius - August 19, 2009
So let me ask you this...
For the 2010 season, what would you like to see the Cubs to to improve on this team? And with what money?
Age means nothing at this point. When you spend 100’s of millions of dollars on a team you are trying to win now, not down the road. I just dont get it, age doesnt mean anything unless you are building a team around a guy, Bradley was a piece, not the answer.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
The likelihood of Abreu putting up those numbers in LA
was about as likely as Bradley slumping like he did in the first half of the season.
As far as improvments go, maybe a new SS or a new 2b. They probably won’t have the money to re-sign Harden. This team deserves a chance to compete without being hamstrung by injuries
berselius - August 19, 2009
how is it unlikely?
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
He’s on the wrong end of the aging curve, his power numbers were slipping, and his defense has become atrocious
berselius - August 19, 2009
Abreu's body of work shows he is a bad fielder
Bradley’s one hurt season doesn’t show that.
Ozzie Montana - August 19, 2009
You're not making any sense.
No, but it means that 2008 would probably be a bad year by which to judge his ability to field.
You’re using fielding percentage to compare fielders? Oy.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Ok fine...
Tell me how Bradley is far superior in the fielding department over Abreu?
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
His RAZOR, GIMP, and FKUP numbers are all higher than Abreu's.
end of discussion.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
POSTERIZED!
heine41 - August 19, 2009
Sounds like i was wrong...
All hail Milton. I will stop with the argument.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
I don't think you read SWL's comment that closely . . .
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
i did...
i got it :)
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Ah, now I got your reply.
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
yea sorry...
should have tagged the sarcasm.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
There's a fielding metric called "FKUP"?
Oh man, that cracks me up…. ;-)
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Hmm...
now that I look at it again, something tells me I just got SWLed…
(…looks around for hidden camera…)
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Do you ever post anything of substance?
Or do you just wait for seemingly opportune moments to post aimless one-liners and keep up your image as the inscrutable clown of BCB?
Oh, that SWL with his funny name, snarky comments, and goofy pictures.
GoBackToSchaumburg - August 19, 2009
somebodys jealous..
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
The quality of mercy is not strained...
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
Looking at some metrics right now
and MB, while he has been average, slightly below average this year, has been far better than Abreu, who has been a solid below average. I’m just going off UZR right now, and there are other metrics out there.
toonsterwu - August 19, 2009
Eh...
I am finished with the conversation, thanks for the info though. Like i said Milton Bradley is the man, he makes this team much better, and he was EXACTLY who we needed. There were no better choices, and fielding wins you the most amount of games possible. Hitting has nothing to do with it.
HIGGY - August 19, 2009
Bradley has kind of been a crap fielder this year.
By what metric is he “excellent”?
D98 - August 19, 2009
Best option? No way!
Abreu has produced and isn’t a lazy malcontent like Bradley and comes with much less baggage and handling instructions.
Itchy - August 19, 2009
Your unabashed hatred for the man is truly perplexing.
Never with stats, never with evidence. Just bile, over and over.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
He's lazy now too?
I can’t keep up with all the flailing anti-Bradley memes around here.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
I hear he rips the tags of mattresses in furniture stores
Shanghai Badger - August 19, 2009
He punches babies, flips off boxes of kittens, and has to kill a dog every time he has an orgasm as well
berselius - August 19, 2009
I thought the killing dogs was what gave him the orgasm.
With the numbers hes put up in the 2nd half, the prolonged amount of hate aimed towards him blows my mind.
He wasn’t hitting before, so he was an angry, lazy bum. I get that. Wasn’t the first time that’s happened.
He’s hitting now, so clearly this 2009 collapse is on him.
GoBackToSchaumburg - August 19, 2009
Most of those memes originate with Itchy.
Almost everybody else has laid off him now that he’s had a few injury / freakout free months of high on base baseball.
Itchy’s beef clearly has nothing to do with his actual play or contribution to the team, as he ignores requests to back up his rants with evidence. My only conclusion is that Bradley stole his girlfriend.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
What the hell has Bradley done to deserve any praise??
The stats show it, NOTHING!
.259 BA – bad
8 HRs – bad
30 RBI – bad
13 2B – bad
.390 OBP – good
.229 vs. RHP – bad
Just admit the guy hasn’t produced. I’ll stop ripping him when he does.
Itchy - August 19, 2009
Ok, how about this...
… do the same analysis for the rest of the team. And then justify the attention you pay to Bradley.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
I wish I agreed...
“…the strange thing is, despite all of this, this flawed, injured team still has time to make up a six-game division (or five-game wild card) deficit.”
This would be true IF the team was playing. The bad habits that they displayed all year – chiefly the RISP woes – have not disappeared during the August swoon.
Face the music Al – the Division, UNLESS A MIRACLE happen – is the Cardinals. They are a much better team, have kicked our asses in head-to-head competition, and now have a true championship caliber lineup. Can you not see this?
For them to achieve a Wild Card possibility, they still have to play lights out and jump over more teams. That is when it becomes more difficult as every game goes by.
Not impossible, but they have to start WINNING tonight – and at least split the rest of the trip. Is that going to happen in LA, or SF? Does it happen often for them?
The E-Man - August 19, 2009
If the Cubs are serious about still competing this year
They HAVE to find away to get Miles off the roster NOW and bring up Blanco. Perhaps he can be persuaded to have an injury or take a minor league assignment as long as you promise to bring him up Sept. 1. I also thing Gregg should be released and I don’t dislike him. I just think his head is messed up and since he won’t be re-signed let him go and bring up Berg or Stevens. You really can’t wait till Sept 1 for these moves.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
I agree
Rec’d
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
If Andres Blanco is the answer
I don’t want to know the question
berselius - August 19, 2009
The questionfor $1000 is..
Why does Jim Hendry still have a job?
Did I mention that it was a Daily Double?
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
The question is
How can we get a plus defender at several positions with some contact in his bat on the bench ?
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
If that's who you're looking for, it's not Blanco
He’s batted worse than Whipping-Boy Aaron Miles this season
berselius - August 19, 2009
Scratch that
He’s hit better than Miles, but that’s not saying much. He’d have to be Ozzie Smith x3 with the glove to make up for his bat
berselius - August 19, 2009
He is hitting 50 points higher than Miles
Which is grant you is more a reflection of how horrible Miles has been than how good Blanco is but it is still significantly better and he is a VERY good fielder.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
that's not saying much
He’s slugging .323 and had only 7 walks in 106 PAs
berselius - August 19, 2009
Its saying this:
HE IS BETTER THAN MILES AND THUS SHOULD BE PLAYING INSTEAD OF MILES.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
Well, I'll agree with that
I don’t think it’s going to make a huge difference though
berselius - August 19, 2009
id rather have a gold glover with a crap bat
than stone hands with a crap bat
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
If Blanco even had Fontenot's bat
He’d be a really useful player
berselius - August 19, 2009
i dont know...
i think having fontenots bat would make him worse offensively..
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
That makes a ton of sense...
Theroid - August 19, 2009
BANA?
digitalbenjamin - August 19, 2009
Ronny Cedeno was better than Miles...
this isn’t rocket science.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
agreed.....he is one of a handful of plus plus IF's in the league...
…Lou doesnt value defense so in his mind he would probably rather go with the veteran..
JB 23 - August 19, 2009
NOBODY
other than a few pitchers, have batted worse on this team than Aaron Miles
Illicat - August 19, 2009
and I find some irony that a guy who clings to stats like they're the holy grail
didn’t know that
Illicat - August 19, 2009
Off the field
One thing fans should want is for the new ownership to take-over soon. It is going to impact the offseason, and I’m assuming the Cubs will be better off with the new ownership in place than they would be with a bankruptcy court or Tribune creditors calling the shots.
We were treated to a bigger shakeup of a 97 win team than thought or wanted. I didn’t mind the shakeup idea, but the execution wasn’t good as has been discussed. This means Jim Hendry and perhaps some of his righthand men should either be relieved of their duties or have somebody fastitiously looking over their shoulders until Hendry’s contract expires. I’d say, let him go. An overpaid .500 ballclub is not acceptable and is worse when the team can’t readily be changed again.
I find too few of the real problems with this team being of Lou’s making. Keeping Soriano in the lead-off spot, a poor showing in postseason, and the decision to keep Gregg as closer for as long as he was are things for which has to be held accountable. Not sure about players signed unless Lou wanted the specific player. Time for Lou to retire and I think he will go willingly. His comments already reference the future of the team without including himself in the picture.
There is always a reason for having a good minor league system. Under new ownership, they have to get serious about that.
AboutTheCubs - August 19, 2009
How was this a shakeup?
Hendry IMPROVED that team. Edmonds was extremely unlikely of repeating last year’s performance. The cubs had many better (and cheaper) options than Marquis, and Bradley is a better baseball player than DeRosa
berselius - August 19, 2009
Improvement happens on the field...
…not on a piece of paper. It’s not all about signing a big name here and a big name there, it’s how those players fit into what the team needs to win on the field.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Injuries happen on the field too, and luck
If baseball were deterministic we wouldn’t watch the game
berselius - August 19, 2009
Luck doesn't factor...
…in my book, but injuries certainly do.
There are many teams who have overcome a rash of injuries and have still won. For whatever reason, the Cubs haven’t been able to do that this year.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
"There are many teams who have overcome a rash of injuries and have still won"
There are many more teams who have not.
berselius - August 19, 2009
Not well constructed teams...
…look at the Angels this year. But that is a very well run organization from the top down, and those organizations can weather the storm.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
See my statement on Aramis Ramirez
Aramis Ramirez with no shoulder injury puts his bat in the lineup when it was needed the most: June. It also would have been there in May, but that’s beside the point. Losing Ramirez was like the Yankees not having A-Rod to start the season. In this case, it hurt us more. The Cardinals were able to gain ground and then make improvements before the trade deadline because they now had a shot to seriously contend for the division. In my opinion, the season ended in May when Ramirez went down to his shoulder injury. It may very well be true once this season winds down.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
Ramirez did hurt...
…and he has been the MVP of this club since 06. The talk of DeRosa being the teams MVP when he was here is crazy. Ramirez has always been the guy who will put up numbers independent of what other guys are doing.
But again, well constructed teams have to find a way to stay afloat and weather the storm.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Unfortunately, this team was not well constructed
There was no feared power bat to replace Aramis Ramirez in that lineup. Derrek Lee has done well, but he was not enough.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
What team has a back-up that is as good as their best hitter?
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 19, 2009
I think you mean Hendry’s left-hand men.
Lou’s decision to keep gregg as closer for too long is a bit of a bogus line. Every closer is capable of stringing a couple blown saves together and Lou decided to see if he could ride it out. Gregg was doing ok prior to the last few weeks. Not great but better than most guys in the pen.
hansman1982 - August 19, 2009 via mobile
No doubt
Gregg’s implosion came at a very inconvenient time.
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
Bogus
Thinking in terms of where the buck stops, the manager is in charge of who on the roster takes the field and the player’s role. Not saying anything would have necessarily been better or that the other alternatives at any time would have been better, and not saying he didn’t get advice from others involved either. The same could be said for Soriano batting leadoff. The buck stops with Lou. That’s one of the reasons managers get paid as well as they do.
If Lou wanted to be back, I’d be for it. The team hasn’t produced runs consistently and that’s the main reason why they aren’t where they want to be now.
AboutTheCubs - August 19, 2009
leadership
The main thing that I see that this team appears to be lacking is the feeling that they can come back from any deficit at any point in the game. This year it seems like they give up after the pitching staff gives up more than 3 runs. Blame whomever you want but until they get that back it is going to be a long 45 games.
hansman1982 - August 19, 2009 via mobile
Great quote.
It’s funny that a (gasp) STAT GUY would have to be telling people this.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Gah.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Leadership = Edmonds
They failed to point out a huge leader for the team. Jim Edmonds.
As hated as the guy was at first, he quickly gained respect in the clubhouse and on the field. He seemed dry and humorlous, but when it came to gametime he put out maximum effort and did a fine job in his role in the ReEdmonds platoon.
I know he’s old and all that but I’ve always felt he should’ve been brought back. He’s a “precious” lefty, he plays CF and he would piss off Card fans. But instead they dumped him and the Cards have the last laugh by taking our guy DeRosa and having him lead them to the playoffs.
CrankyShoulder - August 19, 2009
The Cards get the last laugh a lot
Ace Venom - August 19, 2009
We should have given Gary Gaetti another shot too when Ramirez went down
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Ha! Exactly right
Edmonds was Gaetti 2.0. Notice nobody else has signed him.
Of course, it’s possible, too, that he just wanted to retire after last season.
And if you’ve been watching the Cardinals, you know DeRosa isn’t “leading” them anywhere. I think guys like Pujols and Carpenter and Holliday are more to credit.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
DeRosa is doing well over there and is greatly respected
far more than anything we were able to come up with. The Cards took the Cubs to the cleaners with mid season pickups this year, after we had rolled them the last couple years.
I agree on Edmonds, though. Not like anyone was beating down the door to get him
tommy veryzer - August 19, 2009
Let me sum this up:
Hendry didn’t keep or obtain a good utility infielder to back up Ramnirez and platoon with Fontenot (agreed).
Hendry should have gotten a better close than Kevin Gregg (agreed).
Hendry should have gotten a better backup catcher (agreed).
This is all Hendry’s fault… (Seriously? That’s absurd!)
We’re talking about bench players here, and bench players don’t make the difference between a 96-win team and an 84- or 85-win team. This year’s mediocrity has everything to do with injuries and “collapse” seasons (the opposite of breakouts) by almost every single regular and starting pitcher on the team, with lone the exceptions of Derrke Lee, Ryan Theriot, Kosuke Fukudome, and Randy Wells – that’s only 4 players out of the 13 regulars + starters! That you’re blaming him for this when the list of people that played healthy and up to expectations is so short is ridiculous. That you’re doing it when your post giving Hendry advice on what to do last offseason suggested getting rid of 2 of the 4 guys (Lee and Fukudome) that have actually played up to par,admitted your hands were tied with a third (Theriot), and didn’t include the fourth (Wells) ins your plans is completely laughable.
And don’t give me the “leadership” argument… especially not when you were the one suggesting the team should trade away the best leader it’s had this decade, Derrek Lee.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
Backup catcher...
Koyie Hill is a good defensive backup catcher, you can excuse his lack of offense because, well, backup catchers aren’t usually supposed to play as much and as long as he has this year.
CubsBullsBears - August 19, 2009
I think the biggest complaints
are the DeRosa trade and he sure was no “back up” and the Bradley signing. I agree that Hendry is taking too much a a beating and the
people are not assessing enough responsibility on the players but Hendry does get a good deal of blame here as well. Gathrights and Miles were pretty horrid signings as was dealing for Freel. Now getting Baker and later Gorzo and Grabow were among his better moves.
I of course put as much blame on Lou both for misusing what he had had and his overall appearance of not seeming to care or take
any responsibility.
Bottom line plenty of blame to go around.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
OK, so we're still talking...
1 starter and a bunch of backups. Hendry made some mistakes with the bench and pen this year, but that’s not why this team has struggled.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
Well signing Bradley and trading DeRosa
Etc is a major contributing factor to why the team has struggled. Why do you keep referring to DeRosa as a “back up” ? Look I am more sympathetic to Hendry than probably 90% of the BCB but he still made huge mistakes. I mean could it have gone the other way if Bradley, Gregg and Miles worked out, you betcha but it hasn’t and he has to take the blame for that.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
I think he was referring to DeRosa as a starter
berselius - August 19, 2009
Than what is Bradley ?
As far as I can tell Bradley plus DeRosa is two starters. I guess he just skipped the Bradley signing.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
Bradley replacing DeRosa is one starter
berselius - August 19, 2009
Bradley did not replace DeRosa
and Shawngoldman omits all mention of Bradley signing in terms of anger over Hendry’s move when it is 2nd only to trading DeRosa in terms of why people are upset. He also omits Marquis for Vizcaino, eating Gauden & Bako’s contracts, getting Heilman & Gathright and brings up a straw man re Hill in that I don’t think anyone thinks having Hill as the back up catcher is a major problem. Like I said I am more sympathetic to Hendry than most but you can’t dismiss the criticism of him by only mentioning a fraction of his moves.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
First off, signing Bradley was the first move.
But that’s neither here nor there. The point is Al’s criticism wasn’t that the Cubs shouldn’t have signed Bradley… rather that they should have waited and tried to get him for less money so they could keep DeRosa.
By the way, I predict that you’ll all be singing the praises of Bradley a year from now. He’ll likely outperform Ibanez and Abreu (perhaps combined) over the next two years.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
You have a point regarding bench players.
However, I refer you to the 1969 Cubs, who lost precisely because they had NO bench, and when the regulars got too tired, there was no one to replace them.
The 2008 Cubs had good bench players — the 2009 Cubs don’t. Obviously, that’s not the entire reason they are where they are this year, but it is a contributing factor.
I remain unconvinced that the Bradley signing was a good one. He is a useful player. But he will be making far too much money in 2010 and 2011 given what he will contribute. If I’m wrong, I will say so.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Fukudome will make more, and produce less.
Do you complain about that signing?
Theroid - August 19, 2009
Fukudome is having a better year in 2009 than he did in 2008.
Is he worth as much as he got? Probably not, but I expect him to continue at the present level for the rest of the contract.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
And even at that present level he's worse than Bradley,
and making more than Bradley.
That’s your quote, and it’s much more applicable to Fukudome than it is Bradley. You just have an irrational hate for Bradley.
Theroid - August 19, 2009
No, I do not.
I simply think he was advertised as something he isn’t, and will be paid too much for that the next two years.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Fukudome is having the better season.
He’s playing a more valuable defensive position, and has been one of the better players on this year’s team. That last statement is one of the problems. Fukudome is a very good player this year, but he shouldn’t be a serious contender for team MVP.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
Fukudome has been better this year, no doubt.
I just think its interesting that we never hear about his contract, when he makes more than Bradley.
Theroid - August 19, 2009
You do realize he doesn't really need to produce that much...
to match his contract, right? $10M/season is a lot of money to you and I, but to the Cubs it isn’t much. It’s about 2.5 wins over replacement, or about 25 runs better than an average right fielder. He should surpass those numbers enough in the next two seasons to overcome this year’s underperformance.
Is he playing up to his salary this season? Certainly not. Will he be a value over the next two years? It’s the most likely outcome.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
obviously, this season $10 million
is a decent amount of money, since they had to shift the roster around to make it available
Illicat - August 19, 2009
And what of Dempster then?
He was signed last off-season, as well, is signed for a year longer than Bradley is, and is making more money per season.
There are a lot of bad contracts on this team. Bradley’s isn’t one of them. It wasn’t even the worst one offered last off-season by the Cubs.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
Your point about contracts is taken.
I think I’m simply looking at the fact that the Cubs went out seeking a middle-of-the-order power bat, told us they had one in Bradley, and while he has been useful, he isn’t as advertised.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
Agree...
…and if he stays in one piece (who knows), he is a perfect number two hitter and that is where I think he can be productive.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
That's fair...
but remember, they signed Fukudome to be that guy the previous off-season. He couldn’t do it — if he could Bradley may have never been signed in the first place. But Fukudome doesn’t get as much vitriol spewed his way as Bradley does and has a much higher salary. But he’s still useful regardless of how he earns his value. Some guys do it through excellent fielding, others power. MB does it with lots of walks and doubles.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
Correct.
All I’m saying is that Bradley is not the middle-of-the-order run producer that was advertised.
If he contributes value via walks & doubles, great.
The 13 doubles this year don’t look so good, though.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
This year he's been mediocre...
but he’s a better player than this. I think you’ll see more of the post-ASB Bradley going forward.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
do you know what the lottery numbers are as well?
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
9 20 23 30 51
sorry – can’t divulge the megaball number.
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
I'd take that.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
if you win Al, you have to buy each member of BCB a big gulp.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
I'd do that.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
I a big fan of Bradley
but even his post asb numbers could be better. Al is right, his 2b and hr numbers are woefully low compared to even his career numbers. He is contributing, but has alot more room to go.
KaliCub - August 19, 2009
And Dome was advertised as an everyday player.
KaliCub - August 19, 2009
For the most part...
…he has been. And that’s despite his inexplicable problems with left-handed pitching.
My solution: There are, what?, five left-handed pitchers wandering around the pen; put the lot of them together, and let Dome have nothing but LH BP.
LeSaboteur - August 19, 2009
But bench players aren't solely responsible for this year's performance.
Sure, this team has lost some ground because their bench and bullpen aren’t as strong as they could be. I think everyone can see that, and Hendry has admitted as much. But it’s not the sole cause for this team’s demise. It’s not even the major cause. It may have done in the 1969 Cubs, but this team’s foe has been poor fortune and worse health.
If you want to know why this team has come up short, it has everything to do with the players that were on the team last season: Soriano’s slump, Soto’s slump and injury, Ramirez’s injury, the DL stings of the top 4 starting pitchers, Marmol’s complete loss of control, and Fontenot’s severe regression. Hendry’s offseason moves only could have solved one — *maybe 1.5 — of those problems, and there are many more that would have occurred regardless of his moves.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - August 19, 2009
I wanna see that!
I bet he doesn’t do it in a Cub uniform for a winning team.
Itchy - August 19, 2009
Bradley was what 1st move?
DeRo was traded on New Years Eve. Bradley was signed 1-2 weeks later.
IMO the utter lack of payroll flexibility forced Hendry to deal DeRo to get “more lefthanded” at the righteous request of sweet Lou.
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
I take exception...
…with the idea that Piniella is somehow to blame for this mess. Did he suggest the team needed to be more balanced? yes. Did he choose who that player was going to be? NO.
The only thing Hendry has proven he knows how to do is throw crap at the wall and hope some of it sticks. Raul Ibanez should be the CUBS rightfielder, and I’m sure that would have been Piniellas first choice.
The fault should lie with the man who implemented Piniella’s suggestions. There was a right of doing it and a wrong way, Hendry went about it the wrong way.
troutfishin - August 19, 2009
That makes...
…way too much sense to me!
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
I didn't realize you were a Cubs insider
How could you possibly know this?
Unless, of course, Pinella knows that Ibanez is ancient and will look terrible at the end of his 3 year deal, and can’t play defense particularly well.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
Funny you should say...
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Pure speculation
Don’t use speculation to support your argument. An acceptable argument for your premise would be the players were injured and underperformed and that isn’t Lou’s fault.
ConcreteCoda - August 19, 2009
The word you are looking...
…for Concretecoda and Wreckard is conjecture. I was simply stating my belief that Piniella probably would have preferred Ibanez, whom Piniella had as a young player, over the trainwreck that is otherwise known as Bradley. That is not a provable statement but conjecture.
troutfishin - August 19, 2009
trainwreck?
Theroid - August 19, 2009
Funny right,
trout splits hairs on conjecture v speculation, (Speculation: conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.) but calls Bradley’s just below average season to date a trainwreck.
ConcreteCoda - August 19, 2009
Trainwreck
Yeah, I said it and I wasn’t talking about just this year either. Bradley has proven to be a malcontent throughout his career. Hendry went into the Bradley deal wearing rose colored glasses, hoping that he could repeat his 2008 career year and hoping he wouldn’t be a headcase.
BTW, It’s impossible to formulate a sentence regarding the performance of an individual without using conjecture. If you want people to only talk about the pure facts rather than offer up an opinion here or there than I believe you’re in the place.
troutfishin - August 19, 2009
You weren’t formulating a sentence regarding someone’s performance – you were making stuff up about who is responsible for certain personal moves. If you can’t see the difference between these things I’m not sure what to tell you.
Wreckard - August 19, 2009
You think Hendry traded DeRosa , signed Gathright etc without going over it with Lou ?
More directly though his continued misuse of the bullpen and the bench has helped fuel the current situation. Why in the world does
he bench Baker for Miles when Baker has been hitting up a storm. Why is Grabow not warming up when Marmol has no control and proceeds to walk in the winning run ? Why is Soriano no benched 2 or more times a week when he can’t hit and is a subpar fielder ?
How does he run through a bench INNINGS before the opposing manager in a tie HOME game ? and why does he look like he does not care and keep blaming everything but himself and shrug “what can I do ?” He is a terrible strategic manager . Give him a great team and gee they can win. give him a team that requires very careful use and some inspiration/butt kicking and all he can do is jay walk.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
Of course he reviewed...
…things with Lou, but Hendry is still the GM, not Lou.
Why have a frigging GM, if his poor decisions always go back to the fact he may have reviewed them with Lou?
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
My problems with Lou have little to do with Hendry's decisions
as you can see. I have been critical of the very fact that Hendry is the type of GM who gets what his managers “want” , be it Dusty or Lou, rather than construct a team and have them manage it. However when your manager plays extreme favorites and drives useful players out of town and coddles others it does not help. However my main point was that Lou IS a bad manager and as
Ballhawk will tell you it is hardly a new position for me ( Phillies game in April 08 cough cough).
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
I guess it begs the question...
…does Hendry have the ability to make the right decisions on his own? I assume you agree that the GM is responsible for player selection, so what is the solution?
I would also argue that there are a lot of good managers who aren’t the best at GM duties, which is why they stayed in managing. Bobby Cox is an example of this, as he got out of the GM position and got back in managing. Good managers are usually strong at assessing what they have and putting those guys in the best postion to succeed. But, no matter how good a manager is, they will struggle if they don’t have the right pieces.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Lou misused the pieces he has
as flawed as they are.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
So what would you do?
According to many, Hendry has now hired two managers in a row who have failed.
Do you have confidence in Hendry to hire a third?
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Nope but if Hendry goes Lou had better be gone as well
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
As I have said...
…I’m not worried about the next manager, I’m worried about the getting the organization’s numerous flaws (above the manager) corrected. If they aren’t, fans will be screaming for another new manager in 2-3 years time.
If a new GM wants to can Lou, so be it. Organizations win championships, not managers.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Well said
Managers have to know the game to field manage and they have to work with their staff. My guess is there are many managers who do that well enough and their imperfections don’t impact more than an unbalanced schedule does. Other than that they are the fall guy; where the team goes they go. How thier work is received is based on how well the team plays, injuries, etc. To have players with higher and longer guaranteed contracts, what I call fixtures, it is destined to go the way of the money and committments. Bobby Cox and LaRussa survive their players and bad seasons. Lou Piniella should too, but he gets demoralized and might be ready to retire rather than wait this out. The new ownership might also want start over with their own guy.
AboutTheCubs - August 19, 2009
except that after Hendry put together the team
Lou managed them HORRIFICALLY. I used to be blown away by Dusty’s bad moves, but I think Lou has trumped them a while back.
His use of the bullpen alone has been so bad, it’s basically been a course in how not to use a pen, if you want them to be successful.
Is the season ALL on Lou? No. Should he get enough blame that he’s not invited back next year? Absolutely
Illicat - August 19, 2009
Optimism vs. Reality
A huge difference between the two. Optimism suggests there is still hope at a playoff season while the reality is far different. But don’t take my word for it, take a look at the club itself. From Lou on down to the players themselves, this team has quit on 2009. The injuries, sub-standard performance and yes, the inordinate amount of bad luck is weighing heavily on the shoulders of this club…and it shows.
Every time they turn around, another team is getting hot at their expense…broken bat flares, infield hits, bad bounces, bad calls…on down the line. None of it excuses the very poor season in general but that kind of stuff absolutely has a place in the game and in 2009, it hasn’t been the Cubs’ year.
But there were serious loud noises that could easily be detected months ago that foretold where this season was headed.
krummy12 - August 19, 2009
How many diving catches
have you seen by Cubs’ opponents this year? Great defensive plays? Hard-hit balls right at people?
Maybe not more than usual, but it seems like a lot.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
So
you’re blaming the Cubs poor record on bad luck? Come on, that’s quite a stretch.
VillanuevaExperience - August 19, 2009
I would like to thank AL
personally and say THANK YOU once again for allowing us to come here and bitch and moan – as well as jump up and down together in joy (unfortunately, the former has been more frequent lately).
With 700 posts on your headline today, we are all certainly willing to share our opinions!
Thanks AL!!
HENDRY MUST GO!
The E-Man - August 19, 2009
I agree with
everything except your last statement, E. :)
Seriously, Al is far more patient with a lot of us than he should be. Heck, I wouldn’t be this patient with me. Although I disagree with him sometimes, I think we agree on far more things.
That there are 700-plus posts on this thread might be testament to how well Al has operated this enterprise.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
Whole heartedly agree.
I can’t imagine the patience required to resist banning many on here, especially those that so blatantly ignore the rules as they are laid out.
AndrewJStone - August 19, 2009
So Bruce...
…who is the magical manager Hendry will hire this offseason to bring the Cubs a championship?
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
I don't think
Lou is going anywhere except the Cubs’ dugout for 2010. Don’t write it in blood, but I just can’t see him leaving before his term is up.
You think not, I’m assuming?
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
I'm assuming...
…Ricketts has control of the club by November or so and that he will nuke Hendry (maybe this is just wishful thinking). If that is the case, I think it is 50/50 whether Piniella comes back.
My question was based on the fact that many here feel Hendry does not deserve the bulk of the blame for what has transpired. In that case, I am just curious whether folks think he deserves to hire manager number 3 and who that person should be.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
I would like to thank everyone on this thread...
… for being relatively nice to each other, not calling names, and trying to back up their arguments with facts.
That’s what this site should be about, and it is testament to those who have intelligent things to say about the Cubs. I appreciate the discussion today; I’ve learned some things and I hope others have as well.
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
I think most of the "blame"
must be shouldered by the players. I remain convinced, by and large, that the right players are there. But in aggregate, they aren’t playing the way they should be playing.
Hendry, in my view, has earned the benefit of the doubt. Lou, too. I think the time-honored Chicago tradition of firing managers/coaches and GMs every three-four years is shortsighted and contributes to the lack of traction regarding winning.
I supported the firing of Dusty because of what happened in 2004 with his lack of institutional control, followed by the abortion of a 2005 season and his questionable use/abuse of pitchers (2006, in retrospect, was a lost cause). I don’t think the 2007 season would have turned around if Dusty had been manager.
I would say the end of the 2010 season is a fair amount of time to judge both men, although Lou probably will retire then regardless.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
Fair enough
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
Also...
…if Ricketts decides to keep the status quo (Hendry and Piniella, more so Hendry) in tact for 2010, it will mean they will take one more run at it with this core group. If that is the case, you would have to hope (big time) that these same guys can stay healthy and some can also regain the old form.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
I think you're right
… if that’s the case. I suspect you’ll see some moves, but the core group probably won’t change much.
But there’ll be plenty of time to wax rhapsodic about 2010 once ’09 is in the books.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 19, 2009
Dusty wasn't fired though.
Cubs just didn’t renew his contract. I suppose the net result is the same (he gone) but there are some nuances there that shouldn’t be ignored.
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Hmmm...I do not
agree 100% here.
We all have bad and good years.
As fans – and in my case as a STH an “investor”, so to speak, when the GM has a “bad” year, it is bad for us. Which, when I have been waiting my whole life for a Championship, is screwed.
There is no way in hell that I am letting Hendry off the hook this off-season b/c at the very least, with a tiny crack of a window closing, he trades the best utility man in baseball AND THE #2 RBI guy from the year before!
And then the rest of the moves are just like a house of cards. We all have been living his moves.
Since HE himself stated in 2007 that he never wanted to be shorthanded with injuries as the reason for signing DeRo (based in part on Hendry’s disasterous 2006), to trade him for players that were not going to help this year after a 97 win previous season, was just very short-sighted.
Other than this, yes – the crappy players should play better and Fontenot should suddenly be able to be better than a spot utility guy ;)
The E-Man - August 19, 2009
See if they can...
…peel away Smoke from his sports agent gig, or Tony Gwynn from his coaching/analyst job. Both are were at the top of their gigs, played quite recently, and could double as pitching or batting coaches, respectively.
If there’s anybody who can “fix” Fonzi, it’s Mr. Padre.
Or, there’s always Bob up in the booth.
LeSaboteur - August 19, 2009
D-O-N-E.
That’s what this season is. Pack it in, folks.
Theroid - August 19, 2009
Can we quote you on that if the Cubs come back and make the playoffs?
Al Yellon - August 19, 2009
will we be expected to link back to this thread if we do quote him?
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
I would love to see that happen...
…and it would be a wonderful thing to stick it to the Cards.
Even though I have defended Piniella for the most part, I will be the first to say this; if the Cubs do come back and make the playoffs, it won’t be because Pineilla changed his ways or did something fantastic. It will be because the core group of players on this club take it upon themselves to wake their asses up and take ownership based on their on level of pride to succeed.
This is why the rest of this year will be very revealing to what the Cubs should keep (player wise) and who they may have to spent bundles of money on, to dispense for future success.
MPH73 - August 19, 2009
I told myself I wasn't going to do this anymore because it's now entering the realm of possibility, but just once more - for old times sake...
Witness!
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
my biggest problem with Hendry is he seems to ever put a high value on middle infield defense.
I see him stretching to sign pitchers and outfield bats, but when it comes to great middle infield gloves, Jim never went the extra mile. How many times have we been frustrated by a team that has a great middle infield?
Doesn’t our outstanding starting pitching deserve better? Maybe our relief staff would have better #s if those grounders would not have “eyes” through the infield. Great defense sure cures a lot of ills. When our pitching has a low ERA, they really have a low ERA because they get very little help from the defense. It has never been a big priority of Hendry.
Yet if offense was the big thing Hendry tried to cure in 2009 (and he was willing to sacrifice defense to do it), I have to say it has been a big FAIL so far. I just hope this team proves me wrong in the 40+ games we have remaining.
LAcarl519 - August 19, 2009
ever = never (oops)
LAcarl519 - August 19, 2009
So how bout them doggies ?
I am going to need something to look forward to in Sept besides all those old movies.
E mail me at Maddux2014 at gmail dot com if you think you can get them to Hollywood. I mean one of them used to be in the business
maybe he wants to visit the Chinese and pee on Lassie’s cement paw print.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
huh???
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Sorry Ballhawk "personal " message on blog
Lacarl said in previous posts he would bring his lovely doggies to visit me when I am in LA in Sept. I don’t have his direct e mail
so I am leaving him a message.
I promise this is not secret code for another Anti- Lou rant.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
Oh you don't need a secret code for that.
You do quite well with the Auntie Lou rants out here in the open…
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
"An another thing"!
As with many of you – seeing the Cardinals get BETTER has gotten me even more disgusted – if that is possible.
It is like watching the Packers win championships (sorry to our Wisc. members).
The E-Man - August 19, 2009
yeah
adding smoltz to their rotation is way too much
jesus christos - August 19, 2009
I really, really hope that tonight
is not a 3 bottles of wine night again…
Craig in South Bend - August 19, 2009
Have you considered wood alcohol ?
It’s cheaper. If it has be wine then Boons Farm Tickle Me Pink. That was the cheapest when I was in HS a LONG, LONG time ago.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
Alas according to Boons Farm Web site " Tickle Pink"
is “retired”. But here is high end alternative vintage http://www.ledgebrookwines.com/sku3080.html?utm_source=Google%20Products&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=ERNEST%20&%20JULIO%20GALLO%20BOONES%20FARM%20STRAWBERRY%20HILL
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
You guys are
a trip! lol
I am going to Russian River in Sonoma next week, and you’re talking about Boones Farm haha!
The E-Man - August 19, 2009
Nah
I love me some wine, and it’s less filling than beer, so I drink it, even though I have a drinks fridge full of Coors Light, Oberon, Sam Adams, etc.
I will say this about Boons Farm though…When I was in Mexico, I had nothing but these blue frozen drinks called Costa Carribe. When there’s no curacao on hand, and the liquor store is closed, that blue Boons Farm comes in handy for making Costa Carribes.
Craig in South Bend - August 19, 2009
Well you have that in common with Maddux
He a VERY serious wine connoisseur and has one hell of cellar. Being Maddux he says that the reason he prefers wine is that
beer makes him want to pee too much.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
That too
the peeing that is, but there’s something neat about my favorite all time baseball player being into wine. Can’t wait until 9/2 when I go to that Cubs game because hopefully I can make my way to Trader Joes to buy a case.
Craig in South Bend - August 19, 2009
Maddux would always feign disgust when accused of having a "beer" gut
He explained it was in fact a “wine” gut.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
comments like that are just another reason to love that guy
he’s such a kid. lol :-)
Allie - August 19, 2009
impressive...
blackhawk24 - August 19, 2009
I read through the last game thread from last night
just to make sure I wasn’t a complete ass. Looks like I was in my usual lovey drunken mood.
Craig in South Bend - August 19, 2009
I don't have cable, so assuming the rain stops here in Chicago...
I’ll be out on the roof deck tonight listening to Pat & Ron and smoking one of these…
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Lou
i’ll add the first game….he pinch hit fuld in the 7th, then after the inning took him out of the game. your best defensive outfielder is out. a guy you have been using lately for defense, this kind of game………..leaving fox in left in the 9th….now i’ve played the game and had decent speed, Fox got to that double on the first bounce, showing Fuld would have caught it had he been the defensive replacement for Fox in the 9th…..he should have pinch hit Sorry-ano in the 7th….Fuld= cub win 1-0……another Lou moment …
ARTA - August 19, 2009
I know I mentioned in the thread as Fuld batted and before Fox made the miscue
I am NOT gloating but yes again trying to rub in what I think is Lou’s fatal flaw in that he manages for the MOMENT and NEVER thinks ahead which is why he depletes the bullpen and the bench with a lot of wrong moves. Now with two out in the 7th and down one bench player in Theriot he wants to pinch hit for Dempster and he goes to Fuld who frankly is not great hitting off the bench anyway but IS a great defender. He does not care or perhaps consider that the game is tied at 0-0 and Fuld might be more important as a defensive replacement for Fox who is clearly a very bad fielder. I don’t know if Fuld would have gotten that ball but he was a better option.
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
Don't lie Jessica, you know you're gloating... ;-)
ballhawk - August 19, 2009
Great Nats starter suck tonight
Balester made it through an inning and a third giving up 3 runs ( so far) 5 walks , 3 hits ( including a double to Marquis) Vs the Rockies but the best part is IF the Nats give him another start it won’t be against the Cubs as that would not be on rotation. Can’t we play against their suckiest pitcher ( I know the way the Cubs are hitting he would throw a complete game shut out).
Doggie Stalker - August 19, 2009
Its over
Since the top of the division seems to be getting further and further away. Why not put some guys in the line up who want to be there. Take Fuld, put him in and take out Soriano. At least if anything you gain a defensive player because if anyone calls Soriano a good out fielder your nuts. Then do the same for Bradley. Last night Fukudome ran into the wall and had to turn around and run to right field because the over paid right fielder didnt bother to give him any support. I have always liked watching the guys who want the ball. All the guys hungry for a spot will do their best to make a play. The over paid ones wont. Thats why I dont hate on Theriot as much. Though he doesnt have the strongest arm and he does make errors, he wants the ball.
bigshortyskater - August 19, 2009
Great....he really WANTS all those chances to thow pies at Derrek Lee.
That makes it better I guess.
santoswoodenlegs - August 19, 2009
Jeeze after reading
all of this actually makes me look forward to tonights game. :-(
sue369 - August 19, 2009
Ok...
…so after 2 NL Central championships in a row and the third winning season in a row we are willing to run hendry out of town??? Geez
hansman1982 - August 19, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.