I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm excited about finally seeing the new playing field at the Friendly Confines in action tomorrow.  Since I wanted a preview, I went and checked out the webcam that's inside the ballpark.  Here's a representative photo:

For comparison, this is a shot of the old infield from an almost identical angle:

via www.geocities.com

 

I'm kind of disappointed that the infield itself looks different.  I always thought that Wrigley's infield had some unique features: it always looked a little "thin" in terms of where the outfield grass started, it had long "umpire paths" behind first and third (which exist in about a third of all major league parks, but are all shorter than Wrigley's old one), a straight dirt line instead of a rounded one in front of home plate, and even the relatively long "extra dirt" around first and third base.

Oh, and the fungo circles, on either side of the plate.

In short, the old infield had some character to it, and this one doesn't.  I know, this is not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, but I kind of feel like the Cubs are just getting a cheap copy of everybody else's infield, and its no longer unique to Chicago.

Anyway, there are couple other changes that can be seen from that webcam, should you wish to take the time.  The first is that the warning track is not only larger, but it extends all the way around the entire field, including foul territory, so the bullpens consist mainly of dirt in between the mound and the plate.  The second major change is that the Cubs added a few rows of seats on the left-field side of their dugout, and it just squeezes the stands in a bit tighter on the field -- it looks like they may have moved the bullpen a bit closer to the foul line to compensate, but it's hard to tell from this angle.

Oh, also, that logo behind the plate is hideous.  "Opening Week"?  I know that MLB has been doing this for a few years, but, come on -- since when is "opening week" celebrated?

I've spent a decent part of this morning clicking around this webcam, generating personal excitement about tomorrow, opening day.  Only one more day to go, folks.  =)

Continue reading this post »

Nate Silver compares the merits of a Fukudome/Murton center/right combination against lefties, versus a Johnson/Murton combo:

However, there is another option in the form of Matt Murton, who is around .12 runs per game better than Johnson against left-handed pitching — the equivalent of about 20 runs per 162 games — and fully .20 runs better than Pie. Can Murton play center? Probably not in a way that most teams are willing to tolerate. But Murton could play right field — and Kosuke Fukudome could play center, which by most accounts he was able to handle competently in Japan. It’s hard to imagine that a Johnson/Fukudome outfield is fully 20 runs per season better with the glove than Fukudome/Murton; it’s not like Reed Johnson is Gary Maddox out thee. And here, the clubhouse externalities work in the opposite direction, because by acquiring Johnson, you’ve made clear to Murton just how unimportant a part of the club’s future he is.

It’s not a bad acquisition in the abstract so much as an uncreative use of resources, which has become something of a hallmark for the Cubs.

The last line really rings true, doesn't it?

Between all four of the players in question - Pie, Fukudome, Johnson, and Murton - Murton has the superior bat against lefties, and there's no reason to think he won't continue to do so.  Working him into the lineup against southpaws would be a benefit to the Cubs in those games.  Unfortunately, Murton is a defensive liability.

Baseball Prospectus has Murton and Johnson as about average fielders at left field (based on FRAA), although baseball wisdom holds that Johnson is, while not a terribly good CF, at least capable of credibly playing the position.  Murton is not.

The question is, how good of a center fielder is Fukudome?  A center/right field of Fukudome/Murton would be worse than Johnson/Fukudome, but by how much?  I'm tempted to say that it would not be enough to offset the real gains that Murton's projected .310/.380/.488 line against lefties would bring, over Johnson's .278/.346/.416 projection.

Worth pointing out: Johnson's projection doesn't match his career performance against southpaws, who he's hit .308/.371/.462 against in his career.  Murton's career split against lefties is just a touch better than his PECOTA projection.

Either way, Johnson definitely has value as a backup for the Cubs, as he's the only bench OF who can credibly play all three slots, though I guess Cedeno's supposed to be able to play center.

So what do you all think?  Murton or Johnson?

 

Poll

Which center field/right field combination should the Cubs use against left-handed pitching this year?

47%

Fukudome (CF) / Murton (RF)

76 votes

52%

Johnson (CF) / Fukudome (RF)

83 votes

159 votes | Poll has closed

Continue reading this post »

Over at The Hardball Times, there are five questions posed about the Cubs, which are then answered by the article's writer.  Here are the questions:

1. Dusty was rusty; Lou, too?
   
2. Is mediocre the new good? [about Lilly and Marquis]
   
3. Who is Alfonso Soriano?
   
4. How many games will Ryan Theriot play at second base?
   
5. Can the Cubs really expect a good season without the usual spring caveat: "If Wood and Prior stay healthy"?

It's worth looking at the entire article, but my favorite line from it has to be this: Once they signed Soriano, the Cubs examined their roster and failed to find Andruw Jones or Jim Edmonds. So, on March 1, Soriano stood in center field for the first time in his major league career as the Cubs played their first 2007 exhibition game.

Anyway, it's a nice little article that dissects some of the questions we have about the Cubs going into the season.  I liked it.  Hopefully some of it can stimulate discussion.  =)

I was watching last night's episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, Aaron Sorkin's new show, when I caught this on the wall behind a character:

Looks like me like it says this:

1969
1984
1989
1998
2003

Wait til' next year, Jeff :-(

SOSA'S
JUICED
retired
a ranger

Just thought that was interesting.  Personally, I like Tony Almeida's Cubs mug on 24 better, but I'll take Cubs easter eggs wherever they come.

I've been looking around the net for some pictures of the Cubs at spring training, so I thought I'd share the only two good ones I found (both from Yahoo! News) with you guys.  They're both of Alfonso Soriano, and it's nice to see him in a Cubs uniform for real (even if it's the lame one with the goofy side paneling and the hat with ear stripes).

Soriano One

Soriano Two

As an aside, am I the only one who really, really hopes that people stop refering to Daisuke Matsuzaka as "Dice-K"?

Some of you might be interested to listen to this podcast, which features Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus interviewing Steve Stone.

I listened to it today while walking and riding on my way to catch a train to Wisconsin, and I highly recommend it.  Of particular interest to us Cubs fans is a few minutes spent discussing Kerry Wood and some reminiscing about Harry Caray, but the entire interview is worth a listen.  Steve Stone's not just a good analyst, but he's got a great voice and vocabulary for baseball.  It's nice to hear it again, even if he does accidentally call Derrek Lee "Derek Jeter".

The poll question I added is tangentially related to this diary.

Poll

Did you secretly wish that Bob Brenly would be named manager just because it might have paved the way for Steve Stone's return to the broadcast booth?

65%

Yes

49 votes

34%

No

26 votes

75 votes | Poll has closed

When looking at the Cubs' 2007 lineup, a few things can be assumed.  Alfonso Soriano is going to bat first, and the 3-6 slots will probably be filled by Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez, Jacque Jones, and Michael Barrett -- in that order.  The big question becomes, who is going to bat second, between Soriano and Lee?

There would seem to be four candidates, depending on the left field platoon.  Cezar Izturis and Mark DeRosa figure to be everyday players, with Matt Murton and Cliff Floyd sharing the duties in left.

Let me first say that under no circumstance should Izturis bat second.  I realize that the face he is a switch hitter makes it very tempting to put him there, but it's no secret that his offensive skills are less than spectactular.  While the chance of him putting up a Neifi-ish sub-.300 OBP seems slim, both PECOTA and ZIPS project his OBP to be around .320, and when coupled with the relatively small amount of pop in his bat, makes him a good candidate for the bottom of the order.

DeRosa will probably be a better hitter, but I am still somewhat concerned with his ability to get on base.  Remember, that second slot is important, with the heavy hitters coming up next.  I honestly think that it was the 2005 Cubs' inability to get their top of the order guys on base for Lee to drive in that cost him the MVP, and it is certain that it cost them runs.  It wouldn't upset me to have him in that spot, though, particularly if he's able to make contact and give Soriano a chance to run when he gets on base.  ZIPS thinks that his OBP will be comparable to Izturis'; PECTOA says 10-20 points higher.  Both projections could very well be wrong.  Last year was a career year for DeRosa, but he posted .296/.357/.456 line: if he can repeat those numbers, he will be more than acceptable at second base, and batting second.

The option I favor is having Matt Murton bat second, something that I haven't made much of a secret of over the last year.  His .297/.365/.444 line from last season is very close to DeRosa's numbers, except that Murton has been hitting like this his entire professional career.  His numbers have come down in the majors with increased competition, but he defied the fluke-cryers last year with a very solid season.  People question whether he will ever develop real power (13 HR in 508 ABs last year), but batting in the two hole, he's not going to be looking to drive a ton of runners home anyway.  His batting stats are likely to rise even higher with the dangerous baserunner Soriano in front of him and a healthy Derrek Lee waiting on deck.  Le's patience and ability to get on base are the marks of a good hitter, and a guy who could wind up scoring a lot of runs for the 2007 Cubs.  For what it's worth, PECOTA and ZIPS see almost the exact same batting stats for Murton as 2006.

And yes, I do realize that I have a level of man-love for Murton.  Deal with it.

The question then is what to do when Floyd is in the lineup?  He doesn't run very well, but his bat works fine.  He has more power than Murton, and while he doesn't have the long-term upside, he's probably about as valuable a player as Murton is, except he's a left-handed batter.  A platoon here makes a ton of sense, because Murton hits lefties significantly better than righties (OPS of .870 versus .782 in 2006).  Floyd's advantage over righties is even higher: in 2005 (his last healthy season) he posted an OPS of .915 against them, as opposed to .710 against left handers.  I would make the argument that the Cubs' best option against right handed starters would have Jacque Jones (.303/.358/.528 against RHP in 2006) moved into the #2 slot and Floyd batting fifth behind Ramirez.  Floyd is likely to sit out some games against righties, in which case Murton is probably better suited for the second spot in the order than Jones. Frankly, I think that it would be fine to have Murton and Floyd split time against righties, and have Floyd available off the bench .

In summation, I would favor the following starting lineups:

Vs. RHP, with Floyd in LF:
Soriano
Jones
Lee
Ramirez
Floyd
Barrett
DeRosa
Izturis

With Murton in LF:
Soriano
Murton
Lee
Ramirez
Jones
Barrett
DeRosa
Izturis

Every couple of years, Majestic changes the design of the batting practice jerseys.  The new ones can be seen here.  Putting away my feelings on a single template being applied to 30 MLB teams,  I'm glad to see that the Cubs appear to be returning their BP jersey to a Cubbie blue, instead of the navy they've favored recently.  I am not excited about the white-and-red side panels on the jersey, but I think it certainly looks better than the one it's replacing, which quite noticeably does not match the Cubs' hats.

I also like that the names being kept off of the jersey, which is something that a lot of teams that have names on all of their jerseys are planning to do with their batting practice jersey.

Source: The Baltimore Sun

Thank Hendry!  No more Bynum, ever, ever, ever!

The Baker era is slowly slipping away... and that's only a good thing for the Cubs.  Watching Bynum play in all those games was painful... I don't care how fast he was.  Maybe he should have gone into track and field instead of baseball.

Hey, all.  I was fooling around with Garage Band this afternoon, and I wound up with this pretty spiffy multivoice tune.  For the record, there is a point during this song where eight of my own voice is going at once.

I hope you enjoy it.  =)

http://download.yousendit.com/80D1062E6AACCC3F

Now, the rest of this is filler text due to the 300 character minumum.  I can't help but notice, though, that somewhere on this server there's a file with a wrong setting:

One-line diaries are prohibited on McCovey Chronicles. Give your diary a bit more thought, then give it another shot. If you have nothing to add to your proposed diary, then it probably belongs as a comment under another appropriate thread.

Last time I checked, this wasn't a steroi--er, Giants fan site.

I went to the game tonight, and I have to say that after the first couple of innings, Marshall looked fantastic.  He got the help of the wind on some long fly balls early, but his curveball was working all night, and he made a lot of hitters look foolish -- especially Cabrera.  I'm feeling very optimistic about him right now.

Long term, what are people's thoughts about him?  Should he stay up the entire season, possibly denying Wade Miller a chance to start?

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/cws/downloads/y2006/soxcubs.pdf

Reinsdorf and MacPhail sent this letter to the publisher of the Sun-Times to call out Jay Mariotti for this column he wrote last month.  Two choice quotes from the letter:

As is not uncommon with Mr. Mariotti, he has made no effort to be the least bit informed If Mariotti would ever trouble himself to make a phone call, maybe he would get the story right.

I don't know about you all, but I am dying of laughter.  If hating Jay Mariotti is what it takes to bring Cubs and Sox fans together, then I welcome my south side brethren with open arms!

The New York Mets have long been at the forefront of poor uniform design.  Despite inheriting a cool concept that worked for almost 40 years -- orange for the Giants and blue for the Dodgers -- the Mets decided to add black in the late nineties, and haven't had a decent looking set since then.

They started adding black drop shadows, a black hat, black socks, black undershirts, and finally a black alternate.  Which was bad enough.  I'm sure there are some here who actually like it, though I'm not a fan, and frankly I think they've sold out their identity to the color black.  But as of Opening Day, the Mets have gone too far:

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2006-02/22192931.jpg

That helmet is an absolute travesty.  I tolerated it during Spring Training, naively thinking that it was a spring-training-only thing.  Apparently, I was wrong.   I was irritated enough by the silly looking design -- Rawlings idea of "branding" (something I DETEST -- see the new sleeves Nike's supplying this year) because they aren't allowed to put their logo on it -- but honestly, this color scheme is beyond the pale.

May the New York Mets' design team die a slow and painful death for this travesty...

Poll

When did the Mets go to far?

25%

1969

10 votes

10%

2006 - Batting helmet design stolen from U. Michigan

4 votes

37%

1962 - They shouldn't have ever existed

15 votes

20%

1999 - Black alternates, black socks, black... well, black everything

8 votes

2%

1997 - "Snow white" cap

1 votes

5%

1983 - Racing stripes

2 votes

40 votes | Poll has closed

It's time to stop dwelling on 2003.

There is no doubt that for Cubs fans, 2003 was a magical ride that ended just a few days too early.  For the whole generation of Cubs fans, including myself, who weren't around in 1984 it was an induction into the heartbreak that comes with hope borne of rare, but ultimately limited success.  1998 was a year to remember, but we all knew that the Cubs didn't have a real chance against the Braves, and we were just glad to see them in October.

Today is more than three years removed from the opening day game at Shea Stadium where the Cubs, led by the now-disgraced Corey Patterson, beat up on the Mets en route to a 15-2 victory, inspiring hope throughout Cubbie nation, a hope that has been dashed repeatedly since then.

Before President Bush throws out the ceremonial first pitch today in Cincinnati, we, as Cubs fans, need to take a deep breath - and forget about 2003.

Opening day is a fresh slate.  All of the ballclubs (well, except for the "opening night" players) are 0-0, tied for first and last in their divisions.  And while there is no denying the two elephants in the room that represent Mark Prior and Kerry Wood (and their ongoing rehab/training), there is much the Cubs can look forward to.

Jim Hendry has done a job that, while not stellar, is deserving of praise.  He made the wise, but not extraordinarily popular, decision of not drastically overpaying Rafael Furcal and other free agents.  This added maneuverability will allow the Cubs to make big splashes at the midseason deadline.  Hendry instead opted to spend some of his money on upgrading the bullpen.  This wasn't a glamorous decision, but one that will surely have a serious effect in the standings.  His foresight with regard to Ryan Dempster was proven last year, and will likely be repeated this year with Scott Williamson available to help steady the bullpen, and to back up Dempster.

Hendry also added Wade Miller, who is slated to be available by mid-May.  In fact, if the training program currently in place for the trio of Miller, Prior, and Wood is complete on time, the Cubs will have by the end of May what would be the most formidable starting rotation in the majors - and a bullpen to back it up.

Meanwhile, the Cubs are improved on the offensive front, too.  Matt Murton probably won't hit .321 like he did in limited action last year, but he'll certainly outperform the committee headed last year by Todd Hollandsworth in left field.  Juan Pierre is a tablesetter, and with either Todd Walker or Jerry Hairston, Jr. hitting behind him in the two hole on a daily basis, Derrek Lee will finally have some runners to drive in when he comes to the plate.

A number of people have assumed that Lee's stellar 2005 will beget a return to reality in 2006, and I would agree, were it not for the mechanical reasons behind Lee's surge last year.  Expect to see more success on Lee's part, as he's making more contact and driving the ball further than he ever has.  Aramis Ramirez has had three straight solid seasons, and at age twenty-eight is due for a very strong season.

Cubs fans have many reasons to be hopeful this year.  The Cubs will score more runs, and their bullpen will allow less.  When the big three finally make it to the big league club in May, opposing teams are going to find it extraordinarily difficult to score runs.  Even managerial incompetence will have a hard time screwing this one up (although deep in our hearts, we suspect that Dusty will always find a way).

But best of all, we know that what doomed the Cubs in 2003 - over reliance on starters by necessity in particular - is not an issue.  And that's why we should forget 2003, and look forward to 2006, the year of the Cubs.

This had been discussed, but I don't know if a consensus was reached.  I got the impression that there were several people who were interested in getting together to watch the game tomorrow somewhere downtown.  If people are meeting up somewhere, I'd like to be a part of that.  Anyone have any info or ideas?  Is this even happening?  

At least, according to Paul Sullivan:

The Cubs aren't interested in getting into a bidding war with teams like the Yankees and Cardinals for free-agent outfielder Brian Giles, who turns 35 in January and is seeking more than $10 million per year for at least three years.

Hendry is more likely to trade for a right fielder than look to the subpar free-agent crop.

Sounds to me like the Cardinals won't be missing Larry Walker in 2006.

Mench is not a championship solution.  Hopefully, Hendry has somebody else on his radar. By the way -- if this comment has been brought up elsewhere today, my apologies. I haven't had the time to read all the comments in all of the diaries.

Just a heads up for you guys.  This makes me somewhat skeptical that the Cubs and Rangers have anything serious brewing, otherwise Leicester would have likely been included in that trade.  I guess that means no Kevin Mench, and Patterson won't be a Ranger?

Here is the link to the Cubs' press release.

I was looking at some stats this morning, and I found something interesting.  This is the Cubs' strikeout numbers for the past four years, with NL rank in parentheses:

2002. 1269 (1)
      
2003. 1158 (3)
      
2004. 1080 (9)
      
2005. 920 (14)

I'm curious if this is a result of Baker/Matthews, or if this is just a coincidence due to things like the fact that the 2002 team had Alex Gonzalez, Sammy Sosa, and Corey Patterson, whereas now only Patterson remains -- and in 2005 that was a reduced role.

It's probably worth noting, though, the Cubs' walk statistics:

2002. 585 (6)
      
2003. 492 (14)
      
2004. 489 (14)
      
2005. 419 (16)

I guess it's something of a mixed bag.  But it's very telling that under Dusty Baker and his crew, the Cubs have not been able to walk at the rate of, well, pretty much every other team in the league.

Bartolo Colon won the AL Cy Young award again today, proving very nicely that the people who vote for these kinds of awards don't have a clue what they're talking about.  As Jayson Stark points out, Johan Santana deserved the award much more than Colon did.

Wins mean everything for a team, and next-to-nothing for a pitcher.  Remember that when Roger Clemens doesn't win the NL Cy Young (that he very much deserves) tomorrow.

We're all mostly aware of how LHP John Koronka did in his stint with the Cubs this year, but as a quick refresher, here was his line:

W  L   ERA  G  GS    IP   H  ER  HR  BB  SO  WHIP
1  2  7.47  4   3  13.0  19  13   2   8  10  2.08

His lack of success this year for the Cubs is therefore unsurprising.  But he did pitch 13 scoreless innings in the Arizona Fall League for the Solar Sox, and had a WHIP of exactly 1.00.  And his Iowa Cubs line isn't great, but it's good:

W   L   ERA   G  GS     IP    H  ER  HR  BB  SO  WHIP
9  11  4.24  23  21  136.0  135  64  12  48  96  1.35

He's averaging a 0.79 home runs times per nine innings.  His 2:1 SO/BB ratio is also nice, especially given that it adds up to about 3.2 walks/9IP.  When you add in all the good things I remember hearing about him before his first start in LA this year, I'd say that Koronka, who will be turning 26 on July 3, will be a somewhat serious contender for the fifth starter role, a contest that will also presumably feature Rusch and Williams.

I was just wondering what the thoughts from various people here are about Koronka.  I remember liking him during that game in LA, but I do remember his line wasn't that great in the end.  Does he have what it takes to crack the 2006 rotation?  If he doesn't, should he be a lefty middle relief guy out of the 'pen, or should he get a full season starting in the Minors?  I am impressed that he didn't give up even a single run in the AFL, even if the competition there is substantially less fierce than the National League.  Aardsma's ERA for the Solar Sox is 10.60, by contrast.

Who are they trading him to?

One team bandied about in Todd Walker discussions tends to be the Texas Rangers.  So that got me thinking -- what if the Cubs intend to trade Walker and Kerry Wood to the Rangers?  Who could they get in return?

I think Soriano is a shoo-in for that deal, which frightens me because his OBP is Neifi-like.  But that probably wouldn't be enough.  But the Rangers have a good young pitcher by the name of Chris Young, who had a 4.26 ERA and a 1.26 WHIP this year --and remember where he plays his home games.  Would anybody here make a Wood/Walker for Soriano/Young?  I'm not entirely sure I would, but would the Cubs, provided Texas picked up Kerry Wood's contract?  Young was named as the first-team starting pitcher in the all-rookie team by Baseball America.

Just thinking in text.  There's been a lot of speculation that Walker won't be with the Cubs on Opening Day.

I haven't seen this mentioned on here, and I think it's worth bringing to the attention of the Cub nation:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-050604cubsbrite,1,4340555.story?coll =cs-cubs-headlines&ctrack=2&cset=true

Kerry Wood said the change in his mechanics may not be noticeable to most people when he eventually returns from the disabled list after incurring a muscle strain in his shoulder one month ago.

"You probably won't be able to tell the difference," Wood said Saturday after throwing 60 pitches in a bullpen session. "Maybe [it's] a little less violent and little more smooth. There are not any drastic changes in arm angle or anything like that. I'll just try to keep my line to the plate straight."

...

"That's what we were talking about before," manager Dusty Baker said. "He was putting a lot of pressure on his shoulder because of the way he threw for a long time. We were just talking about getting it right, and that will help his control too."

...

Wood said he has altered his mechanics before, only to revert to his old form.

"It's sunk in a little more this time,' he said. "I don't know why. [Saturday] I was really getting after it. I wasn't thinking about it a whole lot. ... It's sinking in. In four weeks of pitching and playing catch, you have time to work on those things."

Wood will take a couple of days off and have a regular side session when the Cubs return to Wrigley Field before deciding the next move, likely a simulated game. There is still no timetable for his return, but if he continues at his current pace, Wood should be back before the end of June.

It's worth reading the rest of it, too.

The Cubs have six games in AL parks this year (three in New York and three at the Cell).  If I had my way, the lineup for those games would look like this:

1. Hairston (DH)
   
2. Walker
   
3. Lee
   
4. Ramirez
   
5. Burnitz
   
6. Dubois
   
7. Patterson
   
8. Perez
   
9. Barrett

The reason that Hairston is the DH and not Walker ought to be obvious.

Unfortunately, I have this really bad feeling that we're going to see the following two lineups:

(vs. LHP)

1. Hairston
   
2. Perez
   
3. Lee
   
4. Ramirez
   
5. Dubois
   
6. Burnitz
   
7. Patterson
   
8. Barrett
   
9. Hollandsworth

(or even worse, we'll see Hollandsworth in the 2-spot, with Perez 8th and Barrett 9th)

(vs. RHP)

1. Perez
   
2. Hollandsworth
   
3. Lee
   
4. Burnitz
   
5. Ramirez
   
6. Patterson
   
7. Walker
   
8. Dubois
   
9. Barrett

The reason I am pessimistic about Dusty's lineups for these six games is that I know he's itching to get Hollandsworth in the game.  This will mean that he will use his tried-and-true lefty-righty matchup method to get either Walker or Hairston in the game.  Against righties, this sacrifices a leadoff hitter, and against lefties, this sacrifices Walker's bat, which I expect to continue roughly his pre-Carlos Lee output.

By the way, Walker seemed to do a decent job at the leadoff spot last year.  He's not a speedster, but his OBP this year is .389, and it was a decent .352 last year (and .370 in the leadoff spot).  So while I like Hairston at the head of the Cubs' lineup, I wouldn't be upset to lose him to a trade or anything.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y224/gavindow/cubs-injury-tracker.png

Just a little something I whipped up in Photoshop, after seeing a similar "home run tracker" on another website.  I thought some of you here might enjoy it.

If anybody wants me to, I can adapt the concept to pretty much anything -- home runs, ERA, OBA, batting average, etc.  If you're looking for something to put on your website or a new signature on a webboard, I'd be happy to provide you with a customized image.

By the way, Al, it would be nice if we could include pictures in diaries.  It doesn't seem to be possible in the moment, might that change?

Since we are nearing the end of May, the trade rumors are starting to fly around, especially in the past couple of days.  I've been thinking for a while now that the way this team is playing, it could do with an overhaul.

While I have titled this diary "Who's expendable, and who's not", I think I will address the question of who should not be made available for a trade except in extreme circumstances, and by the same reasoning, should not be permitted to depart the team via free agency.  These guys are all under the age of thirty, and it should be fairly obvious to most of us who they are.

1. CARLOS ZAMBRANO
I love Zambrano, and I know that he is going to be a great pitcher.  Some on this site believe that he's going to win a Cy Young before Mark Prior (not including Kerry Wood for reasons that should be fairly obvious by now), and I can't say that I disagree with them.  He had an amazing year last year, and he's still pitching the ball very well.  At only 24 years old (well, as of June 1), he has an extended career in front of him if he buys a phone card.  But it's not even his pitching that I love, it's the way he plays the game.  He hustles, he puts most Cubs HITTERS to shame at the plate, and everything about what he does on the mound, at the plate, and on the bases overflows with a desire to win.  His attitude towards playing the game is something that any team would want, and I hope he remains a Cub for many years.

2. MARK PRIOR
In a nutshell, I see no reason to give up on Prior.  He will turn 25 in September, so he has just as long a career ahead of him as Zambrano, and like Zambrano, he is already a first class pitcher.  His recent injury struggles would make anybody cautious, but they don't appear to be recurring problems.  His delivery is so smooth that I am consistantly amazed when I see the speed at which his fastball reaches the plate.  He's back to his 2003 form this year, and his career ERA in 78 starts is 3.07, a career ERA most pitchers would be jealous of.  By the way, his walks to strikeouts ratio has held steady at roughly 1:4 throughout his career (and this year), which is something that the Cubs should not give up under all but the most extreme circumstances.

3. DERREK LEE
Lee is the oldest of this quintuplet, at 29 years old (though he actually will turn 30 in September).  We all love him for his bat, of course.  His April was nothing short of astonishing, though his May has been something of a letdown.  That's okay, because we know he'll bounce bat.  For all his offensive contributions, however, it is nearly impossible to overstate the role his glove his played at first base.  A commenter remarked recently that Ramirez is throwing confidently from third base now, and that is due in no small part to the fact that Lee operates as a human vacuum cleaner over at first base.  I sat next to a Marlins fan on Sunday, and I asked him why Lee was traded.  He grumbled something about injuries, but it was clear that he didn't really know, either -- especially given that the last time Lee missed more than ten starts in a year was back in 2001.  The Cubs probably won't have Lee as long as they had Mark Grace, but I would love to see Lee over at first for many years.

4. ARAMIS RAMIREZ
Ramirez is the hardest of these four to make a compelling case for holding on.  His career stats aren't up to the standards as the others.  The reason he is here is that good third basemen -- of which Ramirez is one (at least in the sense that he's a good hitter who can play his chosen position well enough to merit playing him there on an everyday basis) -- and those are hard to come by.  He had a career year last year, to be sure.  His numbers were several points higher than they had been in any year previous, though 2001 came close.  He's not batting all that well at the moment, though I believe that's because of his back issues.  Honestly, I think he needs to sit for a few days like Barrett did, but that's a topic for another diary.  He's 26 (27 in June), so he's still relatively young.  We know he's a good hitter, and we know that despite his back problems, he's hitting the ball hard.  I could be wrong, but I think that he's going to turn this season around, and start hitting like he did last year.  I honestly believe that the post-Santo years of revolving door third basemen is over.  However, if put on the spot, I would say he is the most tradable of the four "non-expendables".

Every singly other player on this team is expendable.  The Cubs do not need them to field a winning team, either this year, or in the future.  This includes some players that many in the Cubs organization and the stands might want to keep around:

1. KERRY WOOD
Two years ago, suggesting that Kerry Wood was expendably would have been Cubs heresy.  But after his 2003 season, which had all of Cubdom sighing "Finally!" with more than the slightest hint of relief, the injury-prone Wood has made multiple trips to the DL.  Either his arm is just a wreck in general, or (as many have suggested, including Steve Stone) his mechanics are so bad that the strain he puts on his arm every time he pitches is significantly worse than that of most pitchers.  His mechanics also lead to a maddening inconsistancy on the mound.  It's been well-known for years that after the first inning or two of a Wood start, you know if it will be good or bad: when it's bad, he falls off the mound towards first base on nearly every pitch.  I think if the Cubs had the, ahem, "testicular virility" to do it, they could send the 26 year-old Wood (27 in June -- what is it about June and September?) down to the minors to work on his motion.  At the very least, they could have Larry Rothschild working with him on the side when he's ready to return, and refuse to start him until he starts getting his motion under control.  But I honestly don't see that happening, which places the talented but inconsistant Wood squarly in the expendable column.

2. COREY PATTERSON
The 25 year-old Patterson has more than his share of opponents here, as well as some supporters.  I see what the supporters like about him.  I personally love how he runs out every ball to first, which puts him on base maybe a dozen times more per year.  Unfortunately, that does not offset his disturbingly low OBPs over the year -- at .309 this year, he is six points about his career total.  His walk to strikeout ratios make any pitcher he's facing look like Mark Prior.  He has some power, and he has speed, but he hasn't been able to translate that into as much success on the ballfield that one might expect.  It is possible that he will break out sooner or later, but unlike Ramirez, he hasn't shown any sign of doing so.  Additionally, Patterson is a guy that many teams would be interested in.  So, without much hesitation, I label Patterson as expendable, and sincerely hope that his younger brother Eric has some more patience at the plate.

3. JASON DUBOIS
I was an early champion of Dubois.  He won me over twice in 2004.  His first plate appearance led to a key sacrifice fly, and he filled in for Sosa during the last game of the season not just adequately, but basically by doing what Sosa had failed to do since 2001.  When it became clear that the Cubs were not going to be getting Beltran, I said that Dubois should be an everyday starter (and I still think that).  Of course, his numbers are even worse than Patterson's, but I'm willing to give him some more leeway, as it is his first full year in the big leagues (despite actually being older than Patterson), and he has a knack for coming up big as he did tonight.  However, he's not striking me as a player you build a franchise around.  I think he'll have a decent-to-good career, but it won't be a big deal if it's not with the Cubs.

4. JERRY HAIRSTON, JR.
For a while, I was going to put myself up as "on the fence" for Hairston.  He has been proving an able lead-off hitter, and I've spent a great deal of time wondering what the hell the Cubs are going to do with him when Walker comes back (maybe as early as this week, according the Sun-Times).  His defense, of course, leaves much to be desired.  I secretly suspect that he's the one who taught Todd Hollandsworth that trick about how to not pick up a ball that's lying still on the grass.  That's pretty much the reason he's here.  Lead-off men are so very important that I'm reluctant to part with one that seems to be working out well, but replacing a .366 on base percentage mixed with speed would be easy enough that I'm willing to mark Hairston as expendable.

Everyone else not mentioned here I consider to be exependable as well, but I have chosen to not specifically defend that choice.  I do not include any minor leaguers in this analysis, simply because I can't claim to know enough about the Cubs farm system to do that.  My instinct is that Mitre is tradable, while Guzman is not at this point.  Kelton's a lost cause, as far as I can tell.  And those two sentences there are the extent of what I know about the minors.

Not included in the list of "expendable" is Dusty Baker.  He gets away because he's the manager, not a player, but he's #1 in the list in my mind.

If the Cubs don't start playing up to their potential soon, Hendry may have to write off the season.  That's not a prospect I wish to see, but if it happens, and the second it happens, the Cubs must begin to retool for next year, and with the exception of the four above, I do not have any but the slightest reservations letting any of the players currently on this team go.

If you visit this website, you will find a "memory map" of Wrigley Field and the surrounding area.  If you mouse over the image, little boxes will appear.  If you mouse over the boxes, a little note pops up, explaining the significance of that particular box (which is in this case, a location).  Just a neat little thing that I thought some of you might enjoy.  If you join Flickr, you can make your own memory maps (using images from Google's nifty new satellite imagery/map app).

This was originally posted at my blog, but I wanted to give it the most exposure I could.  I encourge you all to visit my blog.  There is much, much more to this blog entry, so be sure to click "read more".

...

According to the New York Daily News, MLB KNEW about the rampant steroid use.

Ten years ago.

Continue reading this post »

Originally posted at TrueBlue

Jim Caple disses the Sosa trade.

Think about it. The Cubs just traded their best, most popular player since Ernie Banks to the Orioles for Jerry Hairston -- and paid Baltimore more than $10 million to boot. And yet a lot of Cubs fans are happy about this.

Jim, put on your thinking cap for a second: why are Cubs fans happy about this?  Is it because of Sosa's overwhelming popularity?

I just don't understand this. Has any player ever gone from team icon to pariah so quickly? I saw this to some extent with Ken Griffey Jr. when he asked to be traded out of Seattle, but not this complete a turnaround, not this quickly. Good lord. Sosa hit 35 home runs in 126 games last year and people act as if he sprayed the Wrigley Field ivy with weed killer.

Granted, Sosa had become a royal prima donna, surrounding himself with an entourage so large you might mistake it for Oprah's studio audience. He had become so self-centered that the simple act of lowering him in the batting order required a court order, an act of Congress and the express written consent of the commissioner of baseball.

But who tolerated his act for so many years, allowing his ego to grow so large he needed Velcro fasteners on his cap? The Cubs. They were perfectly happy to put up with Sosa when he was averaging 50 home runs a season, but as soon as he dropped to 35, it suddenly became too much to handle.

Wrong again, Jim.  The reason he lost favor wasn't by hitting 35 homers.  The Cubs, and the fans, put up with Sosa's clubhouse issues because there was a time when he was spectacular in the batter's box.  I'll quote four numbers for you: 116, 103, 62, 53.  For good measure, I'll include four more numbers that are related to the first four: .328, .288, .279, .253.  What are those numbers?  The first set are his walks from 2001 to 2004.  The last set are his batting averages during the same period.

From 2001 to 2004, Sosa lost an astounding 105 points off of his on-base average.  In a game where getting on base 4/10 tries is considered to be a very good performance, Sosa's ability to get on base dropped like a Kerry Wood curveball.  Why did this happen?  Only Sosa knows for sure, but it was probably a combination of two things:

(1) Sosa's desire to maximize his career home run numbers.  He's swinging for the fences, and forgetting to hit the ball in the process.
(2) Sosa's refusal to stand near the plate after being beaned by Solomon Torres.  Acceptable for a little leaguer, high schooler, or even a college player.  Not acceptable for the highest-paid player in franchise history.

Jim Caple is so fixated upon the decline in home run statistics (which come because Sosa has started swinging at ANYTHING that makes it at least 55 feet from the pitcher's mound) that he totally ignores the fact that Sosa's production in other areas has declined even further.

That's understandable, but I'm sorry. I know Sosa could be a pain in the butt and he put himself above the team. But the reason the Cubs didn't win last year was not because he played his boombox too loud.

I agree.  The reason the Cubs didn't win last year was that the "franchise player" was too busy thinking about Hank Aaron and Barry "Cream" Bonds to worry about the Expos, Mets, Reds, and Marlins while batting .230 in September.

Walking out on the team was just the sour icing on a bitter cake.

I want to be the first to congratulate Al on his new blog.  I'd never have joined the Cubs blogosphere without being pointed to his blog last year.

I'm considering whether or not I should copy some of my longer entries over at True Blue into the diaries here.  Is it even appropriate to do that?  I suppose we'll have to see what the other users on this site do with regards to their diaries.

I think that this is going to be a great site.  This particular blog software makes for a very vibrant community centered in one place.  I look forward to increased interaction with the Cubs internet community.