champaignchris

4-19 (.174) in their last 23. We could be on our way to an historic season. If they go 8-31 (.205) the rest of the way, they'll set the record for the worst team in Cubs history. I'm almost, kinda, sorta rooting for this to happen. Just so I can say I've seen something I've never seen before. If they go 14-25 (.359), it'll surpass the 2000 Cubs and be the worst team since 1981. If they go 16-23 (.410), they'll match the miserable record of the 2006 Cubs, which I consider to be the worst Cubs team I've ever seen. (They were a game better than the 2000 team, but, when you compare the rosters, there's no way the 2006 team should have been as bad as it was.) Can Hendry really field two of the three worst Cubs teams in a generation and keep his job?

Now that the trade is final... Derek finished all-time among Cubs (with at least 1500 PA for rate stats)... #31 Plate Appearances #13 OB% #4 SLG% #4 OPS #13 Adjusted OPS+ #16 doubles #11 Home Runs #16 Runs created #7 strike outs #9 double plays grounded into #8 AB/HR He's also top-10 all-time in Cubs history in a bunch of SABRE-metric stuff like RE24, WPA, WPA/LI, and REW.

Pujols... Check out these numbers from this year... .000/.231/.000 vs. LAA .200/.259/.240 vs. LAD .167/.265/.200 vs. NYM He obviously wilts in the face of the pressure of playing against big market teams from Los Angeles and New York.

Yup.

With the amount of one run losses, I would have expected the deviation between the Cubs actual record and their Pythagorean "expected" won-loss record to be more than three games. Still, that's second worse in the Majors (behind the Cardinals, of all teams).

3-7 through the first ten games.

Just throwing this out there... Other than the two blow up games (season opener and the D-Lee game), Z has a 3.86 ERA this year. I know that's kind of like saying Z doesn't suck except for those times when he does...

After we're done with Milwaukee, there are 17 straight games against the top 5 teams in the league. Anyone want to predict the record over that span? With the way they've been playing, is 5-12 too pessimistic?

According to this ESPN article: http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=5417150

Bingo. If we assume x% of players were roided up and that number was even between batters, starters, relievers, then x% of roided up batters would be playing every day, while only x% of every starting pitcher is roided in a given game and there would be only an x% chance that the relief pitcher being brought in was on roids. Thus, if x=25, two batters in every game were on roids, while the batters were facing a roided starting pitcher only once every four games, and a roided relief pitcher for an inning or two every other game. Regardless of what the actual percentage was, unless significantly more pitchers than hitters were doping, cheating hitters would have a more significant effect on the game.

Just to throw this out there... The Cubs are 9.5 games out of the playoffs. The Angels are 8.5 games out of the playoffs. He has essentially the same chance of making the postseason on either team. With that being the case, why would he approve the trade? I suspect the metric might be changed if the proposed trade was to the Giants, Rays or someone else solidly in the playoff hunt.

Didn't Torre just turn 70? Does a 70-year-old want a multi-year project like the Cubs? Do the Cubs want to hand over their multi-year project to a 70-year-old?

Looking at other 1B contracts, I think Dunn will probably command closer to $14M or $15M a year.

I think Dunn's massively undervalued as a player by the media and consequently fans in general. The disparity between the media coverage on him and that on Howard makes me irrationally angry. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Cubs put a good wad of money on Dunn at first base for about 4 years. Is he going to command more than $20M a year? Don't know. But there's no reason why the Cubs shouldn't be a player for him. I think Konerko, Berkman, and Carlos Pena are all going to be free agents, but I don't see any of them being major upgrades over Lee. Konerko and Berkman might still swing a better bat, but they're just as old as Lee and I'd question whether either would be able to field their position for the duration of even a two year contract. I suppose Pena is a couple years younger and might make for a decent stop-gap. He's even more of an all-or-nothing hitter than Dunn is and is not having a very good year. (Still better than Lee, though.) Jorge Cantu doesn't do much for me at all as a Lee replacement. As Ramirez insurance? Sure, but I don't see him as the "big bat" we're looking for.

Basically, going into next year, the Cubs will need a first baseman, second baseman (because, apparently, the team feels a Baker/Fontenot platoon isn't worth trying), and probably someone who can step in and play starter quality third base if Ramirez sucks/is injured for a huge chunk of the season for a third season in a row. The outfield is probably set for the beginning of the year due to the contracts. And the four outfielders the Cubs have aren't the reason they're awful this year, anyway. On paper, Dempster, Wells, Gorzelanny, Silva, and Zambrano should be good enough as a starting staff to compete, if they get any offensive and bullpen support at all. I can see the Cubs picking up a second tier/back of the rotation kind of guy for continued Zambrano insurance. Or maybe Hendry (or whomever) can pull off a Bradley/Hundley kind of trade for Z and bring in a useful part with a bad contract. Marmol, Marshall, and Cashner are the start of a good bullpen. There should be enough in-house already to fill in the rest. Hopefully we don't have a third year in a row of the bullpen being completely horrible for two months until the coaching staff figures out who can actually pitch. (Isn't that what Spring Training is for?) So basically, assuming payroll stays roughly the same, you've $30M to sign a starting 1B, starting 2B, spot starter 3B, and 3/4 slot starting pitcher. I don't see the money stretching that far. Barring a blockbuster of a trade that completely restructures the team, they'll probably be a major player for one of the big 1B FAs, sign a couple of "meh" utility infielders, and a "meh" starting pitcher. Not real exciting.

Considering that the offense looks exactly like it did under the previous two hitting coaches, one would hope upper management could see that the hitting coach isn't the problem.

I count 7 guys on their current active roster or the DL who are former Cubs.

I recently read Moneyball for the first time and I was struck by the early chapters' description of Billy Beane as a "5-tool" prospect who simply didn't have the mental makeup to hit major league pitching with any consistency. I immediately thought of Corey Patterson. That might not be fair to Corey, though. He's had a much better career than Beane did.

Given Ricketts' statements at the beginning of the year to the effect that he thought the pieces were in place to be competitive this year, I'd be shocked if, after seeing the results, he kept Hendry on. This seems like a "evaluate what we've got" sort of year, while next year looks to be the start of the "molding the team into what I'd like it to become" process. And like others said, I'd be willing to put a nice sum on Gonzalez being the manager in ATL next year.

20 runs scored in the last 10 games. It's just brutal, brutal baseball they're playing right now.

The Cubs have now become a bad Saturday Night Live skit... "You got shut out by the Pirates again, Cubs. Really, Cubs. REALLY!" "The Pirates are 9-3 against you, Cubs, and 18-48 against the rest of the league. Really. REALLY?!?!" ...and so on, ad nauseum.

The Mets of recent years have had bad pitching (everyone but Santan) and injuries (Beltran, Reyes, Delgado). The Mets were my first thought, but not the current Mets. Rather the post-Subway Series Piazza/Mo Vaughn/Leiter Mets from about 2001 to 2005.

About nine months ago, I posted a thread to mock-seriously "prove" that Aaron Miles' '09 season was the worst offensive performance in Cubs history. Compare: Ram '10: 185 PA, .162/.227/.269 Miles '09: 170 PA, .185/.224/.242 Yikes! The only explanation is that Ram is being possessed by the ghost of Aaron Miles.

They nullify multiple innings in rain-outs all the time, which is why the first official home run hit during a night game at Wrigley (Lenny Dykstra) isn't actually the first home run hit during a night game at Wrigley (Phil Bradley, the night before). For some reason, it's always particularly bothered me when a guy gets hurt while playing a game that gets wiped out by the rain. Everyone remembers the "pine tar incident" and George Brett flipping out. What they don't remember is that the Royals played the rest of the game under protest and AL President Lee MacPhail reversed the ump's decision. The last two outs of the game were wiped out, and the remainder of the game was replayed about three weeks later. The change from a win to a loss, moved the Yankees from a game behind the Orioles to two games behind the Orioles as of July 24. The Orioles ended up winning the division by 6 games.

It would be a lot easier to throw hate at the ump if he acted like an ass. Instead, he apologized for the call and is pretty obviously despondent about the whole thing. As it stands, Galarraga's perfect game may end up being the most historically significant perfecto in a while. It might just be the incident that finally drags baseball screaming into the 20th Century with instant replay. Imagine, Joyce blows the call... Galarraga yells over to Leyland that he got the out... Leyland calmly strolls over to the home plate ump and asks for a replay... The home plate ump walks over to the repay booth, watches the replay for about 20 seconds and awards Galarraga the out... Celebration ensues... That Joyce originally blew the call becomes nothing more than a footnote. Yeah, that's much worse that the way things are now. That might be what finally gets replay in baseball: It'll take the umps off the hook for this sort of thing.