It's been almost two months since I last posted on this blog.

Because at this time, I have no intention of posting here on anything approaching a daily basis, I have decided to post all of my baseball-related content at my blog on Bleed Cubbie Blue.

Thanks for anyone who's reading this. Check out a blog I just started today about Arsenal FC: Go-Go Gunners!

Over at Bleed Cubbie Blue, they're doing a rundown of the greatest Cubs homers, and today's is Ramirez's game-winner against Milwaukee in June. I was just watching the video for it online, and I got chills -- not because, necessarily, of the fact that it was a turning point in the season, but because it reminds me of those hot summer days at the ballpark. Sitting here in the midst of a foot of snow, it's hard not to fantasize.

There are some absolutely beautiful shots of old Cubs players here. The rest of the site has photos for other teams, so check 'em out! (Hat-tip: Uni Watch.)

I need to get one of these. (Hat-tip: Uni Watch.)

Somebody hire this guy for Cubs.com!

From the Baltimore Sun:

"We've been pretty upfront telling people what the formula is. We are ready, we are willing and we have the resources to help people win in 2008. But in exchange for that, we have to feel like somebody is going to help us beyond 2008."

Translation: We have what you need. Show me the money. (Hat-tip: MLBTR.)

ZiPS projections for the Cubs. Nothing do mind-shattering here, including Soto's projected .284/.342/.484 line. Pie doesn't prject particularly well, but certainly better than his 2007 performance. The most interesting tidbit offered is Fukudome's prjection of .293/.382/.460, production that we can all live with.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: Fukudome should rightfully be hitting before Lee and Ramirez, not after them.

For what it's worth, Brian Roberts projects to be better than Mark DeRosa. A lineup of Roberts/Fukudome/Lee/Ramirez/Soriano/Soto/Pie/Whatever bum they get to play short is not something to sneer at, though I suppose switching batting Fukudome in between Lee and Ramirez, with Soriano second, wouldn't be too damaging.

Homer Derby has video from a tournament in 1997 where Josh Beckett faced Kosuke Fukudome three times.

For the record, Fukudome drew three walks off of the future World Series MVP.

Also, Homer Derby claims to have originated the idea for the Cubs' latest marketing campaign. I think it's coincidental, but you never know,

This week's sign of the coming apocalypse... I agree with Jay Mariotti:

Yet I cannot emphasize this point strongly enough today: We, the taxpayers of Illinois, should have nothing to do with the mending of ancient Wrigley. That's what the not-so-temporary owner of the Cubs, Sam Zell, is proposing as a way of jumpstarting a franchise sale that now might not happen until -- gulp -- after the 2008 season. As it is, Cubdom is petrified by Zell's strong suggestion that he will sell naming rights to Wrigley, which shows an utter ignorance of sports romanticism, a rude willingness to shun charm to make a fast buck and a pathetic disregard for the fact Wrigley, a corporate name itself decades ago, now represents sunshine, beer, good vibes and summertime in America. Now, Zell insists he wants to sell the park to the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, the same state agency that runs The Cell. Bizarre? Sure, it is. The ISFA was created as a response to a threat by Jerry Reinsdorf, who almost moved the Sox to Florida in the 1980s. The Cubs, to the contrary, are one of the biggest cash cows in American sports, with Zell still hoping to command close to $1 billion for the franchise if and when he ever sells it.

You know what all of this means. You're paying for part of the Wrigley fix-up. Imagine being a diehard Cubs fan and having to pony up when you've financially supported the cause for eons. To hear Kenney, letting the agency own Wrigley is a form of protection against the potental whims of the new owner. ``It would require the Cubs to play at Clark and Addison for the foreseeable future," he said. ``Then, when we sell the team, that restriction would go with it. They can't move the team and can't talk about playing in Glenview, Arlington Heights or anywhere. They're going to be where we all want them to be, and that's important for the city. We're the third-largest tourist attraction in the state, and we want to see that continue.''

But even if we actually believed that, the truth came out later when reporters asked Kenney who would pay for the reconstruction. Hazarding a guess, he said, ``The Tribune will contribute a portion, as will the public through taxes generated within the building.'' What a sweetheart deal for the next owner, huh? Taxpayers own and fund the overhaul, and the owner merely pays the rent.

The Cubs are swimming in money, thanks to jacked up ticket prices and near-constant sellouts, not to mention the fact that everybody in baseball is able to raise payroll these days (whether or not they actually do it). It looks to me as if the Kenney plan is to 1) Sell the naming rights to Wrigley, and 2) Sell the ballpark itself to the state. Both of which are terrible ideas. By the way, it's disingenuous to suggest that the team can't be sold until something is done with the ballpark -- I guarantee you that any of these ownership groups would love to have the stadium along with the team, which would of course be to the continued benefit of the team. What's going on here is that Sam Zell is trying to leverage his purchase of Tribune into as much money as he can. He's a businessman, so we shouldn't be surprised, but he shouldn't send out Crane Kenney to lie about it.

You know, there are a lot of Cubs fans out there who say that they have no problem with the mutilation of Wrigley Field, as long as the Cubs win the Series. To them, I say: these two things are NOT mutually exclusive. The Cubs can win, and the Cubs can still play in the same old park. I think that we're going to see substantial renovations to Wrigley Field. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a brand new upper deck in ten years, but that's nothing compared to some of the ideas being tossed about.

I won't stop being a Cubs fan if Wrigley Field no longer exists as Wrigley Field, but I sure as hell won't be as much of one.

Lord help me, but I'm going to end this post with another Mariotti quote, and it's not even ironic:

We talk endlessly about steroids in sports. But greed, too, can poison what we love about the games of our lives. The owners of the Red Sox wouldn't dare sell naming rights. Same goes for the Packers, Yankees and Knicks. When Cuban last was in town, I asked if he would ponder leaving Wrigleyville for better business opportunities as Cubs owner.

He looked at me like I had five eyeballs. The reason he wants to buy the Cubs, you see, is the reason so many people love the Cubs: He loves sitting at beautiful Wrigley Field with a beer, a hot dog and a smile on his face. Sam Zell never will understand.

Phil Rogers says that the Red Sox have the second best minor-league organization, according to Baseball America. If that's true, you can't help but be impressed by their organizational effectiveness, particularly in light of their trade of Hanley Ramirez to the Marlins (a trade that paid off extremely well for them last year).

While poking around the web looking for Baseball America's latest organizational rankings, I came across their article about the Cubs organization. There's some really interesting stuff here, besides the basic top ten list, including a lineup projection for 2011. But what caught my eye was this:

Best Strike-Zone Discipline - Sam Fuld
Best Defensive Outfielder - Sam Fuld

If this is true... then why would Pie be the frontrunner for the job in center? Is he, perhaps, better equipped at the moment to handle the majors? I bet that he's simply not on that list anywhere, because he's considered, at this point, a major leaguer. Taking a quick glance at Fuld's minor league stats reveals that he doesn't have a whole lot of pop in his bat, but that he does have a good amount of plate discipline, with a career .377 on-base percentage.

By the way, commenting is now on. It turns out that blogger requires that you enable it in multiple places before it's shown -- weird, if you ask me, but at least it's there now.

Trackbacks should also be appearing, but last time I checked, they weren't. I'll try to get that up soon.

According to this article at Cubs.com, the warning track at Wrigley Field was widened by an extra three feet when they resodded the field:

The three feet? That's the extra footage added to Wrigley Field's warning track after an offseason project to improve the drainage system. Will it matter? Soriano thinks so -- he'll get a little more heads-up before he hits that brick wall.

Outfielders gauge where the wall is by feel, and the change from grass to dirt gives them a heads up. Expect to see Soriano, Fukudome and others working with coach Mike Quade this spring to prepare them for the change. Soriano does have a good arm, but the converted second baseman continues to be tested in the outfield. He finished tied for first in the National League with 19 assists.

Does this make Soriano a little less tentative going back on long fly balls? I certainly hope so. He's athletic, which would help him at any position on the ballfield, but I think that his fear of that wall held him back last year. If I were Lou Piniella, I'd set up a pitching machine in left field before games that lobbed balls straight at the wall, and I'd have Soriano out there practicing that, over and over and over, until he got a feel for its location. Soriano still has other things he needs to sort out in left, including that weird hop he does whenever he catches a ball. You can tell that he's not a natural outfielder. Fortunately, he's got a hell of an arm, and good speed -- he just needs better instincts out there, and after two full years of playing left field, I'm nervous about the fact that he doesn't seem to have those instincts yet.

The article linked to above also indicates that the Cubs will be looking at Eric Patterson and Sam Fuld in center during spring training. I really think that Pie's the guy, and with his potential, I'd love to say, just give him a chance, but if one of those guys blows him away during spring training, it would be really hard to not give him the job.

Here's to hoping that Eric Patterson grows up a little.

Love these new ads (from the Sun-Times):



That Fukudome one in particular is genius, what with the Japanese imagery.

UPDATE: I really should have noticed that Aramis Ramirez's ad has him on a Dominican Flag, as will Alfonso Soriano's. Kerry Wood's ad will be on a flag of Texas, which is equally wonderful. I still think, though, that the Fukudome ad is genius. (Hat tip: Fire Dusty Baker.)

Here's a good column about available free agent outfielders. It looks like teams have realized that paying millions for aging outfielders who don't really produce anymore isn't worth it when you can get much cheaper, younger players, whose performance will be almost identical. Barry Bonds doesn't really fit in this, because he definitely still has his skillset relatively intact, but the rest of them -- the Shannon Stewarts, the Reggie Sanderses, the Sammy Sosas -- cheaper, younger clones of them are available.

I am surprised that nobody's gone after Kenny Lofton. The guy had a .367 OBP last year, and went 23-for-30 in stolen bases.

I intend to make my replies to what Carrie Muskat has to say in her weekly mailbag, but be forewarned that this won't be a point-by-point examination of why she is an idiot, like might be found over at Fire Joe Morgan, but instead simply remarking on anything she says that I don't particularly like. Her latest mailbag is up, so let's have a go!

With Jon Lieber and possibly Ryan Dempster added to the rotation, what are they going to do with Jason Marquis, Rich Hill and Sean Marshall? And what about young guys like Kevin Hart and Sean Gallagher? Is there a chance Marquis and/or Hill won't even make the rotation?
-- Jonathan R., Lake Bluff, Ill.

Lou Piniella was asked that question during the Cubs Convention, and he said the starting five will be determined this spring. Let's see who is most effective, and who is in the best shape. Hart may have a better chance at making the team as a long reliever to ease him into the big leagues. I think they like Gallagher more as a starter than reliever. It's a cliche, but you can never have enough pitching, and that's the approach the Cubs have taken. Injuries, trades -- who knows what will happen? The fun starts Feb. 14 with the first workout for pitchers and catchers in Mesa, Ariz.

Muskat makes what is perhaps the most obvious statement of the year thus far: "Let's see who is the most effective, and who is in the best shape." Well, yeah, that's pretty good criteria for choosing the end-of-the-rotation starters. Unfortunately, she doesn't have any guesses as to who that might be, nor does she raise the specter of trade, which has been rumored to be the fate of Gallagher, Marshall, Marquis, and even Rich Hill.

And speaking of Hill, is it too much to ask that she explain that, barring a trade, Hill's spot in the rotation is assured? He only led the Cubs in strikeouts last year, no mean feat considering that the Cubs' staff led the majors. His numbers were all above average, and he basically proved that Chicago has three very good starting pitchers at the front of the rotation. Is there any question in anyone's mind that he's going to be in the rotation this year?

The acquisition of Lieber and his 13-1 record at Wrigley back in 2000 reminded me of Rick Sutcliffe winning 15 in 1984. What other Cub hurlers have loved to take the mound at home?
-- Ekim K., Monterey, Calif.

Actually, Lieber was 6-5 at Wrigley in 2000. He was 12-1 at the ballpark in 2001. And Sutcliffe's highest win total at Wrigley as a Cub was 10 in 1987, when he went 10-5.

Keep this one in mind, it makes something she writes later pretty funny.

Here's another note from Ed: From May 24, 2001, to May 6, 2002, the Cubs won 16 consecutive games started by Lieber at Wrigley Field. That's tied for the longest win streak at the Friendly Confines, matching Warneke's 16 consecutive starts from May 27, 1932, to April 18, 1933. Both pitchers went 13-0 during their team's streak.

Translation: Lieber got good performances from the Cubs offense and bullpen. I took a cursory look through the games mentioned here at Retrosheet, and I have to say that he pitched decently, but he had a lot of 3+ run starts, hardly guaranteers of success. The trouble with measuring a pitcher's performance through wins is highlighted by this game in 2001. Lieber won his 20th of the year that day, and didn't break his home-win streak, but that happened in spite of a poor 5-run outing by Lieber. I love Jon Lieber, but I'm just saying...

With Will Ohman gone, there is only one lefty in the pen -- Scott Eyre. Why didn't the Cubs show any interest in getting a southpaw for the 'pen? What is expected of Neal Cotts, Sean Marshall and Carmen Pignatiello?
-- Hugo A., San Juan, P.R.

What's expected is that Cotts, Marshall and Pignatiello show they deserve a spot on the big league roster. Another factor is that some right-handed relievers actually fare better against lefties. Southpaws batted .192 off Bob Howry last season, and were 0-for-13 against Hart. Both are right-handed.

Small sample size alert! While Howry has performed slightly better versus lefties than righties over the course of his career, judging Kevin Hart on 14 PAs versus lefties is insane. Remember when Jason Marquis got into the fifth inning before allowing a hit? No, you don't, because although it means he started the game well, getting thirteen guys out isn't really that noteworthy.

And who refers to left-handed hitters as "southpaws"? That name's reserved for left-handed pitchers, Carrie.

Remember when I said to remember the question where Muskat corrected the guy? Here's why:

I saw the write-up on Jody Davis and the tarp belly-flopping on Aug. 8, 1988. I was one of the 13 fans arrested that night for following the lead of the Cubs players, and let me say, if I could do it over again, I absolutely would. Fifty bucks and a disorderly conduct charge on my record was well worth the memory, especially after being so excited to be at the first night game ever at Wrigley Field. I can still see Ricky Jordan of the Phillies leading off the game with a homer off Rick Sutcliffe like it was yesterday. I can't believe that was 20 years ago this August! I have my arrest report framed, along with the ticket stub, and recall the story proudly whenever I have company.
-- Tim L., Phoenix

Sutcliffe remembers that home run, too. Before the game, representatives of the Hall of Fame approached him to say the ball from the first pitch would be going to Cooperstown. Sutcliffe, who didn't like being bothered before a start, really wanted to throw a strike but it was called a ball. He was so miffed that he wasn't as focused as he should've been on the next pitch, which Jordan launched.

According to Al at Bleed Cubbie Blue, Ricky Jordan batted seventh that day, and Phil Bradley led off. Whoops!

P.S. Fans should note fines have increased for disorderly conduct.

I just thought this was funny. Can you imagine her sitting in her office, typing up the mailbag, and thinking to herself, Oh no! Now some boozed-up idiot's gonna jump over the wall and go play on the slip-and-slide, and I'm gonna get blamed! Screw that, I'm not taking the rap!

The mailbag was actually informative for me, here:

I noticed that when the Cubs traded Cesar Izturis to the Pirates, the Cubs were to get a player to be named to complete the trade. I haven't seen any updates on any players the Cubs received from the Pirates. Are they still waiting for a player?
-- Eric S., Des Moines, Iowa

The deal was completed, and the Cubs received cash considerations from the Pirates.

Frankly, I'm stunned we got anything for Izturis, even if was a few nickels that Neal Huntington found laying around Dave Littlefield's vacant office.

Does Ryan Harvey have any chance of making the Major League roster in the next couple of years? He was supposedly a five-tool player when he was drafted but has yet to live up to his potential.
-- Tony B., Chicago

Injuries have held Harvey back more than anything. He was supposed to play in the Hawaii Winter League, and was a late scratch because of a minor injury.

I'm sure that his career minor league line of .252/.298/.456 has nothing to do with it. No point having power if you can't actually make contact with the ball. Harvey has struck out an unbelievable 425 times in 376 minor league games, mostly at the single-A level. 28.8% of his at-bats end with a strikeout. He strikes out over five times for every walk he draws. I'd call those Kevin Maas numbers, but that wouldn't do Maas justice. That strikeout rate is abominable.

Well, that's it for this week's edition of the Cubs' mailbag. Here's to hoping that I get Muskat's job out of college.

I am happy to see that Michael Wuertz and the Cubs avoided arbitration. Wuertz is a fantastic guy for the bullpen. There are three kinds of bullpen pitchers: those who just flat-out suck (think Will Ohman), those who are good but give you a heart attack every time they pitch (maybe something along the lines of Ryan Dempster), and then those who are just good. Wuertz is a member of the last group.

The blog entry linked to up there carries an interesting statistic: Wuertz stranded 33 of his 38 inherited runners. In this day and age, that's a rare stat to pay attention to, instead of something like ERA that doesn't penalize a reliever for failing to hold his runners. An even better stat is WXRL, and Wuertz was fourth on the Cubs last year in that stat, behind the likes of Marmol and Howry, where were among the top 30 in the league. For the record, Dempster was third.

This discussion about naming rights to Wrigley highlight some misunderstandings about the impact of naming rights on a ballpark like Wrigley:

sell rights to city of Chicago and Name it"CHICAGO"S OWN WRIGLEY FIELD" home of the CUBS!!!

This, of course, is impossible. What this poster asks for is, essentially, a $20m+ subsidy of the Chicago Cubs by the city... sorry, buddy, but it ain't gonna happen.

Sam Zell should get a clue.

Is he going to live, eat, drive or sleep better for having $20 Million more? He is worth 6 BILLION, that means SIX THOUSAND MILLION. $20 Million to him is like $20 to most everyone else.

The person who should get a clue is the poster -- the naming rights will be sold to benefit the team, not Sam Zell. Zell isn't going to be the owner of the Cubs a year from now, but a ballpark that makes it's owner millions of dollars per year, just by existing, would make the franchise potentially more attractive. THat money would be going to the franchise, not into the pockets of Zell.

Question is, who do we root for? The Team or the Ballpark? Listen, I love Wrigley - the history, the atmosphere, going to a game there. But, in my opinion the Cubs would have a better chance at winning a series if they had a ballpark they could build a team around, not one that plays different depending on what month your in.

There's a similar argument I've heard: corporate sponsorship at Wrigley Field means more money for payroll, thus making the Cubs a better team. My problem with this argument is twofold. First, from an aesthetic sense, one of the reasons a lot of people are Cubs fans is because they grew up watching them play at Wrigley Field, and understood that Cubs baseball was not just synonymous with losing, but also with the ivy, the scoreboard, and the old-time ballpark charm. This is why fans would still turn out before 2003 -- certainly not in the same numbers, but they'd be there. Which goes into the second point I'd like to make, and that is that any owner that makes significant changes to Wrigley Field, such as renaming it, runs the risk of alienating fans who will always come out to see the club while they're winning, but maybe wouldn't show up anymore when the team was doing poorly. Of course, the bump in payroll might very well keep the team competitive...

I think selling Wrigley Field to the state is crazy. Don't be fooled by the possibility of a new owner moving the team. That's a scare tactic. The state wants control so all the politicians can get great seats to the games and all the rehab contracts will go to their friends. There'd be riots in the streets if anybody tried to move the Cubs. Don't buy it.

I don't have anything wrong with this comment, just thought it was worth pointing out that bequeathing Wrigley Field into the hands of the nation's most corrupt state government probably doesn't end well.

Maybe offer the Wrigley company a discounted rate. $10 million a year for 20 years.

Why would that interest Wrigley unless they get to plaster their logo all over the place? I guess that the name stays the same, but we'd still probably get gaudy signage all over the place, including over the marquee. And if we didn't, that would be because Wrigley turned down an offer that doesn't offer them any sort of exposure.

I'm through going through these comments, I'm not even halfway through yet, and I'm reading suggestions that the Cubs play in Soldier Field for a year or two so Wrigley can be rebuilt. Anyone here know the difference between football and baseball?

The quirkiest rules in baseball, from the Hardball Times. Immensely interesting.

This new blogger template I installed is being extremely annoying. It's like it's frozen in time; it won't put anything new anywhere, and as a result, comments are off and there's no blog info on the sidebar.

I love these things -- a commenter over at Bleed Cubbie Blue has an amusing anecdote about Mitch Williams. Dock Ellis's no hitter it ain't, but it's still funny.

Paul Sullivan points out the three big holes with the Cubs' roster: center field, shortstop, and the back of the rotation.

First off, Sullivan commits an E-C[olumnist] (little baseball joke there!) by instead of pointing out that the Cubs two weakest spots of production this year will likely be at short and in center, saying that they don't have proven players at those positions. "Proven" or not, you have to look at the quality of player at the position. Take last year's world champions, the Red Sox. Their every-day second baseman, Dustin Pedoria was similarly "unproven" going into last year... and then won Rookie of the Year, having a significantly better season at the dish than "proven" double-play mate Julio Lugo. National League champions Colorado got a huge lift out of their own "unproven" star, Troy Tulowitzki.

The proven-ness of young players, especially ones like Felix Pie (age 23), is basically irrelevant. There are many other, better ways to judge how a player will do in the future, such as look at their abilities, projections, and performance in the minor leagues. I predict right here and now, 2008 will be a breakout year for Pie. But even if there isn't, as long as he's not puttering along below the Mendoza line, I'm comfortable with him in the lineup because of his outstanding contributions in the field, where he runs circles around the likes of Alfonso Soriano and Matt Murton.

Sullivan is right about shortstop being a hole, but that's not because Theriot is "unproven", it's because he's just not particularly good. There are a lot of people who are really high on Ronny Cedeno, especially (I've noticed) Christina Kahrl over at Baseball Prospectus. All he did at AAA last year was rip pitchers apart to the tune of .359/.422/.537, so I think he deserves another shot, which he'll almost certainly get in March. One thing that's been lost in the news about Piniella's lineup from Saturday is that he offere the important qualification that came before he named the lineup: "as of right now".

Fortunately, I think that regardless of who ultimately wins the starting job at short, the Cubs will be able to get along fine with that person until midseason, where if they need to, they could potentially make a trade to shore up the middle of the infield. Is that the best solution? No, but shortstops aren't exactly readily available in the present market.

So now we turn to the biggest problem for the Cubs, the question that looms over everybody's head as we race towards Valentine's Day, when the first Cubs will reach Mesa: what the hell is going to be done about the back of the rotation? The answer is, find credible starters. And I think that the Cubs will be able to.

Obviously, the front of the rotation is good. Zambrano, Hill, and Lilly are three above-average pitchers who will turn in above-average performance. Obviously, fans would love to see pitchers of their caliber take up the back of the rotation, but that ain't gonna happen. But you gotta figure that somewhere amongst Angel Guzman, Sean Marshall, Jason Marquis, Ryan Dempster, and Jon Lieber, two credible starters can be found.

But really, those top three are the most important. Obviously, you like it when the talent level of the back end of the rotation is high, but given the availability of pitching in the major leagues, that's not usually going to be the case. Boston managed to survive 54 starts combined by Tim Wakefield and Julian Tavares.

Yesterday at the Cubs Convention, Lou Piniella twice posited that that the Cubs' lineup this season would look like this:

1. Soriano - LF
2. Theriot - SS
3. Lee - 1B
4. Ramirez - 3B
5. Fukudome - RF
6. DeRosa - 2B
7. Soto - C
8. Pie - CF

A couple thing bother me about this, though I admit that neither one of them is a huge deal.

First, I am skeptical of the idea that Ryan Theriot is the solution at shortstop for this ballclub. There are a lot of people out there, including many in the sabermetric world, that think that Ronny Cedeno (who has been playing CF in winter ball, apparently) is the man for the job. Frankly, I'm not too thrilled with that, either. Cedeno has had a lot of success down at AAA, but like Pie, he's been unable to make that work for him in the big leagues. The difference I see is that Pie is younger, and has spent significantly less time at baseball's top level than Cedeno has, but who knows? This could be Cedeno's breakout year.

Second, I am mystified as to why Fukudome -- who could very well post the Cubs' best on-base percentage this year -- isn't slated to bat in front of Lee and Ramirez. Piniella said that one of the reasons he wanted Fukudome fifth is to break up the Cubs' righties, which I suppose I understand, but I think he would be more valuable as an on-base guy. Of course, lineup order isn't quite as big of a deal as people, including myself, tend to make it out to be.

I'm off right now to the Convention's business session, and this will probably be all for today.

As most of you know by now, John Lieber is a Chicago Cub again. This is a mixed bag. Lieber was of course the ace of the Cubs' rotation for a few years, and I saw him once pitch an outstanding two-hitter that was probably the shortest full-length baseball game I've ever seen. He also, rather more famously for everybody who is not me, pitched an outstanding one-hitter against the Reds, during the 2001 season where he was the Cubs' last 20-game winner.

Cub fans should remember, however, the while Lieber was one of our better pitchers, he wasn't head and shoulders above the competition. His ERA during his first stint with the Cubs was always above-average, but it was never great. I think we're probably in for more of the same this year, except Lieber's gotten a little older and over the past two years, which admittedly have been marred by injury, he hasn't quite made it back to league average performance. I agree with Baseball Prospectus' Christina Kahrl, who said:

The real problem is that they would have been so much better off inking somebody with at least the potential to be decisively better than both Jason Marquis and Sean Marshall, so that they might instead wind up with a happy answer to who's the fourth man in an October rotation. Instead, they've got Lieber, who gives them a third body to contend with Marquis and Marshall for the fourth and fifth slots in the rotation, without automatically outclassing either of them.

I suppose the plan might be, as Christina suggests, to have some depth and then make a change at the trade deadline, but in these strange days, where middle-of-the-road pitchers are paid $7 million per year, being able to find a good deal midseason seems unlikely.

Of course, the Cubs got pretty good production out of their starting pitching last year, with Zambrano, Lilly, and Hill all pitching at about the same level, so although a lot of noise has been made about the Cubs needing another starting pitcher, there are other positions where the Cubs must have improved production if they want to repeat as NL Central champs and go deeper into the playoffs.

I really gotta run, so I only read about half this post, but check out this blog entry over at Hire Jim Essian! for a great depiction of a recent luncheon attended by Jim Hendry, wherein he talks about Prior, Walt Jocketty, and a host of other things. (Hat-tip: cubsfan25 at Bleed Cubbie Blue.)

Nice video find here from GoatRiders of the Apocalypse -- the ninth inning of Don Cardwell's no-hitter in his Cubs debut.

Now, I realize that anybody looking at this blog today must think that I am an terrible blog designer, but I assure any readers that I am simply updating the template to Blogger's new-style one, and I'm trying to wrestle it all back into shape.

Baseball writers of America, I tip my cap to you: you got it right.

There are no more deserving people on the ballot than Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken, Jr. They are the legends of their time, and baseball fans of the future will grow up knowing their names. Gwynn's incredible ability to make contact -- he never struck out more than forty times in a season, and often considerably less than that -- almost defies belief in today's era of power. Ripken, of course, is the Iron Man, and anyone reading this likely remembers watching him break Gehrig's mark in 1995.

Beyond these two shoe-ins, the baseball writers didn't mess up too bad. The best collective decision was to keep Mark McGuire out of the Hall of Fame. McGwire failed to garner even a quarter of the vote, mainly getting the vote of the "everyone did it" crowd. It's fine with me if he lingers in the lower ranks for fifteen years, but I doubt he will ever crack the 75% threshold required for induction.

There were three notable players who missed induction: Goose Gossage, Jim Rice, and Andre Dawson. I expect that Gossage, who has seen his share of the vote increase every year, will be inducted next year. Rice and Dawson, I'm not so sure about. I think that the most deserving of the three players may be Rice, though I admit that the only one I've ever seen play is Dawson. Dawson was a very, very good player, there's no doubt about that, but I am going to reveal myself as a heretic and say that I don't think he deserves induction. It won't be wrong if he gets in, but it won't be wrong if he doesn't, either. On the other hand, Dave Winfield made it, so I suppose there's always a shot for the Hawk. As for Rice, it's pretty clear to me that he belongs, and I'm not entirely sure why he's not there yet. With next year's class particularly weak, I would not be surprised to see both Rice and Gossage be elected.

Congratulations to Gwynn and Ripken, two men who I grew up seeing as future hall of famers.

Now that the Cubs have lost out on Daisuke Matsuzaka (though no shortcoming of their own, I might add -- $51.1m for negotiation rights is beyond insane), attention on the Cubs' rotation have been refocused on the free agent market.

I admit freely that dreams of Zito have been dancing in my head, but it looks more and more likely that the Cubs won't land him. As indicated in this Phil Rogers article, the Cubs will be pursuing...

...wait for it...

Ted Lilly, Vicente Padilla, Kei Igawa, and Miguel Batistia.

Look, these are all guys that have a place in a major league rotation, but it's probably in the bottom part of it. With Wood likely to be in the bullpen all year and Mark Prior's continued inability to play, this is not what the Cubs need to be doing. Lilly and Padilla, the two more competent players in the bunch, also happen to have some problems with interpersonal relationships, whether that involves refusing to work with a certain catcher and getting in a fistfight with the manager (Lilly) or repeatedly throwing at players or teams that for some unknown reason (Padilla). Come on -- do the Cubs need this sort of stuff from guys who are anything short of stellar?

I believe firmly that the Cubs need to pursue Zito if they want to have a good rotation, and the fact that we're not hearing about him both puzzles and worries me.

There's a good interview with Matt Murton up at Cubs.com today. Some highlights:

You feel so responsible to make sure you put a good product out there and play the type of baseball that will allow the team to win. That added pressure of 38,000 or 39,000 or 40,000 people and how passionate they are, makes you feel responsible.

The thing is, you like to think all 25 guys on the roster take pride in being a good ballclub. It might have been when [Greg] Maddux was going for his 3,000th strikeout and we had a rain delay. It was 9:45 on a weeknight and we still had a packed crowd at Wrigley. There aren't too many places with a 2 1/2-hour rain delay and you still have a packed house. That shows the support they have for us and the passion they have about the game of baseball. For a player, you really respect it and appreciate it, and it pushes you to play better.

'm trying to recognize it as the ball comes out of [the pitcher's] hand. It's a matter of spin, location, and the more patient you are -- that's the biggest thing I want to get better at. My body knows it's a strike. I can tell the difference nine out of 10 times between a ball and a strike. They'll throw me a pitcher's pitch and it's a strike, and I feel I need to swing at it because I know it's a strike, instead of sitting on a certain location or certain zone where I can drive the ball better.

Murton has his head on straight, as the interview reveals. Hopefully he can be a major force rising for the Cubs in the next couple of years.

Read the whole thing.

I just added my 2006 Wish List to the right sidebar. I will explain it in more detail as the days go on and I have time to look at each player/position in more detail. So, any questions like "Guillermo Mota? Why?" and "Who's Mike Myers?" will have to wait for a later date to be answered.

Six days ago, Cubs.com posted an article about Corey Patterson called Back to basics for Patterson.

Corey Patterson is starting over.

After a frustrating season with the Chicago Cubs in which he hit only .215, Patterson will spend this offseason revamping his hitting stroke. He got started four days after the regular season ended in the cages at HoHoKam Park. It could save his career.

"It's nobody's fault. I did it," Patterson said in an interview in Mesa, Ariz., where he was watching his brother, Eric, play in the Arizona Fall League. "Sometimes you have to make things simple and get back to basic stuff."

One of the big questions for the Cubs this offseason is what precisely to do with Patterson. Let's take a quick look at his 2005 line:

 G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP
---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---
126  451   47   97  15  3  13   34  15  5  23 118  .215  .254  .348  157   5   1   3   1   5

As we can see, there were several absolutely abysmal things about "K"orey's performance this past season. His .215 batting average hasn't been that low since his first season in the bigs, when he batted .167 over 42 at-bats. His OBP wasn't much better, as he only walked 23 times all season. An inability to take pitches who has always been a trademark of Patterson's play at the plate: his OBP generally hovers somewhere between 30 and 40 points above his batting average. Even during his so-called breakout season in 2003, Patterson's OBP was .329: he managed a mere 15 walks over half a season. Frustrated Cubs fans don't need to look at this line to know that Patterson strikes out way too often (once very 3.8 at-bats, if you can believe that). And while his batting average has fallen 80 points over the last two years, his slugging percentage has dropped even more precipitously: from a good .511 to a meager .348 this past season.

It's fairly clear by now that Patterson's bat has taken a turn for the worse.

Therefore, it's not surprising that many expect the Cubs to unload Patterson during the offseason. In fact, there is a rumor that the Marlins have offered up Juan Pierre in exchange for Patterson and Rich Hill. As any GM looking for a lead-off guy would probably trade the underperforming Patterson straight up for Pierre, you would think that Hill is the sticking point. Despite an abysmal 9.13 ERA during his MLB stint this summer, Hill has a ton of potential -- including ERAs in the 3's at Iowa and West Tennessee this year. The fact that he was averaging 12.7 strikeouts per nine innings in AAA and 14 K/9 in AA speaks to his ability as a pitcher. If I were the Cubs, I would want a pretty good trade for Hill.

In terms of players, I think the Marlins would get a better deal. They would get an extremely talented, if underachieving Corey Patterson. and an up and coming lefthander from the Cubs system. In exchange, the Marlins (a team that has come apart at the seams this year) part with a good center fielder that will probably depart the team anyway when he gets to free agency. But there is certainly a compelling case to make the trade from the Cubs' perspective.

Patterson is going to be a project, any way you look at it. If the Cubs are looking to WIN NOW, this is a trade they should probably make. It solves their center field and leadoff hitter issues, certainly -- especially since the free agent crop is thin, with Johnny Damon as the pick of the litter and Kenny Lofton the consolation prize. Sure, they give up a good pitcher, but Hill doesn't look like he's ready for the majors yet. It sets them up nicely to chase after Brian Giles via free agency, without having to worry about filling two spots in the outfield.

But if the Cubs attitude is WIN NOW, they're in a very tough spot to do that. This is a team that didn't even win half of its games in 2005 -- do I believe they could surprise us next year and be back in the playoffs? Yes. With a healthy Zambrano, Prior, and Wood, it is certainly possible. With a lineup that gives Lee a chance to drive in runners, it's possible. But they will face stiff competition any way you look at it. The Cubs should certainly always look to win the division if they're in a place where they could, with the right moves. But that should not delude the team into thinking that next year is the only year that counts: and trading Rich Hill away will do exactly that. There are other center field options for 2006: Dave Roberts is a free agent -- his only problem is that he's never been able to play a full season. And if the Cubs keep Patterson, they can cover for that if they need to. Just like it apparently is for the Cubs front office, Hill is a major sticking point for me. I think that he's going to be a very good pitcher down the line. I want the Cubs to keep him.

And, I think it's too soon to give up on Corey Patterson.

Those who spent this season booing at the 25-year-old with sky high expectations probably disagree with me. But there are some very good reasons for keeping Patterson. First and foremost, he is a very talented player. He's fast, he's got good coverage in the outfield, and he's got ability at the plate. What's killing him right now is that he has no patience, and a basically untrained eye. For once in my life, I agree with Carrie Muskrat when she said in the Cubs mailbag today, "Patterson has so much talent and has gotten by over the years despite bad mechanics." In the article posted in the first paragraph, it's made relatively clear that Patterson is doing something he didn't before: making an effort to be a better player. He's been in Mesa, AZ since the week after the season was over, working on his hitting. Batting coach Dave Keller, who did some work with him in July, has nothing but good things to say about Patterson:

"There are a couple times during the year when I go 'Wow.' That was one of those times," Keller said. "It's amazing to think he can create that much bat speed and that much leverage with the body he has. That's why he has special ability.

"Everybody I talked to -- and this shouldn't be taken negatively -- I've never been around a player that small who has that much bat speed, that much hand-eye coordination, that much power," Keller said of Patterson. "The ball jumps off his bat."

I think that Patterson is definitely salvageable: he's a young player with a ton of ability, but also a ton of bad habits. My recommendation to the Cubs is to keep Patterson in the minors for the 2006 season, and let him work on his hitting. I would then go after Kenny Lofton, for a one year deal. If Patterson still isn't performing by mid-season, maybe that's the time to trade him. There are other options for center field, of course, including giving Patterson another shot if his swing is truly improving during the offseason. But this trade is without a doubt not the best option the Cubs have. Pierre is quite simply not worth the minor league performance of Hill in addition to his potential and Patterson's potential.