I don't post here often, so forgive me.  I usually only show up when I'm pissed about the Cubs as this is the only catharsis I have. 

So what did we learn from the Bradley incident that management needs to apply going forward?     To me, the answer is obvious: the Cubs need to stay away from head cases that can't handle pressure.  Bradley obviously couldn't hack it in a big media market, let alone in Chicago on a team that hasn't won in 100 years.  It's not another fluke Cubbie occurrence that Bradley had the worst season of his career here - it was the PRESSURE.  I truly believe that playing for the Chicago Cubs is the most stressful, pressure filled environment in sports.   Combine the pressure of that 100+ years and the bloodlust for a championship among us fans, and many of our guys just try too hard.  I still remember DeRosa on that WGN special sharing how badly he wanted to win a championship for the longsuffering fans- and when DeRosa booted that DP ball in game 2 last year, immediately my mind hearkened back to that comment.  No surprise he choked - he was just trying too hard!  Same issue in 2003, 2004, 2007 and 2008- we simply wilted under the pressure.   

With that said, the way we evaluate players needs to change.  It's easy to say in retrospect, but we should have done our homework better on Bradley before signing him, or just used some common sense.  At the time, I kept hearing from so many on this board that "Bradley can rake when healthy..." but what part of a career high of 77 RBIs did we miss here?   The man may be able to hit, BUT NOT WITH MEN ON BASE and that's all that matters.   The RBI gets dismissed as an outdated statistic, but Bradley's 40 some RBIs all season last year is all you need to understand.  Contrast this with Abreu, a man who consistently drives in 100 runs a year while hitting less than 20 HRs (and in a pressure cooker in NY previous, no less), who would have been a far better option. 

It seems that every year since 03, we have a common theme on this team: poor average with RISP, can't get men in from 3rd with less than one out.   This isn't surprising- those are PRESSURE situations, the thing that has unglued this franchise for years.   Yet we try and address this issue by signing guys like Soriano and Bradley, and we wonder why it doesn't work.

With this in mind, I'd love to see us pay a little more attention to RBIs, BA with RISP, SLG with RISP, ability to close games, and a player's overall response to pressure in the past before signing them in the future.  To be sure, I can't comment on a player's mental fortitude ahead of time, but it isn't my job to do so- it is, however, the job of a competent GM.    Maybe that'll spare us the Bradleys, Hawkins, and Sorianos of the world in the future.    I'd dance with joy if we traded Zambrano- you really think a headcase like him will lead us to October glory?  Please.  When we see signs of mental frailty in a player early on (Marmol, Hill), we need to dump him ASAP, knowing that headcases cannot prosper at Wrigley (mark my words, Marmol's value will plummet by year's end).    Of course it's easy to say this in retrospect, but for the life of me I can't understand why such thinking never appears to even enter the mind of Cubs brass when assembling a team.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- it would take an unusually strong group of men to win a World Series for the Chicago Cubs.  Men who cannot handle the pressure cooker of Wrigley need not apply.   And at the point a Cubs team does not seem to have the fortitude to win it all (see 2007, 2008), blow it up and start all over again.   This is the only way we'll ever win it all.  Mr Ricketts, I hope you are listening.

As many of us have realized, this edition of the 2009 Cubs can't really be dramatically changed due to the overabundance of no trade clauses on our team.  As I reckon it, Soriano, Lee, Bradley, and Ramirez all have no trade clauses. Given this reality, the only places we could really improve are SS and 2B (we seem set in CF, and there's no real offensive catchers available or that make sense for us as far as I know. As an aside to that, I was at the games in SD last weekend, and boy is Soto's bat speed slow.) .   That said, other than Ramirez's eventual return, what you see is probably what you get with our lineup. 

The same goes for our pitching staff, though that hasn't really been a weak spot this season: to my knowledge, both Zambrano and Dempster also have NTC's. 

Here's my question that I pose to all of you: how normal is this situation where abundant no trade clauses handcuff a team?  Is there any team out there with nearly as many NTC players as us?   How often is that used as a negotiation tactic in free agency?  Is Hendry's doling things out like Halloween candy the main reason we've been able to retain most of our free agents?   If this is a common problem for teams, perhaps Hendry isn't as much to blame as we think; if it's an unusual problem, though, Hendry should be run out of town on a rail when the new ownership arrives.    I'm curious to all of your thoughts on these things.

On Fox Sports' power rankings today, the writers remarked how the Cubs beat up a bad Cardinals bullpen over the weekend.   I don't know where I heard it, but some announcer had remarked that the Cubs have this habit of not getting to the starter nearly as much as they beat up a team's poor middle relief.  Is this really the case?  Is there any statistical way to verify this claim, either in this year's small sample size or in last year's stats, that against decent starting pitching, we often have trouble, but make up for it later in the game against lesser relievers?   

If so, that portends trouble down the road, and esp. once the playoffs begin, when you're largely facing a team's 1-3 starters and see less substandard middle relief.   Maybe our postseason struggles the last few years, in that case, could have been more easily predicted ahead of time.  On the other hand, if this claim is simply untrue and can be verified to be so statistically, I feel better about where this team is at as a whole.   Curious as to your thoughts and to see if there's any validity to this claim.

I don't know about you, but I am getting really frustrated watching this off-season unfold.  What's specifically bothering me is the whole Yankees/Red Sox arms race.  The Yanks decided they'd blow everybody else out of the water with Sabathia, giving him $160 M, and what's irritating is that they're not done!   Imagine if they sign Sheets and Lowe as well.   They've stolen the Brewers 1 and 2 starters, effectively ruining that small market team's chances of competing next year. If I'm the Brewers, I hold a fire sale and reload for a few years from now.

Meanwhile, you have the Red Sox, rumor has it, getting close to picking up Texiera.  How sickening.  An already scary team adding someone of his ilk.   Despite a reeling economy, these 2 teams have, it seems, an unlimited amount of funds at their disposal, and can always remain competitive.  The small market teams, on the other hand, have to have young talent that all gell at the right time together, and have only a very small window of a year or two with which to compete.  Once that window is over (see Milwaukee, and perhaps Tampa in a few years), it's over, and time to blow up and rebuild once their guys get too expensive.

I know Mil being done is good for the Cubs.   I hope we get Peavy more than anyone.  But imagine if we do- a starting rotation that makes $60 M a year?   Ridiculous. Not coincidentally, it'll be the best rotation in baseball.   How is this fair? 

I know, I know- spending money guarantees nothing.   Look at the Yankees the last few years, and look at us.  But it's an undeniable fact that spending money greatly increases your chances- I heard something like of the top 5 payrolls in baseball (NY x2, LA, Chi x 2), 3 of the 5 made the playoffs last year, and the other 2 were close.  Coincidence?   I think not.

If we ever needed a salary cap, it's now.   Competitive balance is a myth, and frankly, it lessens my interest in the game.  But I know the players' union will never agree to a cap.  What are your thoughts?  Is the implementation of a salary cap a possibility at any point?   Am I the only one who gets a bit sick of the fact that the teams with the deepest pockets have the best chance of winning?  Curious as to your thoughts.

I know I will.  When next year rolls around, I for one will be far less interested than I was this year.  Hanging on every pitch all season again?  For what?  It's obvious that this outfit, as presently constructed, doesn't have what it takes to win a World Series.  And that's what hurts so much- for me, it isn't "wait till next year" anymore- it's become, for the first time, "wait till 5-10 years from now until all these back loaded contracts are completed or dumped."   If they can't win a single game after a 97 win season, why would they next year with essentially the same team?  I wonder if others aren't feeling the same way.  I just don't see the daily hysteria at Wrigley continuing all of next summer, no matter what their record is come July.

So I wonder if general interest in the team will wane a little bit now going forward.  I actually hope it does.  Two good things would happen- one,  people could actually get tickets without buying them on the secondary market, but more importantly, the pressure on these guys would abate a bit.   To me, so long as the fan base remains so hysterical, these guys will continue to press and we will never win a World Series.  The pressure to bring us a WS is just too much on these guys, I think.   It's only when we stop caring as much that they will have any chance to come through.   Thoughts?

I hope for the best tonight, I really do.  The statistics aren't all that bad: of 54 best of 5 division series where a team went up 2-0, 35 ended up in sweeps, but 7 of those series were won by the team who was originally down in the series.    What does that tell you?  Most teams fold up their tents and go home after going down 2-0.  But for those who fight back and win game 3, there's a 37% chance that they come back to win the series.   IF we can win tonight, this thing ain't over by a longshot.

Here's the thing though: only a group of men marked by incredible intestinal fortitude could come back and win this series.  Is that this team?  Truthfullly, I don't know.  I sure hope so.  But I have my doubts.  If we lose tonight, the answer is clear- this team don't have the guts.   

And this has been the problem throughout this team's entire history, in my opinion- when the pressure cooker of the postseason begins, the Cubs panic, boot double play balls and make inexplicable errors.  You saw it the other night- sheer panic by the boys in blue, playing tighter than a snare drum.  And this has happened year after year after year.  It seems like all the other teams are just free to play baseball- the Cubs, however, have all this 100 years of psychological baggage to overcome, and I wonder if that psychological baggage isn't harder to overcome than the actual game itself.   It isn't a curse; it's a self-fulfilling prophecy- the Cubs fear screwing it up again, ensuring that they once again screw it up again.  

One thing is sure: only a group of very mentally strong men could break this cycle.  I hope that is this year's team.  If not?  I say blow it up and start over, seeking a new group of men who can handle the pressure.  Find guys who played in New York, Boston, who have won world series and have been there before.   Guys who will spit in the eye of the devil and fear nothing. This is the only type of team that can break the never ending cycle of playoff chokes.   We shall see if that is this year's team. 

Despite our cruddy play over the last few days, one baseball development has made me feel much better: the rise of the Dodgers in the NL West.  In case you missed it, LA swept the Snakes this weekend, and now own a 1.5 game lead in that division.   

Though I worry about a possible Cub collapse a bit, I have little doubt they'll reach the playoffs.  If we can hang on and win the division, our likely opponent, if this holds up, would be the Dodgers.  I don't know about you, but LA scares me far less in a first round matchup than Arizona does.  What are your thoughts on this?  As far as I'm concerned, go Dodgers!

I know this topic has been discussed before over the last few weeks, but my patience has worn out with DP Lee.   I was at the game last night, and before each Lee at bat, I would joke with my buddy, "do you want to see a groundball to short?"   It seems that almost every time up, his at bats are completely the same: pitcher pounds him low and away, Lee pounds the ball into the ground to the left side.  With men on, the best you can hope for is a walk; the man has no power whatsoever, and completely useless in the clutch.   When he came to the plate last night in the 8th, I sighed as he strode to the dish: "inning over."  Sure enough, another one pounded into the ground.   That was the momentum breaker, as it took all the wind out of the sails of the team and the Faithful in attendance.

The thing that really gets me is this: only 4 home runs this summer, 5 extra base hits since July, only 77 RBIs despite playing every day, and this man bats THIRD, every day.   It is obvious that he is purely a singles hitter at this point in his career, and yet he bats in the most important spot in the lineup, every day, and I still feel like people think he's a superstar.  I truly believe this team will win little in the post season unless he is finally dropped in the order.  Personally, I'd love to see Soto in that 3 hole, and Lee around 6th or 7th. 

Forgive my venting. Thoughts?