Looking Forward to 2007 - Chicago Cubs
Overall Forecast
The Cubs spent an unprecedented amount of money revamping their roster, but it’s most likely too little too late. There are reasonable possibilities that this team will be anything from bad to excellent, but I project a middling offense, middling pitching, and a middling won/lost record.
Management Changes
The end of 2006 featured two major management changes, one a surprise (the resignation of 12-year Cubs President Andy MacPhail) and one a foregone conclusion (the dismissal of Dusty Baker). If either of these two moves is to have a major impact on the team, it will probably be the former. MacPhail came into the job as a big-name baseball guy, so much so that he ended up playing the role of GM in two of his twelve seasons with the club. Despite some glimmers of success, his tenure was a failure overall. Despite having outstanding resources at his disposal, MacPhail’s Cubs recorded a sub-.500 record, failed to win 90 games in a standard season, and came up short of 70 wins in five of them. Indeed, incompetence combined with a solid reputation is a dangerous combination, and while there were decent highlights in the MacPhail era, it should have been so much better. His replacement, John McDonough, is a long-time marketing guy with the Cubs, who represents the successful business end of the MacPhail regime. So far, McDonough appears to be an enthusiastic if naïve fellow who puts the Tribune Company’s money where his mouth is. The open wallet is great, but what we need is someone who, unlike MacPhail, holds his baseball people accountable, and it is unclear whether McDonough is that guy. Whether and when he gets a new boss (i.e., Tribune Company sells the team) will be an important factor. Certainly, all indications are that the man left standing, Jim Hendry, must deliver in 2007. His contract should not have been extended two years after 2005, and as far as I’m concerned, the Cubs should have fired him after 2006, but he has been given the chance, and the resources, to make something positive happen in 2007.
The anticipated outcome at the end of the season was Dusty Baker taking a permanent fly-fishing trip. Actually, it was more than just an expected outcome: every cognizant being knew that Baker was history months beforehand, and it appeared that Hendry and Baker were the last two people to figure it out. Baker’s fate became the primary focus of the 2006 season, as Hendry impatiently argued with the media about his status, which only led to more and more speculation about it. Whether and to what extent this affected the team, I have no idea, but clearly the 2006 Cubs were a listless, lackadaisical joke, not just a team racked by injuries but unfocused on the game on the field and clearly adrift. Historically, the Cubs’ status as “lovable losers” had a Teflon coating, but Baker’s Cubs managed to wear it out. This was a bad team no one felt sorry for, the obnoxious, evil dweeb from your high school that you didn’t mind seeing hung up by his Fruit of the Looms. When a team has a personality this toxic, I think it’s fair to point your finger at the field manager. But more importantly, the 2006 season reflected very badly on the General Manager, and I hope Hendry understands that he walked away from a plane crash. His boss must have been high when he extended his contract after a dreadful 2005 season, and his new boss not only didn’t fire him (kind of hard to as he was just entering a two-year extension), but gave him a huge sack of money to work with. Whatever fate besets Jim Hendry in 2007, he was given every chance to succeed and can blame no one but himself if it turns out badly.
As frustrating as it was to watch Baker manage over the last few years, he received too much of the blame for the Cubs’ shortcomings, which boiled down mostly to questionable rosters and an organization-wide failure to recognize what makes a team win. New manager Lou Piniella is not going to be a savior, but we can expect that he won’t make things worse, and that will be a welcome change. Still, everyone needs to remember that the Cubs’ fate will lie primarily in the hands of the 25 men on the roster, who represent an unprecedented financial investment. Let’s have a look.
The Starting Pitching
The shining beacon of the new millennium that was supposed to lead the Cubs to redemption was the organization’s supply of prime pitching talent. The beacon looked more like a two dollar flashlight in 2006, with Cubs starters sporting a horrible 5.19 ERA, a full run worse than the previous season and – I really don’t want to look it up—the team’s worst ever? How bad was it? Well, let’s see. Cubs’ starters not named “Carlos,” wait, check that, not named “Carlos Z.,” managed an ERA of 5.77. The Cubs got 33 starts, the equivalent of a full-time starter, from six pitchers, one of them Mark Prior, who together threw 138.1 innings of 8.80 ERA pitching. I know that I’m picking through the trash heap coming up with those stats, but that’s really, really bad. So we can think about that as the fifth starter’s spot. How about the fourth starters? That would be Sean Marshall and Carlos Marmol, who together put up an ERA of 5.73 in 37 starts. Ouch. Moving up from there, we might consider Maddux and Mateo together to be the third starters, sporting a 5.35 ERA in 32 starts. Altogether, that’s 102 of the season’s starts. Now, this starting staff featured some young guys who are talented but performed horribly, but no one can blame the Cubs for looking for help in 2007, and as a result we can expect the starting rotation to look pretty different. The question is, will it be better? Well, it almost has to be, as dead cats tend to bounce.
Carlos Zambrano: A few years ago, Kerry Wood and Mark Prior were viewed as the centerpieces of the Cubs’ core of great young pitching, with Carlos Zambrano representing their raw understudy. Well, look who’s still standing. There is one player who has been a consistent, unblinking presence throughout the Dusty Baker era, and he is Carlos Zambrano, who has shown up every five days to pitch no matter what. In those four years, Big Z threw 861 innings of 3.14 ERA ball. He’ll turn 26 this season. There are some trends in his career not to like so much, however, particularly his walk and groundball out rates. He gave up 115 walks in 214 IP in 2006, which led the league, and would represent a bad year for Kerry Wood. He also posted the best K rate of his career, and it appears that Zambrano is relying more than ever on blowing hitters away with nasty fastballs coming in at speeds in the mid to upper 90s. Maybe this is going to be a problem, maybe it isn’t, but there’s one thing I think we can all agree upon: the Cubs should lock him up long-term or trade him for a king’s ransom.
Ted Lilly: Lilly was one of the benefactors of a lucrative off-season for subprime talent. He will collect $40 million over the next four years for his services, which seems completely out of whack with his Baseball Reference page. He will be 31 this season. He has never thrown over 200 IP in his career. He has a career ERA of 4.60 and ERA+ of 99, with his two best seasons at 120. Really, there isn’t a single standout characteristic about the guy. But this acquisition wasn’t about signing a star, it was about shoring up, and having someone who would competently and consistently fill a middle of the rotation role. Lilly has made 31, 32, 25 and 32 starts over the last four years, and I don’t expect anything great from him beyond showing up to pitch every fifth day and hopefully posting an ERA+ somewhere north of 100, but what bothers me most is his tendency to rack up high pitch counts and not go deep into games. Last season, Lilly averaged only 5.2 IP per start, completing the seventh inning only nine times, yet he averaged nearly 100 pitches per start. The Cubs used their bullpen more than any team in the National League in 2006, and Lilly is unlikely to help matters. When you sign a guy like Lilly, you hope that he at least is going to eat innings, and I am afraid we might be disappointed.
Rich Hill: Even a horrible season like 2006 will feature some positive stories, and Hill’s was probably the best. Hill was a 2002 fourth round draft choice out of college who unimpressively made his way up through the Cubs’ system, at least until 2005 at age 25. In that season, split between Peoria, West Tenn and Iowa, he threw 130.2 IP, walking 35 and striking out 194. The key feature is as good a curveball as you will ever see from any pitcher, although he did appear to be something a one-trick pony with it. He was called up three times in 2005 and appeared completely outmatched, but with every return to the minors he was lights out. In 2006, the cycle continued. He started the season in Iowa, pitched fantastically, was brought up in early May, made four bad starts, was sent down again, was brought back up in late July, made one bad start, but then went on a tear. In August and September, Hill made 11 starts totaling 74.2 IP, walking 21 and striking out 75. So who will show up in April? The Rich Hill of May or the Rich Hill of September? The Cubs very much need the latter, and I expect him to perform closer to that end of the spectrum. If Hill can locate his fairly decent fastball well, combined with his curve, he should be quite good, if not great.
Jason Marquis: I suppose that right now, Jason Marquis is viewed as the Cubs’ fourth starter, which puts us in that part of the rotation that sported an ERA in the high 5’s last season. With money to spend, you’d that would have been an easy fix, and spend the Cubs did to acquire Jason Marquis. So, you’ll have to excuse me for being a bit chagrined that they spent the money and accomplished so little. ZiPS projects Marquis to post an ERA of 4.95, but some say that’s an optimistic projection. He could have a season like he did in 2004 and 2005, putting up ERAs around 4 – it wouldn’t surprise me – but I think he better projects to a full run worse than what he did in those seasons. Or maybe closer to two runs, which would put the both Marquis and the Cubs pretty much where they were last year. To commit three years to this at these dollar amounts: wow. Apparently the Cubs think Larry Rothschild will succeed where Leo Mazzone and Dave Duncan failed. Good luck with that.
The Fifth Spot: Here is where it’s almost impossible for the Cubs not to show a significant improvement. Favorites for the position are Angel Guzman, Wade Miller, Sean Marshall, who showed glimmers of competence last season, I suppose Mark Prior, who right now appears to be ruined, and a few other guys. It’s a mixture of very raw and heavily damaged, but there are a lot of candidates for the job. Even if the Cubs end up with a revolving door in the fifth spot in 2007, it’s hard to imagine that they’ll end up sporting an ERA of nearly one run per inning as they did last season. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Guzman or Marshall, who now have considerable experience and talent, take a major step forward next season.
Overall, I can’t see the 2007 starting pitching being anything but improved over 2006, but it’s hard to imagine how it could have been worse. With the amount of money going to Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis, it’s pretty disappointing that one is merely average and the other a bad pitcher who might be looking at a minor league invitation in another season. Really, it’s more likely that two or more of Rich Hill, Sean Marshall, Wade Miller, Angel Guzman, Mark Prior or Carlos Marmol will step up and show something than either of the big dollar investments.
The Bullpen
Not much to say here. Despite being called up for mop-up duty in 2006 more often than Anna Nicole Smith’s housekeeper, the bullpen was actually pretty good, sixth in the league in ERA. It had its problems, particularly walking four batters per nine innings, but it also lead the league in strikeouts, 14% more than the runners up. The Cubs got solid performance from a number of pitchers, particularly Howry, Eyre, Ohman and Wuertz. Ryan Dempster, however, turned back into a pumpkin, leading some to wonder if his 2005 season was a fluke, and confirming what the rest of us already thought. Dempster will not be given unlimited chances to keep his job this off-season, if any, and his most notable understudy is Kerry Wood. Wood is, of course, notably fragile, but one cannot help but recall what he looked like out of the bullpen in 11 stints in 2005, walking five and striking out 17 in 12 IP. I know: ifs, buts, candied nuts, but there is potential for one hell of a Christmas. Otherwise, the 2007 bullpen looks ready to support a good starting rotation, if the Cubs are so lucky as to have one.
Catching
Michael Barrett has been everything the Cubs could have asked for as a hitter, putting up OPS+ numbers of 105, 113 and 120 in his three years with the club. His defense, on the other hand, doesn’t get a lot of respect. Reviews from those who dare to try and measure catching defensive value (Dial, Prospectus) suggest that this is not merely a case of the old Nichols Law of Catcher Defense. In his four seasons as a Cub, he has placed consistently in the top quartile of major league catchers offensively, and who knows how much of that he gives back behind the plate, but overall he is certainly a net positive. He was limited to 107 games last season, due to two circumstances that were embarrassing for completely different reasons and hopefully won’t happen again.
First Base
In 2005, at the age of 29, Lee took a step forward and had an elite season, one that would have been rewarded with an MVP in another year, and one that Cubs fans hoped would be a sign of things to come when he signed a five year, $65 million contract in early April of 2006. Two weeks later, hitting .318/.448/.614, he collided with Rafael Furcal fielding a throw, breaking two bones in his wrist and ruining his season. But things got much worse. His young daughter was diagnosed with Leber’s congenital amaurosis in September, a rare, vision-threatening disease. In a way, the Cubs’ demise in 2006 was fortunate, in that it allowed Lee to focus on the tragedy at home. We can only hope that both at home and on the field, Lee will pick up from where he left off in 2005.
Second Base
We’ve made a lot of jokes about Jim Hendry’s desire to fill the entire roster with second basemen. This year, the newly acquired Mark DeRosa is slated to play second base full-time, although he’s considered versatile defensively and could end up as a supersub. Even in this year’s crazy spending environment, Hendry probably overpaid for DeRosa following the best year of his career, a year that actually looks an awful lot like a typical year from Todd Walker. ZiPS has DeRosa down for a hard re-entry from orbit, and while he’s probably an okay defensive player, the numbers suggest that the non-stop ######### about Walker’s defense was unfounded, so it’s hard to see the team as better off.
Third Base
With Aramis Ramírez extending his contract five years, I think we can say that the position has gained a degree of stability and star power it hasn’t seen since Ron Santo was a fixture there. Ramírez has settled in with the Cubs as a very good hitter. He has tremendous power, and like most Cubs, doesn’t draw walks. Unlike most Cubs, he also doesn’t strike out much, totaling 185 K’s over the last three seasons, an ability that may mean his high batting averages are fairly sustainable. None of the analysts care much for his glove, although 2006 looked better than previous seasons, both in terms of Zone Rating and the naked eye. Overall, Ramírez is a fine guy to have as the second best hitter on your team.
Shortstop
The position may be below average in 2007, but it probably won’t be the red-hot accretion disk of suck that it was last year. At last season’s trade deadline the Cubs turned Greg Maddux into Cesar Izturis, and now it appears that Izturis is in line to be the Cubs’ everyday shortstop. The bad news is that Izturis was probably never a very good player, but with hamstring problems having robbed him of his quickness, he has been a bad player for the last two years. The days of Izturis beating out infield hits, stealing bases and playing great defense seem to be in the past, and his shortcomings were obvious in his stint with the Cubs late last season. ZiPS pegs him at .272/.320/.356. The good news is that that this would represent a big improvement over what the Cubs got from the shortstop position in 2006 (.246/.275/.324). It isn’t going to happen, but I would have preferred to see the Cubs cast their lot with Ronny Cedeño, the man primarily responsible for last year’s horrible numbers at this position, who doesn’t project much worse than Izturis but has more upside.
Left Field
Cubs left fielders posted an OPS of .774 last season, good for 14th in the league. It was frustrating watching the Cubs continue to give starts to Freddie Bynum, Angel Pagan and Phil Nevin in his place, who collectively managed an OBA in the low .270s in 163 AB, but the fact is that Matt Murton wasn’t exactly the second coming of Barry Bonds. ZiPS projects an .807 OPS for him in 2007, which would be a major improvement over last year’s LFers, but still mediocre. On the other hand, I think there’s a good chance that he’ll do much better than that. The addition of Cliff Floyd does absolutely nothing, unless he finds the player of 2005 in himself. LF should be a bit better in 2007, but still not a strength.
Center Field
Center field represents a microcosm of the universe of problems that have stricken the Cubs in the Hendry era. I won’t review it all, but you have the failure to develop position prospects, scapegoating and booing, and giving up good prospects for a veteran in his walk year. Right now it’s unclear who will be the Cubs’ center fielder in 2007, but Alfonso Soriano is perhaps the prime candidate, with a strong possibility that Jacque Jones will be moved over. Alternatively, the Cubs could trade for a center fielder, or give Felix Pie the job, but neither seems very likely. Soriano is a very good ballplayer, and the Cubs will pay for that premium, but it’s frustrating to see them go for a star whose weaknesses at the plate epitomize the entire team. You would almost conclude that bad plate discipline is a team philosophy. Soriano is a lot like other recent and current Cubs, Sammy Sosa for one. At the age of 29, Sosa drew a career high in walks, and hit 66 HR. Soriano also showed a big spike in walks last year, and who knows, we may be on the verge of something special. At the same time, Soriano has been a sloppy hacker up to this point, and has somehow managed to be successful because of his awesome physical talents. He’s just a bit of refinement away from being a truly elite player, and blowing his ZiPS projection out of the water. On the other hand, the young Corey Patterson looked like a less lanky version of Soriano a lot of the time, and look what happened to him. On top of that, Felix Pie is about to enter the picture. It’s fair to wonder, despite Sosa’s success story, whether the Cubs are the right team nowadays for taking raw hitting talent to the next level. In any case, the Cubs are virtually guaranteed to see a huge offensive boost at center field. Despite Wrigley having a defense-friendly center field, there are major questions about Soriano’s or Jones’ ability to handle the position.
Right Field
The other big lineup acquisition last season was Jacque Jones, a move that was widely panned as too much money for too little ballplayer. Jones had a better than normal, but fairly typical year, in which he mashed right-handed pitching and was helpless against lefties. Battling a sore shoulder all season, he shocked Cubs fans with his repeated cricket pitch throws from right field. Center field might work best for Jones, where he is probably a better defensive option than Soriano, and his weak arm will have less impact. If that happens, some mixture of Soriano and Floyd, and who knows, Felix Pie, should be manning right field.
The Bench
In recent years, the Cubs bench was a refuge for has-beens and never-weres, looking like a casting call for “The Surreal Life.” Things look better this season. Sure, they overpaid Henry Blanco, but virtually everyone agrees that he is outstanding defensively, and he hits, well, he hits like a backup to an offensive catcher. I don’t consider Blanco to be a problem. The backup infielders currently on the 40-man roster, Scott Moore, Ryan Theriot and Ronny Cedeño, might not be anything great, but at least they represent homegrown talent on the good side of 30. Daryle Ward has been an excellent pinch-hitter the last couple of years. On most days, either Matt Murton or Cliff Floyd should be on the bench. Still, that means that Matt Murton, when he isn’t already in the lineup, and Angel Pagan, when/if he makes the major league team, are going to be the big right-handed bats off the bench, a lack of power that continues from last season.
So What Can We Expect?
After writing this up, I can’t say I’m overly optimistic. I think the Cubs will be much better than they were last year, but that goes without saying. I think they probably project to a winning record. Barely. This team does have a solid core of prime talent, so it is a reasonable possibility that things could fall together nicely, producing a juggernaut. But there are two major issues that I expect to be chronic, if not acute, and I see them preventing this team from being really good. First, the offense remains one-dimensional and focused far away from the key connection between getting on base and run-scoring. The Cubs are virtually guaranteed major offensive improvements coming from at least three positions (SS, 1B, CF), and none project to be much worse, but there’s an ocean between the Cubs’ 2006 offense and something that would reasonably be called good. If this team is going to be good offensively, they’re going to have to do it despite their refusal to look at ball four, and that’s a tall order. What I expect is an offense similar to those of 2003 and 2004, which weren’t too bad overall, but prone to wretched run-scoring droughts. Those teams put up win totals in the high 80s, but they also had very good pitching. That brings me to the next major issue. The starting pitching has too many holes. On the positive side, the staff is heavily parlayed with the presence of a number of talented guys who could step forward, but beyond Carlos Zambrano, we have a lot of proven mediocrities and guys with questionable or insufficient track records. This was the case last season, and while those results would represent a worst-case scenario, I see a strong positive outcome falling on the rosier side of optimistic. It all could work out well, and it’s within the reasonable spectrum of possibilities, but I think it’s more likely that this team plays no baseball in October.
Andere Richtingen
Posted: March 26, 2007 at 06:20 PM |
35 comment(s)
Related News:
Chi Cubs
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I wonder how long it'll take until $10 million a year will seem normal for a starter like Lilly? Was it really just last off-season people chorlted over giving Loaiza his payday? That one already looks good.
Last season, Lilly averaged only 5.2 IP per start, completing the seventh inning only nine times, yet he averaged nearly 100 pitches per start. The Cubs used their bullpen more than any team in the National League in 2006, and Lilly is unlikely to help matters.
Disagree. He is likely to help. Look who he's replacing - the Glendon Rusch Wannabes. Those guys averaged barely 4 innings a start.
Also, I'd add he's moving from the AL East to the NL Central. That should help a little bit. It's moving from the best hitting division in the better league to the worst hitting one in the lesser circuit.
The starting pitching has too many holes.
What teams in the NL have fewer holes in their rotation? I'm not saying none done, but there's a hell of a lot less than 80 hole-less starting pitchers floating around the NL right now.
You're leaving out what I consider to be the most important question -- health. Will the key people on the team play most/all season? History makes me skeptical.
Aside from that, great write-up.
Well, since you asked... Brewers have Sheets/Capuano/Bush/Suppan/Vargas with Carlos Villeneuva (who pitched well in AA, AAA, and MLB last season at age 22) and 21-yr-old top prospect Yovanni Gallardo waiting in the wings beyond him...
Amen. Great write-up.
I'm more of a glass half-full person this year. They have four position players in the top ten at their position in MLB. They have an ace, a pretty good mid-rotation guy in Lilly and a good breakout candidate in Hill. Murton is just what the doctor ordered in the two-slot, and perhaps Piniella is smart enough to figure that out. Once Pie is installed in center (they're just stalling his arb clock) they'll be strong defensively up the middle (at least when Hank White checks in for the late innings). Decent pen and some hitters on the bench for a change. I don't project them any differently than the rest of the herd (84 wins or so), but they should be quite entertaining - imagine Pie and Soriano hacking and flying about. Should be a good season.
Disagree. He is likely to help. Look who he's replacing - the Glendon Rusch Wannabes.
Sure, if you look at it that way. But as of now I see Lilly as the number two or three starter. As I outlined above, the guys filling out the third starter role (as defined post hoc) last year managed an ERA in the low 5s. I expect better than that from Lilly, and would love to be proven wrong, but I don't consider it a strength that he is the team's 2nd/3rd starter. And really, I was referring to his specific tendency to rack up pitches without going into the deep innings, which has been an annoying trend in Cubs pitchers for the last few years.
You're leaving out what I consider to be the most important question -- health. Will the key people on the team play most/all season? History makes me skeptical.
That's a good point, and one I wish I had addressed, but I wonder if my take on it is different from yours. It's a good bet that at least one key person is going to come up lame, as would be the case for any team. But this year none of us is going in expecting anything from Wood or Prior. Sure, an injury to Lee (or a failure to regain form due to the nature of his injury) would be awful, but it's not unreasonable to expect equal portions of bad and good luck when it comes to a balance between injury/surprise sucking and career years.
I'm more of a glass half-full person this year.
I guess I'm not too far off from your bullseye call of 84 wins, but in my post from a few weeks ago in Gonfalon Cubs I outlined what I saw as the glass half-full (actually, glass full, and full of beer) scenario. I guess my point here is that with all of the Cubs organization's talk about winning a World Series -- not that I want to discourage it -- things don't look all that great despite some significant advances. Sure, it might be enough to eke out a division title, but I would never bank on a win total in the low 80s winning a postseason berth in any division. The Cubs organization has been consistently out-foxed by the Astros and Cardinals, and while those teams don't project very well either, and lack the financial resources the Cubs have, they are much, much smarter. I'd put the Cubs chances at the post-season as significantly non-zero, and certainly not to be written off, but not very good.
And yeah, the Brewers.
Huh?
Huh?
Hey, I traveled across the continent today, and my dinner consisted of a Sam Adams in Detroit.
As to him going deep into games -- I hate to scare people but the median team averaged 5.2 IP per start last year. Granted, out of your "number 2" you'd prefer above average, but it's not a significant problem. Especially when your number 4 is a lock to give you 200 IP (of 75 ERA+ pitching).
I don't have a big problem with the Lilly signing -- yeah, I hate the 4th year, would have liked to see $1-2 M off the annual value, but whatcha gonna do?
Note to self - try to work that phrase into everyday conversation more.
Put me down in agreement with Walt and Dag - I like the Lilly signing (even if it does nothing but ensure one less lefty for Jacque Jones to flail away against). The entire NL - beyond the Mets lineup and Albert Pujols (maybe the Brewers, depending on whether Yost mucks it up) is a pitcher's paradise. It wouldn't shock me to see Lilly go Arroyo on the NL.
I'm probably unfairly harsh on Marquis - he has thrown 3 seasons of 100 or better ERA+ ball (including the 2 seasons prior to last)... but when you look at those K rates, the HR rates, the walk rates - I just don't see anything to like about him. It's funny - he actually might have been more valuable back in the dark days when he could have stolen at-bats from F Troop!
Mark Prior just mystifies me - beyond the ugly top level numbers, and even setting aside the usual slate of injuries - I just checked his numbers and it's as if his command was abducted by aliens. 8 HBP, 5 WP, 9 HRs, 28 BBs -- in only 43.7 innings of work. That's not even the same species as the oft-wounded Prior of 2004 and 2005. Barring a torn labrum or shredded rotator cuff - how can a pitcher of such immense talent plus a college AND Pro track record to back it up be ruined at age 26? At this point - is Prior a bigger bust than previous Greatest College Pitchers ever Kris Benson and Ben MacDonald? I keep wanting to give him shots, though - lest he move on to become someone else's Chris Carpenter.
I can't add anything to the offensive side - other than to (again) ##### about the fact that I don't see any way we aren't subjected to seeing Jacque Jones and/or Cliff Floyd get significant hacks against LHP. How damn hard can it be to find to a RH hitting OF? Is it me, or is Brady Clark basically available for a bag of balls? Or Jason Lane? Or Dustan Mohr? Or Bobby Kielty? Or Kevin Mench? Or Mike Restovich... oops. The Cubs have exactly 2 OFs who don't have a history of big platoon splits - and only one of them will be playing every day.
If Hendry and company want a team of hackers that's near sure to finish near (if not at) the bottom of the NL in BBs, so be it -- but I just wish they'd recognize the flailers from the hackers in regards to platoon splits.
Well, neither Benson nor MacDonald was ever as good as Prior was in '03, but Benson's at least been a serviceable starter for a lot longer than Prior's been.
He just got traded yesterday, so perhaps not. Your point's well-taken, however.
If Jones struggles against lefties at his customary rate early in the season, I think that Piniella will find someone to platoon with him. I predict TheRiot.
If Jones struggles against lefties at his customary rate early in the season, I think that Piniella will find someone to platoon with him. I predict TheRiot.
While Theriot intrigues me, probably more than he should (nothing in his college or minor league record suggests that he's going to come anywhere near .412 OBP or .522 SLG he posted in ~120 ABs) - I can't seem him as a corner OF.
I suppose DeRosa has experience in the OF corner spots (which really, would be the same thing as Theriot, since I would assume Ryan then slides into 2B).
But it's amazing to me that here we sit - less than a week before opening day, facing a rather easy to solve problem that I think EVERYONE recognized last season. The only 2 RH hitting OFs on the 40 man are Murton and Soriano (Pagan's a switch hitter, but I don't think he's the solution). The RH hitting half of a platoon is supposed to be the EASY one to get.
I just don't see how we can even say "if" regarding Jones struggles against LHP... to a lesser extent, ditto for Floyd.
Floyd has 1300+ career plate appearances vs. LHP - sporting a .272/.330/.466 line (and worse than that the last 3 years - .218/.285/.379 in 340 ABs).
Jones has 1000+ career PAs vs. LHP - sporting a putrid .228/.275/.350 line.
I mean - this isn't advanced "moneyball" stuff here - platoon splits have embraced by even the 'traditionalists' since at least Earl Weaver.
I find it puzzling - or more than that, infuriating - that Hendry and company seem to think they have some magic elixir that will suddenly make Jones/Floyd a good idea (or hell, even an ACCEPTABLE) idea to ever send to the plate against LHP. They've had more than 2300 ABs between them covering 10 years apiece.
It's typical Hendry - many of his moves look fine in a vacuum... but teams shouldn't make moves in a vacuum - they should be made in context. So while Daryl Ward is a perfectly nice backup 1B/corner OF/PH in a vacuum - the fact is that the Cubs desparately needed a decent RH stick to offset the fact that 2 OF bats cannot hit lefties makes him a bad move.
I didn't mean Wood or Prior and wasn't just referring to Lee; I was referring to Ramirez and his constantly gimpy quad and groin, Barrett and his various ailments, Izturis and his shaky hamstring, Jones and his shoulder, and don't even get me started about Floyd.
I don't disagree with the overall point, but Daryl Ward is a perfectly useful bench guy for just about every team. The real problem is that fact the way most teams construct their rosters today (12 pitchers), there isn't room for everything we'd ideally like on the bench. If we didn't have Ward, they wouldn't have any lefty PH.
---
As for the overall writeup, I don't have anything specific to disagree with, although some of the details seem out of date. For instance, at the moment, Wade Miller is the 5th starter. And last I saw, Pagan isn't on the roster. But for some reason, the general tone still feels to pessimistic to me. Maybe it's just the usual spring optimism talking.
Jacque Jones' shoulder is pretty much a non-issue. He couldn't throw before he had trouble with it. Several position players have labrum injuries and it hasn't proven to be much of an issue for hitting. As much as people tend to focus on OF throwing arms, it's just not as big a deal. If I remember the old SLwts numbers correctly, the difference between the best and worst OF throwers isn't all that great.
The Cubs are pretty deep in the rotation, OF and bullpen, so they could patch up problems in those areas pretty quickly. They have decent stopgaps at the infield corners in Moore and Ward. Injury to or collapse from DeRosa or especially Barrett would suck, but I think the Cubs can afford below average production from another position besides SS.
As for OF platoons, DeRosa hit very well against LHP (~1000 OPS the last couple of years). The flip side of his performance against LHP is that if his overall performance slips from last year, he'll be borderline useless against RHP. Anyway, I think those rumors about the Cubs pursuing a middle infield backup were because they wanted DeRosa getting ABs in the OF, presumably against LHP, and still have a backup on the bench. Murton, Soriano and DeRosa would be a hell of an offensive OF against LHP.
I submitted it quite a long time before it was posted, and to my knowledge, at that time the 5th starter spot was far from settled. As far as I know, Pagan remains on the 40-man roster, although he may be a longshot to make the club and there were rumblings of a trade to Florida.
I would quibble with every team - though I agree that 12 pitchers is root cause. To me - that makes it all the MORE important that your bench fits perfectly with your 8 regulars... i.e., Ward's a fine LH PH/1B/OF - but because he bats lefty, he doesn't fit with an OF that's likely to be pretty poor against lefties (of course, you can argue that Ward shouldn't really be playing OF anyway).
Now - even without looking at the projected rotations, I imagine it's not as a big a deal as last year (if memory serves - the NL Central had more LH SP than the rest of the NL combined... the Pirates alone opened with 5 lefties).
Normally, I would readily admit that I'm raging on over a minor point- but in this instance, I think it's a bigger issue because we have 2 (of 4) key OFers who have pronounced platoon splits. I think we're already stuck giving away an out in every lineup anyway (at least, so long as Izturis is healthy) - I fret that against LHP, we're looking at 2 lineup blackholes... and on days when Marquis/Zambrano aren't pitching - that'll be 1/3 of the lineup that'll be near helpless against LHP.
Tell that to Toby Hall.
Spahn and Sain, Pray for Rain
Wood and Prior, Doctor bills Higher
Prior and Wood, Tape 'em Good
When the Cubs are out of the race this season, which shouldn't take too long, they ought to locate Bartman (has he surfaced over the past few years?), and arrange for him to publicly dry-hump a billygoat before a game, and then have Bartman pitch two complete games of a double-header, once while wearing Wood's number, and once while wearing Prior's number. He can't do any worse than Prior did all of last season.
That is a pretty damn awesome performance actually for lefty-lefty and there's no way you'd waste a roster spot on a platoon for that player, at least with today's roster construction (12 pitchers). The question with Floyd is his splits over the last few years and whether those are indicative of a new level of ability -- in which case he does need to be platooned.
A better answer to the Cubs dilemma would have been (and would be right now), Todd Walker instead of Ward -- lefty bat, can cover 1B, 2B, 3B (all righty starters) -- which allows you do drop one of Theriot/Cedeno and add the RH OF.
And I think that's a reasonable question to ask. The thing is, if Floyd shows up to play, he's usually pretty good. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on short-term splits. The question is whether or not Floyd shows up healthy.
Wuertz and Guzman made the team in the bullpen; Pagan didn't. Also interesting, Murton's pencilled in batting 2nd on opening day. All-in-all, I like what Piniella's done so far, given what he's been given to work with.
Word. I suppose one benefit of having to suffer John F'in Mabry was becoming grateful for Daryle Ward.
Agreed
Ya. He's still undefeated.
I couldn't disagree more. He is pretty much a lg avg hitter, which is OK for a backup except that Ward has no defensive value. He is a poor man's DH. Somebody mentioned T Walker. I'd rather have Walker as a backup on my team, no doubt. He is not a good fielder at 2nd, but he can play that position. He can backup at 1st, with probably above avg defense. He is also an avg hitter (like Ward), but is more of a contact, on-base guy rather than a mediocre slugger. Stylistically, he is probably better suited to pinch hitting. And Walker is a more of a "gamer" than Ward, at least by outward appearances.
That's the opposite of a benefit.
Sorry if this is already posted elsewhere.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main