BigbadB

Tomorrow's editorial: Cubs were actually good last year. You are all mistaken. Keep buying tickets After a bit of reflection, I don't think the Cubs were really as bad as their 79-83 record would have many believe. Going by straight run differential the Cubs should have finished 80-82. OK, no big difference there. However, going by their component offensive stats this team should have scored many more runs than it did... to the tune of about 767 as opposed to the 703 runs they actually plated. Using that as the differential, it could be argued that this team played like it should have won 87 games, not 79. No improvement over the past couple of years, but not a huge dropoff, either. The question is who can we blame for the team falling 60+ runs short of its expected offensive output? I'm not sure the coaching staff and/or management can take a lot of that blame. Most of that difference is probably due to (a lack of) situational hitting, something that doesn't seem to follow much a of predictable pattern. I'm not saying that Dusty/Hendry shouldn't be criticized for some of their decisions, just that the 2005 Cubs team they assembled probably wasn't as bad as its record indicated. The Cubs OBP from the lead off spot this year was .299. From the #2 hole, it was .317. Can you correlate what Lee and the clean up hitters might have done if they had an average OBP from the top two spots of somewhere in the neighborhood of .330? And how about again at .350? Assuming Lee has 70 extra runners on base over the course of the season, and that he drives in a runner every 3 at bats that he has runners on base, Lee alone could have had 23 more RBI's alone. Add in Ramirez, Nomar and Burnitz all possibly having more runners on base to advance and I could easily see this team reaching the 60+ extra runs you suggest.

I think it's disgusting to reward incompetence.

Well, I may have the time frame wrong, but I don't believe I'm just making this up. He had some arm problems either right before or right after his Achilles problems. There was discussion about him possibly missing significant time because of it. And it wasn't the forearm drive off his elbow that I'm referring to.

Yep. Jimenez would be playing everyday and Cedeno would be sitting on the bench. I love what Cedeno has the potential to become, but he's about as unknown of a commodity as anyone on the Cubs roster. The first sign of struggle, Jose Macias (or whoever the veteran flavor of the day happens to be) to the rescue. It's one thing when guys like Cedeno get sat in favor of the likes of Perez or Macias. It would be another if he sat in favor of Jimenez, who actually has value and would be an asset to the team. It's unfair to compare D'Angelo to Neifi. I'm not comparing Jimenez to Neifi. I didn't even mention Neifi. My point is that Baker wouldn't give Cedeno the time he needs to prove he is WAY better than Neifi, Macias, Jimenez or whoever else might be considered for a back up job behind him. The first sign of struggle, he'll be on the bench. I'm in the bring back Nomar camp, and I believe Nomar is way better than all the above names. Quite possibly better than all of them combined.

Hasn't that been the problem? I guess we could have the age old argument about how Prior's injuries were flukes... :? You disagree with this? You think most of them weren't flukes? He's had 3 real injuries, 2 have caused a great deal of missed time IIRC. 1) Running into Giles. How is this NOT fluke? 2) Getting struck on the elbow with a ball travelling over 100 mph. How is this NOT fluke? 3) Achilles. The only one that could be considered not fluke. Nothing irritates me more than people suggesting Prior is "injury prone". I don't disagree with you, but I believe you are missing an injury. What was it that had him shut down at the end of 2004? It was some sort of arm trouble.

Yep. Jimenez would be playing everyday and Cedeno would be sitting on the bench. I love what Cedeno has the potential to become, but he's about as unknown of a commodity as anyone on the Cubs roster. The first sign of struggle, Jose Macias (or whoever the veteran flavor of the day happens to be) to the rescue.

If you go back and look at my original post, you'll see that I did not say Clement was the answer. I said that he was brought in to eat some innings, and was not necessarily meant to be the savior of this team. You can go back and look at teams that made it to the World Series and see guys just like Matt Clement on the back end of their rotations. I won't disagree with you that the Cubs could have resigned Tracshel and they wouldn't have had a need for Clement or to trade Willis. Willis would not have helped the Cubs in 2003. Many other guys would have stepped into the rotation before Willis would have gotten a look. Clement did. Without Clement, the Cubs may not make the playoffs. The Cubs were a team strong enough to go to the World Series in 2003 and almost did it. I was pretty high on Juan Cruz, personally. Why they went with Estes rather than Cruz was beynd me. I wish they hadn't traded Willis. But, it's purely hindsight to presume that Willis would end up being as good as he ended up being in the majors. Or, to assume he would stay fairly healthy all this time. The Cubs had several better left handers (or at least more advanced) in the system when they traded Willis. Jones, Sisco and Sanchez come to mind. If health or other trades were not a factor, I'm not sure Willis would have cracked the Cubs rotation even this year. Wood Zambrano Prior Juan Cruz Angel Guzman Bobbie Brownlie Andy Sisco Justin Jones Luke Hagerty Chadd Blasko Jae-Kuk Ryu Ricky Nolasco Renyel Pinto Felix Sanchez Sergio Mitre Steve Smyth Todd Wellemeyer and maybe a few more that would not only have slowed Willis' advancement through the system, but if they all performed at their highest ceilings may not have allowed Willis to push into the rotation. I'm not saying any are better than Willis. I'm just saying that a lot of these guys were more advanced. Add Willis to that group and you can get a reasonable understanding of why Hendry might have felt he could trade Willis (who was someone who might be able to help the Cubs in the future) for a guy like Clement (who could help the team now). We also can forget that Alfonseca was probably the main target in the trade to help the weak bullpen. Now, I didn't like Alfonseca then, and I still don't like him now. I don't even want to get into that argument. My view is that it was a good trade at the time. Maybe they could have taken a free agent pitcher who could have eaten innings rather than trade for one, but Hendry had an extremely strong farm to use to improve the club and he used it. Whether or not Clement helped the team is subjective. I think he did. I think he would have helped us more if Elias didn't rate free agents based on wins and losses rather than ERA. Clement should have at least been a "B" type free agent. His departure should have netted the Cubs a draft pick. Just looking at Clement's ERA and/or wins and losses, he doesn't look all that impressive. However, I believe he was right up there among the team leaders in 2003 in quality starts. In other words, when he was pitching good, he kept the team in games. When he wasn't pitching good, he got blown out. The 2003 Cubs were fine in the rotation. It was weak in offense, which explains the poor win/loss records of all the Cubs pitchers that year. Zambrano was 13-11 with a 3.11 ERA. Wood was 14-11 with a 3.20 ERA. Clement was 14-12 with a 4.11 ERA. I wish I could see Clement's game log from 2003, because his ERA was in the mid 3's until he started running out of gas in September of that year. The next year, he had a 3.68 ERA. 3.68 was top 30 in the majors this year. Clement was not the answer. He was just one of the pitchers that helped propel the 2003 Cubs into the playoffs and only 5 outs away from the World Series.

I would agree that pitching and defense will win a lot of ball games. I would also argue that good OBP at the top of the line up helps you win games that the pitching may not be up to par. The White Sox and Angels had good pitching and good defense. Anaheim had a .340 OBP from the lead off spot and a .333 OBP from the #2 spot. That decent OBP led to 117 RBI's from the 3 spot and 122 from the 4 spots in the order. The White Sox got a .341 OBP from lead off and a .335 OBP from the #2 spot in the order. That led to 102 and 108 RBI's in the 3 and 4 spots. The Cubs had a .299 OBP in the lead off spot, and a .317 OBP in the 2 spot. We got 93 RBI's from the 3 spot. The 3 spot was where one of the absolute best hitters in baseball camped out most of the season. Had the Cubs put guys with .335 or .340 OBP's in the top two spots, Lee's numbers should have been better than those put up by the Angels hitters in those same spots. The Cubs did get 114 RBI's from the clean up spot, but I think that probably had a lot more to do with Lee than the top two spots once again. The Cubs scored 122 runs from the #3 spot. They scored 83 from the lead off spot and 90 from the #2 spot. This is a direct correlation to the OBP being produced from those two spots in the line up. The worst part is that this was a blatantly obvious problem, yet no one did anything to solve the problem. Matt Murton produced a .400 OBP most of the season, and he hit 6th or didn't play. Walker should have been hitting lead off, and Hairston and Murton should have been hitting 2nd. Neifi hit .305 as a 7 hole hitter this year, which was actually good production for that spot in the order.

Dempster (like Borowski) is not a lights-out closer and certainly has a tendency to worry me, but what would have happened if the Cubs low-balled Dempster and he signed with another team. Now you have to get in a bidding war over someone like Wagner that will end up costing $8-9 million per year. Is Dempster worth $5 million...... NO, but 99% of the players aren't worth what they're paid. At least it's money being paid to someone who has an important role on the team and not a bench-warmer. This isn't a discussion of whether ballplayers are worth more than firefighters. It is a baseball discussion. Dempster isn't worth $5 million because he's not that good, he is an injury risk, the Cubs could probably replace him for less and then use the extra money for something they need. who could they replace him with for less than 5 mil? with all the $ the cubs will save next year in payroll by losing nomar, burnitz & sosa's contract a few mil is not going to make much of a difference. every pitcher is an injury risk (look at what happened to foulke, gagne & benitez) and to say "he's not that good" is just a personal opinion that the facts simply dont back up. what if the dodgers or twins said the same thing about gange and nathan who had similar history's of being failed starters who were often injured? Why would you say Dempster's not good? I'll take a closer with his success rate any day of the week. The beauty of it is he isn't costing top dollar closer money.

I'd expect Giles power numbers to go back to his pre San Diego days.

Each time I hear someone say they'd love to have A-Rod, I think about all the years he's been playing in the league and still has no World Series trophies on his mantle. He got the money he wanted to play this game. He got the team he wanted to play for. What else could he need? Would I rather have A-Rod, or would I rather have Brian Giles, Rafael Furcal and Kenny Lofton? I'd take the latter. Would I rather have A-Rod, or would I rather have a combination of players focusing around Giles that added up to the money A-Rod makes? I'd take the latter. No one player is worth what Jeter, Mussina, Giambi or A-Rod make. I'm fairly certain most everyone would have penciled the Yankees into the playoffs this year if Joe Randa was holding down 3rd base rather than A-Rod. The only way the Cubs should even remotely consider A-Rod is if the Yankees eat enough of his contract to make him no more than 15m per season.

Yeesh. No wonder the Padres were out in 3. They have two guys on their roster that were on that Cubs team in the 70's. :shock: :D

I don't see him getting a starting gig anywhere. There will be other 2nd basemen that aren't "trouble" looking for work this offseason. Jimenez brings OBP, speed, a bit of power and a decent glove to the middle infield. He'd be a pretty good bench player, IMO. He'd also be a decent replacement guy if the starting 2nd baseman did go down. What I would be worried about is if the Cubs went with Cedeno at 2nd, it probably wouldn't take long for Dusty to give more playing time to Jimenez. In other words, going with a rookie at any position with a veteran back up is not "dusty proofing" the line up.

Good times!

How about trading Barrett for Kendall? Then trade a whole bunch of people to Atlanta for Marcus Giles. Does Brian have any other friends we should know about? Any pitchers he can't hit and would prefer to be teammates with? Let's make it impossible to tell the Cubs no. :P

I don't know that anyone is suggesting getting rid of Walker for Jimenez. Jimenez would assume the role Perez or Macias currently have, or should have had (bench).

You'd have a hrad time making a lineup with all those LH hitters 2b Grudz R 3rd Mueller S LF Gonzalez L RF Stairs L 1st Palmeiro L SS Gonzalez R CF Matthews S C Miller R That team is horrible. Good thing we made some trades.

By the way, just playing with a lineup after a series of moves like this, and the lineup is insane: Giles Giles Lee Helton Ramirez Barrett Murton Cedeno Assuming Helton at $14m (Rox have to pick up some of the deal if they trade him), Giles/Giles at 5.5/10, respectively, a crazy 3/30 deal for Wagner, a bench of Blanco/Theriot/Fontenot/Greenberg/1.1m OF, and I've got a $102.75m juggernaut. Having 2 minimum wage starter helps a lot. And with that lineup, you have to be happy to go with the kids on the bench. Don't you dare say things like that. My hopes for this offseason are already precariously waiting to be dashed against a Preston Wilson signing. Your lineup, while formidable and roughly within budget, is so far out of the realm of Jim Hendry's reality that I don't even want to think about it - because I might cry. Please no Preton Wilson That rattled me so much I couldn't even spell his name correctly...... Preston would be fine on 1-2 year deal/batting 6th or 7th IF the Cubs had an Abreu, Giles or Burrell type playing corner outfield, AND an adequate lead-off option playing 2B or SS. What you don't want is for Preston to be your leading OPS in the OF. If so, then we will suffer from Burnitzitis. Hoops You make a good point, Hoops. But, what you have forgotten is that Dusty Baker is managing this team. He sees "speedy CF" when you say Preston Wilson. "That's my everyday #2 hitter", says Dusty.

Guzman's still one of my favorite prospects in the Cubs system, but I don't think there is anyway you delay any decisions to improve the rotation based on how he does in the Fall League. If he proves he is completely healthy, you can stick him in the bullpen or bring him up at the trade deadline once you've found a trade partner for Wood. At this point, you have to be very aware of his injury history and not bank your whole season on his health.

Trade Abreu to make room for Victorino? :shock: Did Victorino have a good year this year? I saw him in San Diego a few years back and want to say he went to Los Angeles or somewhere else before he ended up in Phily. Ah, just looked him up.... Drafted by the Dodgers in '99. Left unprotected in 2003 and drafted by the Padres. Returned to the Dodgers 2 months into the season. Left unprotected in 2005 and drafted by the Phillies. He's either going to be 25 or 26 in a month or 6 months, depending on who has his birthdate correct on their web site. When I saw him, he looked like your basic 5th outfielder.

So the Cubs were supposed to rely on a 21 year old kid who had never seen anything higher than A ball to be the answer to the holes in the rotation? He was actually traded at the age of 20. There was a whole handful of guys more refined, further developed, much more experienced and more mature in the Cubs organization to step into the rotation. Did you also believe this 21 year old kid could go out and get you 200+ innings in 2003? The Cubs already had two other arms in the rotation that probably shouldn't have thrown more than about 170-180 innings in Prior and Zambrano. Throw in Wood and he rehabilitation, and you are really asking for trouble with Estes grabbing all the innings. Dontrelle got noticed because he moved to a system that was barren in the pitching department. The Cubs farm system was full of arms with major league potential. Did I have reason to believe Clement would be a bust? Sure. But, I also believed he had the potential to be a lights out starter. He had nasty stuff. I live in San Diego and watched him. His weakness was the walk. If he cuts his walk rate, he's almost unbeatable with that filthy slider. It's not hindsight to look back and think that Clement could help project us to the playoffs in 2003. We had Wood, Prior and Zambrano (and Cruz too, if Baker didn't have such a love affair over ex Giants). Clement wasn't supposed to be the savior of the team, simply an inning eater that kept the offense in ball games. It's hindsight to look back and say Dontrelle Willis was the answer. A 20 year old kid flowing with talent, yes. But a young kid who can't be expected to advance as quickly as he did through the Marlins organization. To believe that would be to believe that the Cubs should have promoted Andy Sisco this year, Sean Marshall this year, or any other 20 year old pitcher that has a dominant season in lower A ball. Unrealistic. Florida had to trade the talented Mark Kotsay to get Matt Clement. He wasn't just a thrown in. And there were many times that Matt Clement looked more dominant than any other pitcher in the Cubs rotation.

Hinske was traded for Miguel Cairo. Unbelievably, the Cubs let Cairo get picked up via waivers by none other than St. Louis. Mark Bellhorn was chosen via the Rule V draft. Adam Morrissey was traded for Scott Chiasson. I would have made that Clement deal again knowing Willis could be that good. Willis was not in a position to help the Cubs. Clement was. I didn't care for Alfonseca in that deal, but the team did need bullpen help in the worst way. If the team is in a position to win now, you can trade guys who can't help you now for someone who can. Would the Cubs have made it to the postseason in 2003 without Clement? The only real options (don't forget that Shaun Estes was the 5th starter that year) were Cruz and Mitre. Mitre made his first two big league starts that year and Cruz was pretty much ruined by Dusty that year.

Well, ya know.... Hendry doesn't have to wait until the World Series is over before firing his manager.

Also, he's more likely to make it from 1st to 3rd on a single to rf, and then score on a shallow fly to the OF. Something like this become more beneficial in the playoffs when runs typically become harder to come by. Giles had an ops of .941 w/ men on 1st from 2002 to 2004 also. I have no idea what 2002-2005 factors out to be, but looks like his numbers go up w/ someone on 1b. My point was that Giles should have a better AVG/OBP with a runner on 1st. That's a great situation to hit and run. It breaks up double plays and puts runners in scoring position on a hit. Giles should have a better AVG with a runner on 1st.

I don't think that's the way you have to look at it. The way to look at it is would I rather: Nomar 3b Furcal SS Beltran CF or would I rather have Aramis 3b Furcal SS Preston Wilson CF Beltran could probably use a change of scenery about now. Bad move by the Mets. They still have Cameron, so they could put Floyd in LF and Drew in RF. Beltran is a much better player than his 2004 season. He's what we hoped Corey Patterson would become. It's not a deal that is likely to happen, but I would make that trade.