Chicago Cubs Preview

I was in Africa on September 30, 2004 when this game happened. Despite having missed it, I believe it was the most important of the 2004 season.

First of all, that game was the unofficial death knell for the 2004 season. 8000 miles away I read the box score, and was immediately filled with a sense of closure, a bittersweet feeling. It always hurts to see your favorite team lose, but there were a number of things conspiring to temper it. Fact of the matter is, I really disliked the 2004 Cubs. They were a surly bunch that played a stupid, boring brand of baseball. This team did exactly one thing well offensively, hit home runs, and the monotony of one Cub after the other swinging for the fences with no one on base was like something between watching paint dry and NASCAR. With a list of problems rivaling those of a 70-win team, I didn’t feel like the 2004 Cubs deserved to be in the post-season and did not relish the possibility of them representing the first Cubs Championship in 97 seasons. Since the team started September going 16-6, on pace to match their best-in-66-seasons 2003 September performance, only to go 3-7 in the last 10 games against the Mets, Reds and Braves, apparently Someone Up There felt the same way.

But there was something even more important about that game on September 30th that made me feel better: Mark Prior’s line score. Nine innings pitched. Three hits, one of them a home run, the only run given up. One walk. Sixteen strikeouts. One-hundred thirteen pitches, eighty-one strikes. Despite the lack of a W next to Prior’s name, and the significance it played in the Cubs demise, I couldn’t help but smile seeing that line, because it meant that Mark Prior was back.

Clearly, Jim Hendry vowed to exorcise this team of its demons in the wake of 2004. Sosa flaunted his disgust by walking out in the last game of the season; Hendry responded by paying him to play for the Orioles and wishing his ass safe passage with respect to the door closing behind him. With only a few very expensive candidates to replace Alou on the market, he offered no interest in retaining one of his best hitters, who spent the previous season ehitting home runs, being thrown out on the bases, and generally looking like someone replaced his chewing tobacco with pencil shavings. Kent Mercker, who feuded with Steve Stone in the second half of the season, assisting in the departure of the popular broadcaster, had a good season but was not asked to return. The 100 mph fastball, supple buttocks and spittoon head of Kyle Farnsworth were traded for some mildly interesting prospects. Matt Clement wasn’t considered a problem, but he was allowed to reap the rewards of free agency in another uniform.

Normally, I am not one to worry too much about issues of clubhouse chemistry and whatnot, but I say Thank God for all of that. I know I am not the only one who couldn’t bear the thought of another year of Sosa’s tired narcissism, or Alou’s Little League baserunning and huffing at umpires. Will this make the Cubs a better team in 2005 than they were in 2004? I doubt it very much, but, believe it or not, I think the Cubs have a good shot at being a better team anyway, and perhaps at the same time, a team I’ll be able to root for and not feel ashamed.

How good are the Cubs going to be? I am going to make a bulls-eye call of 92 wins, more than I’ve ever projected, with something short of a 50/50 shot at a post-season berth. There are still weaknesses on this club, including an unproven bullpen, an iffy and potentially terrible outfield, and of course any team relying mostly on outstanding starting pitching to take them to a championship has a gun to its head. Of course, a team that actually has outstanding starting pitching has already won a good portion of the battle, so I predict a solid winning record if things generally work out as expected. However, there are a lot of ways that things could go wrong, mostly involving small pieces of cartilage, so I see a distribution of win probabilities with a long left tail, with maybe a two-thirds probability of the team winning between 82 and 98 games. Yes, those numbers are divinations, not estimates, so don’t ask to see my math. They are also pretty far out of whack with other projections, including early runs using DMB and ZiPS projections, which seem to give the Cubs a mid-80s win total. Feel free to interpret that discrepancy as evidence that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

What happened to the Cubs in 2004? They won 89 games, one more than in 2003, and two fewer than my bullseye projection. They came well short of their Pythagorean win total of 94 games, their best virtual showing since 1970, winning the Pythagorean Wild Card Championship and all of the glory that goes with it.

Here is what I predicted last year:

Overall, I see the Cubs winning on strong pitching, both starting and in relief. The offense should move from mediocre to a bit above average, although the combined vagaries of age and youth make it tough to project. Defense should be averagish, but with the pitchers taking care of a disproportionate number of outs via the K, not a major concern.

But once again, this team has flaws. Last year, the cards generally fell in the Cubs' favor and they eked out a title. If things fall the other way, particularly in terms of pitching, watch out below.

In some ways, the cards did fall the other way for the 2004 Cubs, particularly in the essential area of starting pitching. In 2003, Kerry Wood and Mark Prior combined for 422.1 IP and a 2.89 ERA. In 2004, they put in 40% fewer innings and had an ERA nearly a full run higher. But good fortune elsewhere made up for it. The slack was taken up by the rest of the pitching staff, which included Greg Maddux competently leading the team in innings, Zambrano taking a strong step forward, and Glendon Rusch throwing off his DIPS demons and posting a 3.50 ERA in 16 starts. Strikingly, the 2004 Cubs starters had an ERA nearly identical to their 2003 counterparts (buh-bye, Shawn!), and believe it or not, the relief corps combined for a better ERA (buh-bye, Antonio!).

Offensively, the team was somewhat disappointing, although their overall performance was within the realm of reasonable expectations. The obvious factor was the angle of the slippery slope in Sosa’s career, which seemed to steepen. Alex Gonzalez fell from his established career norm of acceptably average to awful. But on the other side of the equation, Moises Alou posted his best year as a hitter since joining the Cubs, Aramis Ramirez looked like he was fully realizing his promise, and Michael Barrett had his best season. The overall problem was that the Cubs seemed to do nothing right but hit home runs. They set a franchise record with 235, leading the league by a good margin. They made a decent showing in team batting average (.268, sixth in the league), but never drew walks (fourteenth in the league, eleventh in OBA) and were slow and generally incompetent on the bases. The result was a mediocre seventh place in the NL in runs per game, and a mediocre nineteenth in MLB EqA. Oh, and did I mention that they bored the living crap out of me?

But now things are different, with a lot of new faces on the team, and some familiar old faces now departed. Some have interpreted Hendry’s off-season aggressiveness as an indication that Dusty Baker’s honeymoon is over, particularly with the departure of Baker sidekicks Ramon Martinez and Wendell Kim, the worst third base coach in the history of the game, a man whose only rightful place on the third base line would be hanging from the flagpole by his Fruit of the Looms. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking, but I can’t help but see a message to Dusty in Hendry’s public support for minor league surprise standout Jason Dubois. Will Hendry have to fight to trump Baker’s whimsy when it comes to lineups and playing time? Of course he will, but some tension between clubhouse and the front office might actually be good for the team. Whatever Dusty Baker’s strengths are as a manager, making the calls regarding personnel decisions is not one of them.

The 2005 team will be different, but is different going to be good? Let’s have a look at the details.

Starting Pitching: Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, Carlos Zambrano, Greg Maddux, Ryan Dempster/Glendon Rusch

March again came in like a lion in 2005, with clouds of injury shrouding Kerry Wood and Mark Prior. Tightness in Wood’s shoulder was diagnosed as bursitis, while Prior has had elbow inflammation. As they were in 2004, the Cubs are tight-lipped in a fashion usually reserved for the Vatican or Soviet Union, limiting negative prognoses to periods of a week or two, but with the way things dragged on last year, Cubs fans are right to be concerned. Loss of these pitchers for an extended period will be a huge burden, one the Cubs would be very lucky to overcome two years in a row. Alternatively, if Wood, Zambrano and Prior can put in 600 IP, I think they are a shoo-in to meet or exceed my win projection.

Everyone really wants Kerry Wood to be a true ace, but various injuries have conspired to keep him from having a standout season up to this point. He had racked up five straight quality starts prior to May 11th, when he gave up two home runs in two innings against the Dodgers and was quickly pulled because of a triceps problem. Assurances that the move was precautionary and that X-rays were negative followed, but Wood did not appear again for two entire months, and after that he was nothing special, giving up more hits and fewer strikeouts than innings pitched. Now as the season approaches we have shoulder tightness that has morphed into a stiff back. I believe that if Wood starts the year healthy and stays healthy, he’ll be brilliant. That’s a big if, of course.

It was the Achilles heel that kept Mark Prior out of the rotation until June last year, but there was talk about a sore elbow as well, and here we are in March with Prior out due to elbow inflammation and likely to start the season on the DL. After returning to the rotation in 2004, Prior was fairly wild, hittable and homer-prone, but still managed to strike out 139 in 118.2 IP and post a respectable 4.02 ERA. His remarkable stuff was still there, but the pitcher who seemed like a grizzled veteran at ages 21 and 22 was suddenly suffering from bad pitch selection and location. After a stretch of mediocre starts, Prior was open about feeling screwed up and in need of a clean slate. Well, that clean slate was established in his outstanding September 30th start, one of the best of his career. As of this writing, Prior was shut down after only three spring innings, and is currently slated for a mid-April return, but we’ve heard that before, haven’t we? Cubs pitching coach Larry Rothschild said he thought Prior’s tendency to “snap” his breaking pitches on delivery is the source of his elbow problem, or at least keeping it from healing. Since making a mechanical change seems out of the question, this is not encouraging.

Of course, the good news last year was headlined by the continued positive development of Carlos Zambrano, who had an excellent season, making 31 starts and throwing 209.2 IP for a 2.75 ERA. I was less encouraged by a bit of regression in terms of approach on the mound, where Zambrano continued to overthrow in key situations, evidenced by a decrease in his groundball rate and an increase in home runs and strikeouts. Maybe it’s a good thing that clubhouse pariah Steve Stone is no longer around to harp on the fact that just because you can throw the ball 98 mph doesn’t mean you should. In any case, this is a minor quibble, as this bit of bravado didn’t seem to affect the results much.

Greg Maddux’s career continued its soft touchdown, as he led the team in starts and IP, managing his fifteenth straight non-strike season with at least 33 starts. Maddux gave up his share of hits, and his HR rate ballooned (35 total, by far the highest of his career, split close to evenly between home and away), but he effectively made up for that with his unwavering control and finesse. No real signs of a sudden demise are evident, and the safe bet is that Maddux picks up from where he left off and continues his streak of solid seasons.

Just before Glendon Rusch’s first start last season against the Cardinals, I asked BTF denizen retro-shiite if we were going to see Glen, or Glendon. I believe we saw Glendon, a lefty with solid control and good enough peripherals to be effective, rather than the DIPS-deranged Glen who stunk up Milwaukee the previous season. With his recent success in mind, the Cubs signed Rusch to a reasonable contract this off-season, slating him for a mixed role as fifth starter and reliever. Unfortunately, Glen has shown up in Arizona, giving up 28 hits in 16 IP, good for an ERA of 9. (On the bright side, Glendon made a solid start the day before I wrote this) Looking at Rusch’s bipolar career, one has to think that it’s more than bad DIPS luck behind his struggles, but I believe he remains a solid option as a fifth starter, at the same time satisfying any perceived need to have a lefty in the rotation. Since he will always be a pitcher who walks a thin line, “Glen” remains a good candidate for Cub Most Likely To Be Burned in Effigy for 2005.

Last year, the Cubs picked up unrealized phenom Ryan Dempster, coming off Tommy John surgery. Since his very good 23 year-old season with Florida in 2000, Dempster has done little beyond putting in mediocre innings, plagued by consistently subpar peripheral stats. Dempster debuted in August and made 23 appearances with the Cubs in 2004, doing a decent job where much of the rest of the bullpen was struggling, apparently enough to get himself a $2 million contract. His sharp fastball and slider appear to have survived intact, but you have to ask yourself, so what? Were those pitches good enough before the surgery to justify this investment? To me, Dempster’s career record suggests otherwise. Despite his solid 3.92 ERA in his short stint in the Cubs bullpen, he still gave up 13 walks in 20.2 IP. It surprises me to see Dempster getting this much credit, with speculation that he may end up in a fairly high leverage role, perhaps as fifth starter (Rusch’s poor spring not helping) or even as closer. I don’t get it.

The Cubs’ productive farm system is in a bit of a drought right now, but it is still rich with a variety of interesting pitching prospects, some of whom are ready for a shot in the majors. This led Hendry to take the risk and lose Andy Sisco and Luke Hagerty in the Rule V draft, a highly criticized move that I won’t go into. This still leaves Sergio Mitre, Josh Wellemeyer and Angel Guzman and a bevy of other young, talented, but something less than A-list pitchers on their 40-man roster. The Cubs have many options for filling the fifth starter’s spot, as well as any holes opened by injury.

The Bullpen: LaTroy Hawkins, Mike Remlinger, maybe Joe Borowski, and choose three or four others from a very long list

Most perceive the 2004 Cubs bullpen to have been a major problem. I don’t dismiss that entirely, but I think the problem is overstated. The Cubs were awful in one run games, and they did blow a lot of late leads, but a team with a mediocre offense and good starting pitching will tend to tempt fate and put a lot of pressure on the bullpen. For the first time in three years, Hendry did not spend a lot of money on bullpen arms this off-season, perhaps having been burned in his previous spending forays. Last year, Hendry’s shopping spree yielded a bullpen that was ninth in the league in ERA and 18th in MLB according to Keith Woolner’s report, so maybe a lesson was learned. Overall, the Cubs have plenty of talent from which to assemble a solid bullpen, but lack airtight setup options, and are as susceptible to the vagaries of bad luck and injury as most teams.

Joe Borowski finally got his due in 2004, with a big contract and a full-time job as Cubs closer. Unfortunately, JoeBo started the spring with a few key mph missing on his fastball, and his normal pinpoint control was not in evidence. Slowly, the truth was revealed: Joe had a partial rotator cuff tear, which the Cubs opted not to repair via surgery. Beyond the obvious questions this raised about the Cubs’ ability to monitor the health of their personnel, it opened up the closer’s role for LaTroy Hawkins, which in turn became something of a mess. Borowski showed up last month in Arizona in an encouraging state of health, but unfortunately suffered a broken ulna and is out until at least late April. Borowski still has a shot at a setup role upon his return, where he should do well if his velocity and control are back.

I don’t believe that the closer’s role deserves its mystique, but apparently LaTroy Hawkins does. A cursory look at his statistics – the 2.63 ERA, the 69:14 K:BB ratio -- suggests the Cubs got exactly the pitcher they paid for, but those who watched the games know Hawkins tended to give up the hits and home runs at very bad times, as evidenced by the 9 blown saves, some of which came in key games. To be honest, I still think it’s hogwash and that Hawkins should be fine as closer. In fact, if Dusty Baker is all he is cracked up to be as a manager, shouldn’t it be his forte to convince a pitcher like Hawkins that he can get the job done in high leverage situations? With Borowski out and both Rusch and Dempster alternately stinking up the joint and vying for the fifth starter’s spot, Hawkins has emerged as the leading candidate for the closer’s role, which is fine with me. Eventually, I would like to see things settle out as they were supposed to in 2004, with Borowski closing and Hawkins as the #1 righty setup man, but Borowski will have to overcome two distinct injuries to get to that point.

With the exception of veteran lefty-who-should-probably-not-be-used-as-a-LOOGY-but-probably-will-be-anyway Mike Remlinger, the remaining bullpen spots are somewhat up for grabs among a large number of talented contenders. It is my opinion that bullpens tend to fall into place around a solid starting staff and a couple of relief nuclei, and the Cubs should have that. The Cubs may make that difficult if they over-emphasize good spring performances from pitchers who have historically stunk (Steve Randolph?) in deciding who makes the 12-man pitching staff, but there is probably a good bullpen to be had among the aforementioned pitchers, plus Jon Leicester, Mike Wuertz, Will Ohman, Sergio Mitre, Chad Fox, Angel Guzman, John Koronka and others. Heck, who knows, even Steve Randolph might put it together and make Hendry look like a genius.

But is this a team that will make the decisions that allow things to fall into place? As was pointed out in this year’s Baseball Prospectus manual, the problem with the Cubs bullpen wasn’t LaTroy Hawkins, it was the mediocrity of the set-up guys who got the remainder of the high leverage innings. Looking at Woolner’s 2004 Reliever Expected Runs Added Report, we see Hawkins leading the Cubs but ranking 42nd in MLB. In order of relief innings pitched, he was followed by Kyle Farnsworth (139th), Kent Mercker (75th), Jon Leicester (120th), Mike Remlinger (90th) and Francis Beltran (222nd), altogether throwing over half of the team’s relief innings. That’s not a pretty picture. Now, I happen to believe that any of these guys, including the above-mentioned Leicester and Remlinger still on the team, may be able to get the job done. But in high leverage situations will Dusty Baker tend to go to the guys doing the best job, or to those with the best veteran credentials? Interestingly, Hendry hasn’t given Baker a lot of veteran moxie to work with in the bullpen beyond Hawkins and Remlinger, so he might be forcing his hand. We’ll see what happens, but suboptimal decisions about who should relieve and when would work strongly against the proper leavening of this bullpen. I’m not terribly optimistic.

The Offense

The Cubs had a fairly mediocre offense in 2004, and it doesn’t seem that replacing their second most productive hitter with a Todd Hollandsworth/Whoever platoon and their fifth most productive with Jeromy Burnitz is going to help much. Indeed, it probably won’t. More optimistically, the Cubs’ most productive hitter in 2004 was only 26 years old. I’m not sure of the last time the Cubs’ best hitter was under 30, but it’s been awhile, and the 2005 Cubs look considerably less geriatric than some previous rosters. This is a very tough offense to call, but I will take the safe bet that it will be slightly below average, recognizing significant potential for it being either excellent or awful. Excellence probably will require the two corner outfield positions coming together nicely, maintenance of Aramis Ramirez’s 2004 level or better, and Michael Barrett not reverting to his career norms or worse. The team looks non-terrible at every position, an unusual thing for a Cubs team and something for which Hendry deserves some credit. However, while there may be no black holes, the team doesn’t look remarkably good at any position, so the overall picture is not a particularly good one.

Catcher: Michael Barrett rewarded Hendry’s enthusiastic pursuit by posting the best season of his career. ZiPS seems to think Barrett is going to maintain his 2004 level of performance, more or less. As is often the case with catchers, reviews of Barrett’s defensive skills are mixed. Hendry, who knows a thing or two about scouting, clearly thinks highly of Barrett’s defensive skills, but Cubs pitchers seemed to view things differently. First Maddux and then Prior offered votes of no confidence, opting for the weak-hitting Paul Bako as their regular catcher. Who might be right about this is anyone’s guess, but one must wonder what catcher could prevent passed balls and throw out baserunners with this pitching staff. The Cubs let Bako go this off-season, bringing in the equally weak-hitting defensive specialist Henry Blanco in his place. I don’t like this move, as it serves only to keep a weak bench weak and it allows certain starting pitchers the privilege of undermining their own starting lineup. On the other hand, it was a significant issue that Cubs opponents ran the bases at will last season, and Blanco has been a monster at throwing out runners throughout his career. It will be interesting to see if this pitching staff allows that to continue.

First Base: After a few years of instability, the Cubs finally had a fixture at first base in Derrek Lee, who was solid in every aspect of his game. Lee started the season off poorly, as he usually does, and unfortunately sputtered a bit as the season wore on in late August and September. Lee may or may not have experienced some sort of wrist problem late in the season, which of course could not have helped. In any case, we know that he played through it, starting almost every game down the stretch with poor results. Lee’s right-handed power is a good fit for Wrigley Field, and that 40+ home run season Cub fans seem to expect might happen someday.

Second Base: The Cubs decided to keep Mark Grudzielanek last season, but added Todd Walker when he made it clear that he wanted to play for the Cubs. With Grudzielanek out of the picture due to an Achilles tendon injury, Walker did a fine job with the bat, hitting .278/.365/.486 when Grudzielanek returned in mid-June. This was not enough for him to keep his full-time job, however, as Grudzielanek assumed the starting role and Walker had to make do with spot starting and pinch-hitting the remainder of the season. Walker was re-signed, and Grudzielanek has moved to St. Louis, but Walker may have another position rival as Jerry Hairston Jr. was acquired from Baltimore, not to mention god-awful Neifi Perez. As of this moment, there is no indication that Walker is anything but the starting 2B, but this is a topic I expect to emerge throughout the season. Walker apparently was promised the job, but that may be Hendry’s promise for another man to keep. My guess is that Walker’s and Hairston’s offensive and defensive advantages cancel out, so between those two options, I’m not sure it makes much difference.

Left Field: Of course, the presence of Hairston on the roster presents a problem elsewhere, in left field. With two key corner outfielders gone, the Cubs had Todd Hollandsworth, Jason Dubois and David Kelton to consider for the left field job, with Hairston only complicating things. Hollandsworth is slated for the lion’s share of the platoon in LF. If Hollandsworth matches his career OPS against right-handed pitching (.796), this would probably represent an acceptable level of mediocrity. Hairston is a solid contact hitter capable of posting a leadoff-worthy OBA, but he probably doesn’t hit enough to justify starting as a corner OF. David Kelton has pretty much been a disappointment for most of his minor league career, but has done enough this spring that the Cubs are looking at his expiration date with consternation and considering giving him a shot. The favorite for the final OF spot remains Jason Dubois. Overall, the prospects of a Dubois/Hollandsworth platoon in left field should not strike fear in the hearts of the opposition, but the potential is there for it to be very good. Dubois’ career started late and advanced slowly, but he hit at every level, totaling 90 home runs in four minor league seasons. It may have been a way to evade the “Why are you not going to sign Carlos Beltran?” question, but Hendry praised Dubois in the off-season and speculated that he might start in left field, representing a change of heart from the Cubs’ failure to protect Dubois from the Rule 5 draft two years earlier (he was drafted, and later returned). Dubois can hit, but is considered defensively limited. Unfortunately, my cynical side is expecting to see a lot of Jerry Hairston in left and a lot of Dubois on the bench.

Shortstop: The shortstop position is as stable as Nomar Garciaparra’s Achilles tendon. We all know what Garciaparra is capable of, and while his days of regularly hitting 30+ home runs might be over, he should be good for an OBA in the neighborhood of .350 and SLG around .500 – pretty good for a shortstop. Of course, he had better stay healthy, with only Neifi Perez waiting in the wings as a backup. Since efforts will be made to give Nomar rest, and his defense is suspect, expect to see a fair amount of Neifi.

Third base: Aramis Ramirez was the Cubs’ most productive offensive force last season, hitting .318/.373/.578. Perhaps most notable were his 62 strikeouts and 49 walks, a remarkable amount of contact for a power hitter. This sort of performance is not unprecedented for Ramirez, who hit .328/.423/.546 for Nashville in 1999, with 73 walks and 56 strikeouts, but can be distinguished from the rest of his career where his K:BB ratio has tended to be around 2.5:1. Hopefully, this is the Ramirez we will be seeing over the next few years, one who combines a high batting average with power. Judging by direct observation, Ramirez was more sure of himself defensively last season, with better foot and glove work. Whatever advances he has made defensively have not shown up in advanced defensive metrics, however.

Center Field: Corey Patterson is perceived as a work in progress, an undeveloped talent. He made some significant strides last year, showing an improved walk rate, setting a career high in home runs and doubles, and stealing 32 bases while being caught only nine times. The biggest advance may have come in his center field defense, which Mitchel Lichtman’s Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR) absolutely loved, giving him credit for 32 runs. If that is an accurate measure of Patterson’s defensive contribution, then he may have been the Cubs’ most valuable player. Patterson’s offensive performance sputtered late last season: after posting a .993 OPS in August, he only managed a .644 in September. The Cubs would like Patterson to shorten his swing a bit and utilize his speed, hopefully improving his batting average, which might not be a good idea if it comes at the cost of his burgeoning power. If Patterson can stay healthy and make the kinds of strides he has in his first three major league seasons, and if the defensive value suggested by UZR is real, the Cubs have themselves a championship-caliber center fielder.

Right Field: The big question in everyone’s mind this off-season was who would accept Sammy Sosa in a trade, but a more important one was whom the Cubs could get to replace him. The answer “Jeromy Burnitz” might be a bit of a disappointment, probably less so when you consider the alternatives. It bothers me a bit that Hendry didn’t pursue one of the big ticket free agent outfielders this off-season, presumably because he wanted to see if he could move Sosa first, with it now appearing that Sosa was going to be moved no matter what. But both of the most attractive possibilities, Carlos Beltran and J.D. Drew, had very high price tags, and overall Hendry managed to navigate an extremely stormy off-season and claim some significant successes, so who can complain? Burnitz has taken a page from Vinny Castilla’s book the last few seasons, alternating terrible performances with above average, and last year actually outperforming Sosa, even when you take park effects into account. If ZiPS is right, we can expect Burnitz to be only a smidgen worse than Sosa, and I don’t think that is off the mark. However, Sosa has not shown the recent utter collapses that Burnitz has, so there is a significant risk here, with no safety net.

The Bench: Even prior to the Dusty Baker era, the Cubs had a habit of stocking their bench with various mascots, stuffed animals, and Swiss Colony holiday gift baskets. In one of his first off-season moves, Hendry showed that he does, indeed, believe in magic, rewarding Neifi Perez’s excellent but statistically insignificant 2004 stint with a guaranteed contract. I’m not sure what he was rewarding Jose Macias for, but he also sidled up to the gravy train. The need for offense was clearly secondary in the choice of Henry Blanco as backup catcher. Last year’s valuable bench guy Todd Hollandsworth is now unlikely to be on the bench, except against left-handed starters. Jason Dubois is a promising young hitter, but one who would likely benefit from more than a bench role. Finally, we can be thankful that the Sosa trade yielded a skilled major league hitter, Jerry Hairston, for the bench, but using him as an outfielder is likely to minimize his value. Exacerbating the situation is the Cubs’ likely decision to start the season with 12 pitchers, one of whom is likely to get almost no action.

Summary:

The main criticism of Hendry’s off-season moves is that he was more concerned about whom he didn’t want on the team than whom he did. That complaint may be legitimate, but I believe Hendry recognized a core on this team strong enough that he could prioritize the Sosa situation, and in the end I think he did a decent enough job. Still, while it is true that this team retains its solid core, fragile as it might be, you have to wonder what he could have done this off-season if the Sosa crapstorm hadn’t been the primary focus. Furthermore, Hendry had to be disappointed with the shroud of negativity that enveloped the club throughout last season and afterward. He must ask himself what good it is to have supposed people person Dusty Baker as a manager, a man whose shortcomings as a decision-maker are recognized even in baseball circles, when petty squabbles become the focus of the team and acrimony reigns. Two years into Baker’s four-year term, firing him is hardly worth considering, but it is an issue that will come up this season if the wins don’t come, in the press if not in the front office. While Hendry’s moves in previous years were sometimes interpreted as craven deference to Baker’s whims, there were few signs of that this off-season. I think Hendry is taking charge, and that can only be a good thing.

Hendry’s major accomplishment in the Cubs organization, as Scouting Director, Assistant GM and now as GM, is the productive farm system. It’s in a bit of a slump compared to recent years, but there is still a supply of talent, particularly in terms of pitching, and of course it is far from the depths it reached before Hendry inherited it. In short, the system lacks hot prospects at the higher levels, so it is unlikely to provide much in the way of help in 2005 or perhaps even 2006, but there is still plenty to like for the long-term.

The 2004 Cubs were not a lot of fun to watch. They seemed to be playing with a chip on their shoulders, feuding with the broadcasters and umpires, and more concerned about petty matters than winning baseball games. In previous seasons, win or lose, Cubs fans became accustomed to spectacular performances from players like Wood, Sosa and Prior, but little of that was in evidence in 2004. The ham-handed, never draw a walk, solo home-run or nothing offensive emphasis was not only poor strategy, but it struck fans as self-centered. Now, win or lose, I want nothing more than to see this team shake off the gloom from 2004 and play the game right. Whether and to what extent this off-season’s changes will help in that matter is anyone’s guess.

2005 ZiPS Projections

Name          ERA   W   L   G  GS     INN    H   ER   BB    K  HR 
Prior        2.79  12   4  26  26   174.0  137   54   47  208  13 
Hawkins      3.12   6   3  73   0    78.0   67   27   15   69   7 
Zambrano     3.52  15   9  31  31   207.0  177   81   83  187  11 
Borowski     3.63   4   2  63   0    72.0   64   29   24   68   7 
Wood         3.91  12  10  29  29   184.0  147   80   83  211  19 
Williamson   3.97   3   3  56   0    59.0   46   26   33   71   5 
Maddux       3.98  15  11  34  34   208.0  214   92   38  136  26 
Rusch*       4.22   8   8  33  23   160.0  159   75   51  112  17 
Remlinger*   4.34   4   4  66   0    58.0   48   28   31   62   6 
Mitre        4.50   6   7  29  25   154.0  146   77   69  124  16 
Bartosh*     4.50   3   2  63   0    64.0   60   32   28   59   7 
Urban*       4.59   5   4  36  12   102.0  102   52   41   69  12 
Novoa        4.68   4   5  41   6    98.0   98   51   35   72  14 
Guzman       4.83   3   3  13  13    69.0   66   37   28   62  11 
Fox          4.86   2   2  34   0    37.0   28   20   29   42   3 
Oropesa*     4.92   3   4  58   0    53.0   49   29   34   48   4 
Wellemeyer   5.00   4   5  28  11    81.0   71   45   51   82  10 
Wuertz       5.05   3   4  44  16   123.0  121   69   52  104  20 
Dempster     5.11   4   6  28  25   162.0  160   92   80  119  21 
Eckenstahl   5.16   2   4  56   0    61.0   52   35   44   64   7 
Rohlicek*    5.29   4   6  58   1    63.0   55   37   52   57   4 
Ohman*       5.37   2   4  45   1    52.0   40   31   37   71   9 
Koronka*     5.41   6  10  28  24   153.0  157   92   82  110  22 
Pinto*       5.43   7  11  24  24   131.0  114   79   99  137  16 
Leicester    5.45   4   7  42  11    99.0   90   60   70   87  11 
Anderson*    5.47   8   9  27  21   130.0  153   79   54   44  16 
Nolasco      5.48   6   9  27  27   143.0  142   87   75  120  24 
Randolph*    5.68   4   9  40  14   111.0  108   70   74   87  14 
Szuminski    5.91   2   5  41   3    64.0   66   42   45   38   8 
Crouthers    5.93   6  12  27  27   135.0  132   89   97  125  22 
Cueto        6.19   2   4  24   4    48.0   47   33   43   36   5

Name         P    AVG   OBP   SLG   G  AB   H 2B 3B HR   R RBI  BB   K SB CS 
Lee          1b  .280  .375  .512 161 592 166 37  2 32  93 102  85 135 15  7 
Ramirez      3b  .287  .346  .522 152 581 167 32  1 34  85 106  49  78  1  2 
Garciaparra  ss  .288  .339  .487 132 552 159 35  6 21  86  83  37  51  8  4 
Patterson*   of  .275  .320  .449 147 593 163 27  5 22  84  77  37 146 24  8 
Walker*      2b  .278  .341  .419 141 511 142 30  3 12  72  64  48  56  2  3 
DuBois       lf  .272  .345  .500 128 416 113 25  2 22  64  73  44 114  1  2 
Burnitz*     lf  .232  .311  .461 143 499 116 23  2 29  62  75  53 126  5  7 
Barrett      c   .278  .338  .463 121 410 114 26  4 14  48  56  35  60  2  3 
Reyes#       rf  .295  .335  .440 134 434 128 29  2 10  66  50  24  75  9  8 
Fontenot*    2b  .265  .327  .376 135 498 132 21  5  8  60  46  43 119 12  9 
Lewis        2b  .262  .321  .383 134 488 128 25  5  8  70  50  39 109 13  9 
Kelton       lf  .242  .305  .415 132 463 112 22  2 18  59  62  40 116  6  4 
Hairston     2b  .286  .356  .387  91 318  91 19  2  3  39  29  29  37 14  7 
Jackson*     cf  .244  .301  .367 112 414 101 14  2 11  49  42  31  91  9  8 
Klassen      3b  .229  .281  .334 119 428  98 21  3  6  51  40  28 128  8  5 
Murray       cf  .255  .313  .345 124 380  97 17  4  3  58  33  30  60 14 12 
Hollandswort lf  .266  .333  .432  97 278  74 18  2  8  35  36  28  61  3  5 
Pie*         cf  .241  .286  .314 118 436 105 10  5  4  66  32  24 113 19 12 
Bergeron*    cf  .221  .290  .307 110 417  92 15  6  3  60  38  38  71 12  8 
Ransom       ss  .221  .290  .347 123 357  79 14  2  9  45  36  33 102  7  5 
Perez#       ss  .238  .273  .313 130 416  99 18  2  3  41  34  21  39  3  4 
Cedeno       ss  .228  .269  .313 115 377  86 13  2  5  38  34  18  78 16  5 
Macias#      3b  .239  .276  .347 109 259  62 12  2  4  28  25  12  45  4  4 
Blanco       c   .201  .258  .343  97 268  54 15  1  7  27  29  19  48  0  3 
Kopitzke     c   .217  .271  .261  88 276  60  9  0  1  20  19  19  40  1  3 
Hansen*      1b  .248  .360  .342  95 117  29  5  0  2  14  13  21  22  0  0