Ok, I am editing this after all.

The post below was meant more as a response to the sentiment that the Cubs' new ownership is inherently inept because they haven't overhauled everything.  The vacation theme was a good part of the inspiration, but it grew as I typed.

In a nutshell, what I'm getting at is, let's not flip out just yet and judge the entire prospects of the franchise under the Ricketts family based on what has happened so far . . . their first season isn't over yet.    That probably would have been a better way to put it in the first place, but that's not what I did . . . so I'm leaving the bit below as originally written.

------------------------------------------------

At the 1999 Cubs Convention, when Ed Lynch was introduced during the opening ceremonies, I booed him.  He did nothing to make the team better during the 1998 stretch drive (other than trading a future legitimate starter for a middle reliever), and the plan that he went into 1999 with was nothing short of absurd.

A guy in front of me turned around and shook his head condescendingly, as if being the architect of a team that backed into a wild card and was thoroughly outclassed in the NLDS deserved respect and admiration.  Well, turns out I was right.

I am reminded of this now, as people are going the other way and flipping out because one member of the ownership team had the audacity to take a vacation during the season.  How dare he consider spending time with his family when the Cubs aren't winning!  What kind of leadership is this!  He should be speaking out in the papers about how professionals shouldn't make errors, call in to radio shows saying Lou Piniella shouldn't bat Theriot leadoff, appear on television assuring us that this crisis will pass and hand out rice pudding!

The new ownership group has been in place for months, not years.  We all knew when they took control that they were going to take a pragmatic, long-term approach of letting people do the jobs that they were hired for and evaluate those people.  That has not changed - nor should it.  Firing the manager of a mediocre baseball team isn't going to make said mediocre baseball team good - because IT'S A MEDIOCRE BASEBALL TEAM!  

Bombast and/or change for change's sake is Steinbrenner-esque.  And the Yankees didn't get consistently good again until George was less involved in the baseball operations.  I think some people are more interested in an owner who wants to put on a show rather than one who has a plan and wants to follow it, for their own short-term gratification.  I'd rather punt on 2010 in exchange for a better chance at the Cubs being consistently good in the long run.  I suspect that the Ricketts family went into this season feeling the same way - they WANT to win this year, but aren't foolish enough to sacrifice a plan in exchange for a long shot this year.

As far as the criticism of the vacation goes, I may never get that.  This is not a leaking oil well, it's not the economy, and no one's life is at stake.  I'm pretty sure someone who created a multi-million dollar business is capable of running a baseball team via cell phone and e-mail - especially if other people are in place.

For those of you who insist that Tom Ricketts NEEDS to be there because this is a crisis, please explain why.  How is his absence realistically affecting the players - or how anyone else goes about their job?  How is it making your fan experience worse?  My suspicion is, it's just something for people to grumble about.

Instead of taking over other subsequent front-page posts with bemoanings of how this means "fourth place here we come", here's a new thread to talk about it. 

No disrespect meant to those who are upset, but he's a role player.  He is not going to be the next Harmon Killebrew, Albert Pujols or even Mark DeRosa.  Jake seems like a good guy and I hope he has a nice career.  However, he wasn't going to be a factor on the 2010 Cubs.

To everyone who thinks that the Cubs should have gotten more - no one was beating down their door to get Fox.  Hendry shouldn't be trusted with a checkbook, but he generally has made decent trades. 

Quite honestly, people should be happy for both Fox and Miles - Jake is going to get a chance that he wasn't going to get with the Cubs, and Aaron needed a fresh start.

A recent fanpost and the subsequent reaction has me thinking that we need one consolidated repository for all "No bleeping way" trades, much like the most "popular" beat writer to BCB does each year.

Readers should submit them here, and fellow BCB-ers should critique the trades using their friend, the "reply" function.

If this catches on, I'll accept submissions until the end of the week, and then create a poll of the top 10 trades.  Contenders will be chosen by me based on uniqueness, entertainment value and how much alcohol I have in my system when I make the selections.

Trades should be possible, but can be entirely unrealistic.  (Meaning don't propose trades for dead people, fictional characters, etc.)  Favoring the Cubs heavily is always an option, but feel free to mix it up by giving away more than you get in return.  Trade ideas that have been beaten to death are ok, but probably won't prompt a lot of discussion.

Happy Monday.  Have at it.

Continue reading this post »

I've been to many Brewer games over the years, having grown up in SE Wisconsin.  Most of the fans that I've interacted with at Brewer-Cub games have been knowledgeable and friendly (except for a friend of mine that gets surly when the Cubs win).  I suspect that represents the bulk of their fan base.  There have been a handful of militant fans, but every fan base has jerks.

This is about the Brewer organization, though - not the fans.  Several years ago, when a strike was looking like a possibility, I had seats a few rows behind home plate, so I created a sign that was critical (but not vulgar) of Don Fehr and Bud Selig.  When I held it up between innings, it got a lot of attention - and an usher saw it and told me I could not display it - unless I removed the part critical of the Commissioner!  Yes, censorship alive and well at Miller Park.

Now they've gone one better and fueled the inferiortiy complex perception.  I've made several comments on here that I think the "anti-team" t-shirts that street vendors sell are lame - whether they are anti-Cub, Cardinal, Brewer, Packer, Bear, etc.  Well, now the Brewers are selling a t-shirt in their official team store that says "Curse the Cubs" and has a goat on it.  Personally, I find this hilarious on several levels.

It's amusing more than offensive, and if it's supposed to be offensive, it's that much more amusing.

As someone (Josh?) pointed out last year, the curse itself is a myth (and I don't give credence to the concept of a curse in the first place).  Plus, Cub fans don't really buy into it, but fans of other teams insist that we do.  It speaks volumes to me that they need to do this because they think that their fan base is likely to buy an anti-Cub shirt instead of a Brewer shirt . . . one can see anti-Cub shirts in Miller Park when the Cubs aren't even there, but I think that's a vocal minority.  (That's not to say they the "mainstream" fans like the Cubs, but most can show a little more class than that.)  You've got some pretty bush league marketing personnel working for you, Mr. Attanasio!

For months now, we've been reading constant calls to DFA this player or that player.  Now that July 31 is astern, we're hearing daily cries to put one player or another on waivers.

Note - the following paragrah is background information before I get into the main discussion:

I am going to start by saying I have been very critical of Jim Hendry.  I think he spends too much money on mediocre players who draw little interest elsewhere, which contributes a lot more to the Cubs' payroll being inflexible then contracts to legitimate contributors.  I was ok with the Soriano deal, because they needed to change the perception of the Cubs not being interested or able to get the big names.  Yes, Beltran would have been a better move, but at the point in time when Soriano was signed - not before or after - it wasn't the worst thing in the world to do for the franchise.  The deals of J.Jones, Miles, Perez, Rusch, etc., thinking Gathright, Izturis, etc. could be contributors are the decisions that bother me.

Having established that I'm not impressed with Hendry as a GM, I will say that I don't think the man is an idiot.  There are certain things that all GMs do as a matter of course, and I'll get into that later.

Now the main point:

This is not fantasy baseball, Pursue the Pennant, Strat-O-Matic or any other simulated baseball game of your choice.  No one is going to trade their good players for the Cubs' crap, nor should anyone expect to be taken seriously if they suggest such a deal is viable.

DFA is not a wonder drug that cures an underperforming team's ailments.  You don't prescribe the DFA pill to a player and have him magically get better.  You also don't DFA a player in the first half of his first season of a multi-year contract, unless he has done something so egregious as to make a continued relationship with the team untenable.  It simply is not realistic - if you do this, you are likely on the hook for the entire remainder of the contract, less the prorated share of the league minimum IF someone else picks that player up.  A trade is still possible, but it is very much a buyer's market.

On to the flavor of the day:  Put them on waivers!  That'll clear up payroll!

Virtually every player is put on waivers immediately after the trading deadline.  Despite what the cerebral likes of Rob Dibble might think, in addition to being noted in numerous articles, it's common sense.  This is where the Hendry part comes in.  I don't think he's a great GM, but he's not stupid and would not be negligent as to forget to do this - AND HE HAS A STAFF THAT WOULD REMIND HIM.

If you wait until now to put someone on waivers, it's a stronger signal that a deal is imminent - and a signal that someone else might want to think about making a claim if they want to block a deal that would make the team ahead of them stronger.  By placing everyone on waivers right away, it makes it less likely players would be claimed, thus more likely to make deals.

Some of you will cry, "Billy Wagner!"  Well, he was on a rehab assignment.  I'm not saying ALL players are placed on waivers, but most are.  You can pull the waivers back if someone makes a claim, so there is no risk in doing it.

Waivers are not used during the season to send a message to players.  Say again: Waivers are NOT used during the season to send a message to players.

To everyone who chooses to disagree with the above, and thinks this is a clever new way to dump Soriano, I ask you: WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO CLAIM HIM?  If the Cubs don't think that he's worth keeping, do you honestly believe that someone else is going to be stupid enough to take on that contract, given how he has looked most of this year?  Really?   REALLY?

I'm just as frustrated as the rest of you with how the Cubs look.  And I think Al would say that suggestions on improving the team should be part of what BCB is.  But the same non-starter suggestion dozens of times a day . . . it's just not going to happen.

This is meant as a response to a lot of the discussions that have been going on lately and not a knock on Drew’s post from last week.

A lot of the topics discussed on this board are polarizing.  Maybe it’s only my perception, but it seems like it’s gotten more extreme in the past few weeks.  Some people seem to have lost the ability to disagree with someone else without attacking the individual instead of responding to the comments themselves.  Or worse yet, take critical opinions of others and jump to absurd conclusions about the other person’s devotion to the Cubs or accuse them of saying things that they aren’t.

With that preamble, here is the kind of fan I am:

When the Cubs stink up the joint, I acknowledge it.  If I notice something about team personnel, I’ll usually file it away and look for a pattern.  If I see a pattern, it becomes an opinion – one that I’m not afraid to express.  I can’t read minds, but most adults can make reasonable conclusions based on observations.  Yes, I can and will be critical of the Chicago National League Ballclub and members thereof.  I don’t believe that makes me any less of a fan.

I also will see a pitching matchup of, say, Doug Bird vs. Steve Carlton and still watch the game fully expecting the Cubs to have a chance to somehow find a way to win.  I don’t believe that makes me any more of a fan.

As I’ve move through my mid-thirties, the games no longer influence my mood the way that they did when I was in my teens or twenties.  I still want the Cubs to win during every game.  The tough losses still bug me, but usually not for as long as they used to – as I realize this isn’t real life.  I don’t believe that makes me any less of a fan.

I’ll wear Cubs gear in Milwaukee, New York City, Cincinnati, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney or wherever the hell else I find myself.  At a game or on the street, and I’ll engage anyone in conversation about the Cubs if they want – whether they’re being friendly about it or not.  I don’t believe that makes me any more of a fan.

If someone else points out a flaw in something that I’ve said, I’ll listen to them as objectively as I can – assuming that it is presented in a reasonable manner.  This doesn’t mean that I’ll change my mind, but I’m willing to accept that my thoughts may be incorrect.  I don’t believe that makes me any more or less of a fan.

If someone says something that I think is inaccurate or unfair, I’ll usually respond.  (More often than I should, really.)  However, I will not take each and every comment critical of the Cubs and feel the need to ride to the defense of someone’s honor when I’ve never met that individual like I would for a personal friend or family member.  I most certainly don’t believe that a player is beyond reproach – regardless of who it is.  I don’t believe that makes me any less of a fan.

Finally, I won’t presume to know how much of a fan someone I’ve never met is solely based on them not agreeing with each and every opinion that I have.  I do believe that makes me reasonable.

Go Cubs

Ok, I'm not going to delete this, because people have made good points on both sides of the argument.  For as good of a job as I thought I did not getting P.O.'d during the game, I was irritated this morning.

So continue to discuss.  I'll back down from the conclusions -- for now.  But I'm still weary of things like this always seeming to involve Zambrano.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently rumors of Zambrano's maturation have been greatly exaggerated.  Carlos missed the team flight yesterday and showed up later in Atlanta.  It might be the way that they lost yesterday's game, but I'm more weary than usual of the selfishness that he sometimes exhibits.  The apologists that have defended or rationalized all the things that he's done like this have their work cut out for them this time -- as has been reported since late last year, the other players are indeed tired of these antics.

I defended Zambrano bunting earlier this season as someone who was trying to do whatever it takes to win, and I stand by that -- but I also stand by the earlier comments that I've made about his immaturity and selfishness. 

As Sandberg said, the name on the front of the jersey is more important than the name on the back of the jersey.  Pitching a no-hitter doesn't change that fact.

The Brewers play 3 against the Cardinals this weekend.  They are tied for first; the Cards are the traditional rival and have arguably the best manager in the game, while the Brewers have finished second to the Cubs two years in a row and whine about inside pitches.

So, who ya got for these three games?  The Cubs play the Cards next week, so I prefer the team that they don't see for a while to lose and then the Cubs take care of business themselves.  I'm pretty sure I don't want the Cards to sweep, though.

Ok, I'm trying this again.  MLB and Fox's claim that, "This time it counts!" is pretty much embraced by no one, yet Selig insists that it's the only logical way to determine home-field advantage for the World Series.  Bravo Sierra, I say.

However, since MLB continues to ignore logic on this (shocking, I know), maybe fans can take matters into their hands to show how truly stupid the idea is.  As fans of a National League contender, I say we try to put the worst starting 8 for the A.L. on the field as possible.  If the Cubs do happen to win the pennant, maybe that would give them home-field advantage.  If not, well, maybe MLB would start to see the folly in this arrangement.

To make this work, we'd have to vote for the same team.  It's very early in the season (as some on this board tend to forget), but the ballot is out, so I looked at stats, considered who is likely to come back and have a good first half.  I also considered a fan favorite who probably won't be ASG worthy but has a shot to get in, anyway.

Here are my suggested picks:

1B -- Davis (TEX)

2B -- Casilla (MIN)

3B -- Beltre (SEA)

SS -- Izturis (BAL) no pun intented

OF -- Gutierrez (SEA)

OF -- Gomez (MIN)

OF -- Griffey (SEA)

C -- Zaun (BAL)

As far as the N.L. goes, I'd say vote any way at all.  I'm not in favor of stuffing the ballot box to get 8 Cub starters, but then I wouldn't have been in favor of what I'm suggesting above a few years ago.

So, can we show Selig and the Fox network what happens when too much importace is given to an exhibition game?

For a change of pace, I'll post something that makes no reference (other than this sentence) to newly acquired relief pitchers, backup catchers or potential acquisitions.

Late last season, I made a bet with Drew over the Packers/Bears records; I have donated $20 to Project 3000 (I'll scan and post a pick of the receipt if Drew wants proof).  I was going to pay Al at the convention, but only saw him for a minute during the "Meet Cubs Baseball Management" session.

Had a nice e-mail exchange with Dave Eanet of WGN about how much time the hosts took during that sesssion.  Dave apologized and explained that some of it was because Piniella was late, so the session started late, and he didn't account for that.  I believe him -- I know there are conspiracy theorists that will insist it's to deflect difficult questions, but think about it.  If that was the goal, why would they take ANY questions?  The first two or three could all be ones that Hendry & Co. don't want to answer.

After the baseball management session ended, I went up to Hendry to ask my questions.  I prefaced them by saying that he may not be able to answer either, and I understood that.  The first one was along the lines of, "The theme this offseason is that you needed to get more left-handed . . . yet you won 97 games.  I respect that you're not resting on that -- but when people ask about leadoff, the answer is that you won 97 games."  My point is that it seems to be a double standard.  Hendry's response was to get aggressive and combative. 

Before I could ask the question of "Did you have any organizational discussions about bringing someone in with a higher OBP?", he badgered (no pun intended) me with, "Who would you get?  Who is better?", and then proceeded to put down every name that I suggested.  Since I didn't want to ruin it for the others around him, I put up with more than I would have in a one-on-one setting.  At one point, I suggested Furcal, and got "Are you going to trade Theriot and pay him $30M?  He can't even stay on the field." -- I resisted the urge to say either, "Yeah, because Theriot sucks", or, "Bradley can't stay on the field, either, you horse's ___".  Yes, I mentioned Roberts, and he muttered something about not dealing with Baltimore -- hours before he did.  So, by his demeanor, Hendry pretty much answered my first question -- yes, they did want to get a better leadoff man, but they couldn't -- and now they need to publicly defend Soriano being there -- again.

The second question was along the lines of, "Why do you need to carry 12 pitchers, when 1 or 2 of them hardly ever see the mound?"  Reply -- "Got to.  Got to have them.  Lou and Larry decide who pitches." 

So, yeah, I still think Jim's a good GM -- but he can also be a defensive jerk.

Speaking of dealing with Baltimore, I missed a few posts in the Pie traded discussion, but I found a couple this morning.  Looks like Ballhawk paid his debt (yes, that was me that you'd bet).  Drew, assuming you've also paid $5 per our bet . . . .

Finally, I've mentioned this a couple of times, but I asked Crane Kenney about the "L" flag during his Sunday session.  They are going to keep it, which I think is the right thing to do -- I think flying the "W" but not the "L" is contrived.  I also asked about the "softball" jerseys -- those aren't going away, but the red-brimmed road hats are.

As the fanposts on Jake Peavy are lengthlier than the federal complaint against Blago, I thought it might be fun to revisit Cubs rumors that never came to fruition.

About 10-12 years ago, Orel Hershiser was rumored to be coming to the Cubs to join the starting rotation.  It never happened.  In the mid-1990's, Jeff Torborg was supposedly the Cubs' manager in waiting, although that was mainly Mike Murphy touting that one, so . . . .

Then, of course, we have last year's endless Brian Roberts stories.  So, in an effort to stave off some of the frustration that some of you are feeling from all these Peavy posts -- who else has some memories of Cub moves that were absolutely going to happen -- until they didn't happen?

Lou Piniella was the topic of a short column in Friday's NY Daily News.  It touches on Lou's former, and hometown, team being in the World Series and his take on it.

More interestingly, it talks about the organizational strategies for 2009:

While the Cubs had the National League's best record this season, their flaws - not enough lefthanded hitters, Alfonso Soriano's inconsistency out of the leadoff spot, shaky middle relief - all showed up in the playoffs. Piniella said the Cubs' main agenda these next few weeks will be to re-sign pending free agents Ryan Dempster and Kerry Wood and explore trade options for lefthanded hitting and bullpen help. He also said he plans to move Kosuke Fukudome, the Cubs' $48 million Japanese import whose second-half slump exasperated the manager, to center field as part of a platoon with Reed Johnson.

A lot of us have speculated on the platoon with Fukudome and Johnson, but this could give it some credence.  I'm actually surprised to see it telegraphed like this (although I've not read it in any Chicago paper to this point), because it would seem to devalue Pie in a trade.  If true, it's also a pretty clear sign to Edmonds that he won't be invited back.

Maybe Pie really isn't the real deal, but this does seem to be more of Lou's doghouse coloring talent evaluation. 

(It also seems that I could win my bet with Ballhawk -- $5 to Project 3000 that Pie will be out of the Cub organization by the end of the 2009 Convention -- still waiting to see if Drew wants some of that action.)

I'm not familiar with the author of the column, and I don't know how reputable he is . . . I'm hoping for comments on that in addition to discussions on the quote itself.

Here's a link to the Trib's blog

I'm a bit surprised that no surgery is needed, with the velocity down.  If he can pitch like he has in the past, this is obviously a good thing - but he's got to be more durable.

Here's hoping he can be effective and pitch EVERY fifth day in 2009.

And now I need fourteen more words.  Fourteen, you say?  Yes, just fourteen more words.

As has been mentioned several times this year, this is quite possibly the best Cubs overall team that anyone alive has witnessed.  I'm old enough to remember the early 1980's, and it's certainly been the best team that I've seen them have so far.

There have been plenty of ups and downs and the team is far from perfect.  But, they have a legitimate shot (curses be damned, I'm saying it) win the World Series this year.  Anything can happen in a short series, and the competition will be tough, but I like their chances if they are healthy.

In response to some of the posts/comments this morning taunting the Brewers -- can we knock it off?  As some others have said, root for your team to win, not someone else's team to lose.  For all the mocking that goes on at BCB about, say, White Sox fans, claiming that's what they do, how is it any better if a Cubs fan does it?

Yes, fans of other teams rip on Cubs fans.  So what?  Rise above it.  Some of it probably is because there are times when the Cubs fans act like they're the center of the universe -- we aren't. 

When you win a game, be gracious.  I can't imagine Maddux, Sandberg, Dawson, Banks, Williams, etc. mocking the opposition -- why do the fans need to?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't celebrate if the season ends the way we all hope it does -- but shouldn't the focus be on the Cubs winning, and not someone else losing?

Ok, the off day is almost over, but let's be honest.  We're all going to be stir-crazy waiting for 6:10 CDT Friday.  The Zambrano news is good, so we can turn our focus back to the on-field action.

A few weeks ago, there was some banter on the site about the NFL, so in the spirit of fun, sportsmanship and talking smack, I bet Drew $20 that the Packers will have a better record than the Bears.  The winnings will go to Project 3000, payable to Al at the 2009 convention.

I thought I'd start this post to see if anyone else wants to come up with fun ways to raise some cash.  No, I'm not going to bet every Bears, Vikings, etc. fan out there.  I might make another bet, if it's creative enough.

Anyway, have at it -- let's raise some more money!