Lots of folks are disappointed in the Cubs activities so far in the off-season. In a way, I am too. But in another way, I'm not. To understand this, you need to look at what the Cubs did last year, after a season in which they won 97 games and scored a lot of runs. What they did was dump their closer, Kerry Wood, initially with the idea that Wood was not all that reliable and that Carlos Marmol was ready. Except that they then went out and got a really awful closer in Kevin Gregg, whom they stuck with way too long and then demoted. So this off-season they have dumped him.
They also dumped Jim Edmonds, Jason Marquis, and Mark DeRosa. Marquis went on to have a pretty good year, but I can see letting him go as he was and is very inconsistent. DeRosa also had a good year until he was hurt and letting him go was goofy. Edmonds was done anyway. But all this really paved the way for the rest of Hendry's acquisitions, which were just mindless in most cases and disastrous in the case of Bradley.
So during the off-season last year, we added Bradley, Miles, Gathright, Gregg, and Heilman. They all stunk and they are all gone now. What's more, we knew they would stink to begin with. So part of me wishes the Cubs would make some moves, and most of me dreads the moves they are likely to make based on this track record, especially when you add in the numerous other duds we've signed or dealt for in the past, including Jones, Floyd, and Soriano, just to hit the highlights.
This is not the sort of past performance that inspires confidence. So maybe our New Year's wish should be that Hendry is stymied in all his efforts to continue his history of errors and is forced to sit tight for a while. The last time this happened was between the 2007 and 2008 seasons, and we made some late moves and had the most successful season we've had in many years.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Good News
Matt Capps has signed with the Nationals. Good news because of my oft expressed lack of enthusiasm for this deal from the Cubs point-of-view. And even if Capps' performance for the past season and a half had not been dismal, it has been my observation that relief pitchers other than proven closers and maybe lefty specialists are worthless. Long and middle relievers are either young players waiting their chance or failed starters.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Center Field
I've seen some speculation the Cubs are up to their usual tricks, with the expectation they will pursue Marlon Byrd or Scott Posednik. Byrd, I have written before, is not that intriguing a prospect. He's OK, but he wants three years and decent money. You have to ask yourself if you want to make that kind of commitment to a 32 year old outfielder who has had his best years in a bandbox in Texas. The same goes in spades for Posednik, who had a nice year with the White Sox, but who, significantly, was not brought back by a team that settled for Juan Pierre. Enough said.
Word is that the Cubs have inquired about Nyger Morgan of the Nationals. Now that is a good move, although the Nats are apparently not interested. Morgan has speed, hits for average, gets on base, and steals bases. Probably a pipe dream, though, for the Cubs. I've mentioned before that the Cubs might want to think about Melky Cabrera of the Yankees. Not a bad placeholder for them. I don't value Brett Gardner nearly so highly, more like an inferior version of Sam Fuld.
The mention of Sam Fuld brings me to another issue, and that is how highly they value their own younger players, or really whether they have any idea what they have. Colvin looked good in the outfield, but it looked as though he needed a year to be able to hit major league pitching. Fuld, on the other hand, has always been considered an over-achiever, but his numbers all through the minor leagues have been good, and he has hit in the majors as well in his late season call-ups. It is hard for fans to make a judgment on guys like this, but the Cubs always overvalue power and undervalue defense and OBP, so maybe they have more than they think.
Anyway, they are probably right in thinking they need OF help, but as far as the assessment that they need a setup man, I'm a little puzzled. Didn't they sign Grabow for this role? And don't they have Guzman as well? Why would they need the reincarnation of Kevin Gregg in the person of Matt Capps?
Word is that the Cubs have inquired about Nyger Morgan of the Nationals. Now that is a good move, although the Nats are apparently not interested. Morgan has speed, hits for average, gets on base, and steals bases. Probably a pipe dream, though, for the Cubs. I've mentioned before that the Cubs might want to think about Melky Cabrera of the Yankees. Not a bad placeholder for them. I don't value Brett Gardner nearly so highly, more like an inferior version of Sam Fuld.
The mention of Sam Fuld brings me to another issue, and that is how highly they value their own younger players, or really whether they have any idea what they have. Colvin looked good in the outfield, but it looked as though he needed a year to be able to hit major league pitching. Fuld, on the other hand, has always been considered an over-achiever, but his numbers all through the minor leagues have been good, and he has hit in the majors as well in his late season call-ups. It is hard for fans to make a judgment on guys like this, but the Cubs always overvalue power and undervalue defense and OBP, so maybe they have more than they think.
Anyway, they are probably right in thinking they need OF help, but as far as the assessment that they need a setup man, I'm a little puzzled. Didn't they sign Grabow for this role? And don't they have Guzman as well? Why would they need the reincarnation of Kevin Gregg in the person of Matt Capps?
Friday, December 18, 2009
It's Official
Yes, Bradley is gone. But, of course, the return is pretty pathetic. Carlos Silva signed a four-year, $48M deal with Seattle and proceeded to go 5-18 with a stratospheric ERA, as well as spending most of last year on the DL. It is still unclear whether Silva has recovered from his shoulder problems. I think I read where he had a three inning start in winter ball in Venezuela and he did alright, but that was two weeks ago.
Now how bad could a guy be if the other team was willing to give you $9M to take him off their hands (effectively cutting the Cubs losses by $6M over two years) and taking Milton Bradley in exchange. Pretty bad, I reckon. But it does give them just enough money to get a genuinely mediocre center-fielder, doesn't it?
I'm beginning to think the whole new ownership is about them saving money and Hendry and Piniella saving face. Not much to inspire confidence.
And no one is really mentioning the biggest albatross on the team, namely, Alfonso Soriano, whom they obviously expect to return to form, even though they very much overvalue that form, and whom they owe a gazillion dollars for six more years of striking out roughly 25% of the time and pretty much conceding a double on every deep fly ball that he is afraid to chase, not to mention botching routine pop-ups on a daily basis.
Anyway, I wish Silva well, even though I don't expect much. He was a journeyman pitcher for the Twins back in the day, and I could never figure out why the Mariners gave him big bucks. Obviously, neither could they. The only danger here is if the Cubs feel obliged to give Silva any prioity in competing for the fifth starter job because then he will just be blocking better prospects as well as losing games. They say he throws strikes. The only problem is that batters are very likely to hit them these days.
Now how bad could a guy be if the other team was willing to give you $9M to take him off their hands (effectively cutting the Cubs losses by $6M over two years) and taking Milton Bradley in exchange. Pretty bad, I reckon. But it does give them just enough money to get a genuinely mediocre center-fielder, doesn't it?
I'm beginning to think the whole new ownership is about them saving money and Hendry and Piniella saving face. Not much to inspire confidence.
And no one is really mentioning the biggest albatross on the team, namely, Alfonso Soriano, whom they obviously expect to return to form, even though they very much overvalue that form, and whom they owe a gazillion dollars for six more years of striking out roughly 25% of the time and pretty much conceding a double on every deep fly ball that he is afraid to chase, not to mention botching routine pop-ups on a daily basis.
Anyway, I wish Silva well, even though I don't expect much. He was a journeyman pitcher for the Twins back in the day, and I could never figure out why the Mariners gave him big bucks. Obviously, neither could they. The only danger here is if the Cubs feel obliged to give Silva any prioity in competing for the fifth starter job because then he will just be blocking better prospects as well as losing games. They say he throws strikes. The only problem is that batters are very likely to hit them these days.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Matt Capps
I wonder how much real interest there is in Matt Capps and how much of it is hype generated by his agent when he was rather surprisingly non-tendered. From the Cubs point-of-view, there should be no interest. His numbers last year were worse than Gregg's. He had two good years closing for a last place team that was under no pressure whatsoever playing meaningless games in a virtually empty stadium.
Here's the thing. For some reason, Cubs' management consistently overvalues middle relievers. These guys are middle relievers for one good reason. Their stuff is not good enough to start or to close. So they are always inconsistent. The exception to this is young pitchers usually from your own system who need seasoning to drop into one of the roles that genuinely talented pitchers fill. The Cubs have a ton of these guys on their major league and upper minor league rosters and a first-class closer prospect in Carlos Marmol, so why they have any interest in a guy like Capps, who in addition to having had an awful season wants good money and a multiple year contract, beats me.
But then the Cubs have always been bottom feeders in the market, so it is probably no great surprise that they like this guy.
Here's the thing. For some reason, Cubs' management consistently overvalues middle relievers. These guys are middle relievers for one good reason. Their stuff is not good enough to start or to close. So they are always inconsistent. The exception to this is young pitchers usually from your own system who need seasoning to drop into one of the roles that genuinely talented pitchers fill. The Cubs have a ton of these guys on their major league and upper minor league rosters and a first-class closer prospect in Carlos Marmol, so why they have any interest in a guy like Capps, who in addition to having had an awful season wants good money and a multiple year contract, beats me.
But then the Cubs have always been bottom feeders in the market, so it is probably no great surprise that they like this guy.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Odds and Ends
The Cubs tendered all of their arbitration-eligible players with the exception of Neil Cotts, who is coming off surgery and will likely sign a minor league contract. There is nothing surprising in this move and it is probably the smart move on the Cubs part. None of these guys is likely to break the bank and they are all useful role players, especially the pitchers. My only quibble might be Baker, whom I think the Cubs overvalue. Even though he hit well enough over the last two months of the season, he is a weak infielder and I don't believe there is any reason to suppose he will continue to improve. His only plus is his versatility.
Most of the Chicago print journalists are bemoaning the fact that the Cubs missed out on the Granderson trade, apparently because, shortcomings be damned, he is one helluva guy who either possesses intangible virtues or once took the writer out to lunch. Now it appears the Cubs are looking for a short term fix in CF. Mike Cameron keeps popping up in the mix. This is also a mistake. Cameron is getting old, he is a very consistent .250 hitter who drives in 70 runs and hits 20 HRs. There are a lot of guys around like this, and they are capable of causing immense disappointment the older they get, so I don't see much in this investment. If the Cubs want a stopgap outfielder, they could do worse than try to get Melky Cabrera from the Yankees on the cheap.
Bradley has the whole hot stove league speculation tied in knots, as apparently nobody wants the guy. This, in itself, and the Soriano contract, would be enough to send a GM packing, but the Cubs ownership seems to have a lot of patience these days. They will need it to wait out the mistakes they have inherited.
Most of the Chicago print journalists are bemoaning the fact that the Cubs missed out on the Granderson trade, apparently because, shortcomings be damned, he is one helluva guy who either possesses intangible virtues or once took the writer out to lunch. Now it appears the Cubs are looking for a short term fix in CF. Mike Cameron keeps popping up in the mix. This is also a mistake. Cameron is getting old, he is a very consistent .250 hitter who drives in 70 runs and hits 20 HRs. There are a lot of guys around like this, and they are capable of causing immense disappointment the older they get, so I don't see much in this investment. If the Cubs want a stopgap outfielder, they could do worse than try to get Melky Cabrera from the Yankees on the cheap.
Bradley has the whole hot stove league speculation tied in knots, as apparently nobody wants the guy. This, in itself, and the Soriano contract, would be enough to send a GM packing, but the Cubs ownership seems to have a lot of patience these days. They will need it to wait out the mistakes they have inherited.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Rumors
Lots of outlandish rumors on the Bradley front. Bradley for Gil Meche? Meche seems to be Harden with an impossible contract and an absence of talent or potential. I wonder why all the rumors seem to involve exchanging bad contracts. Is this the limit of Hendry's imagination or is it the limit of most sportswriters imaginations? I rather hope it is more of the latter than the former.
One thing is clear, the Cubs are going to have to eat at least half of Bradley's contract for the next two years, so lets say $11 or $12 million, maybe more. Of what benefit is it to then take on another albatross? What you really wind up doing is paying like $20 million for Pat Burrell, for example, a guy who is at best a platoon player who is a really bad outfielder. Somehow I do not see the benefit. Why wouldn't you want to get a prospect or two if someone is willing to trade, even if they were several years away?
In other areas, Chone Figgins, one of the few free agents who made much sense from the Cubs point of view, though more in CF than 2B, is gone to Seattle. Activity for Granderson is heating up and I hope he gets traded before Hendry and company have the uncontrollable urge to jump in with both feet. As I have noted in earlier posts, Granderson is a really bad idea for the Cubs.
One thing is clear, the Cubs are going to have to eat at least half of Bradley's contract for the next two years, so lets say $11 or $12 million, maybe more. Of what benefit is it to then take on another albatross? What you really wind up doing is paying like $20 million for Pat Burrell, for example, a guy who is at best a platoon player who is a really bad outfielder. Somehow I do not see the benefit. Why wouldn't you want to get a prospect or two if someone is willing to trade, even if they were several years away?
In other areas, Chone Figgins, one of the few free agents who made much sense from the Cubs point of view, though more in CF than 2B, is gone to Seattle. Activity for Granderson is heating up and I hope he gets traded before Hendry and company have the uncontrollable urge to jump in with both feet. As I have noted in earlier posts, Granderson is a really bad idea for the Cubs.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Cubs Trade Fox, Dump Miles
I wonder what the fans reaction is to this trade. I like it. Fox is a good hitter, but he has no real position in the field where he is not a liability. If he were a potential home run champion, that might be a risk worth taking, but realistically he had no future with the Cubs. In the AL, he might get a chance to play more often. Miles, of course, was a Jim Hendry special, a complete disaster, and, oddly enough, yet another second baseman. Again, it is good to see the club recognizing past errors. Now, if only they could get rid of Soriano and Bradley, they would be on their way.
As for the acquisitions, Gray, the reliever who has some big league experience, throws hard and pitched reasonably well for the A's last season. Spencer seems like a solid prospect at first base or in the outfield. He's a big guy with a lot of power who has had some decent numbers in A ball. Moria, another pitcher, apparently throws hard, but is a long ways off.
What do you think?
As for the acquisitions, Gray, the reliever who has some big league experience, throws hard and pitched reasonably well for the A's last season. Spencer seems like a solid prospect at first base or in the outfield. He's a big guy with a lot of power who has had some decent numbers in A ball. Moria, another pitcher, apparently throws hard, but is a long ways off.
What do you think?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Arbitration
The Cubs have four arbitration-eligible free agents, Rich Harden, Kevin Gregg, Reed Johnson, and Chad Fox, and it appears they will not offer arbitration to any of them. I would suppose that this decision is a no-brainer, and that it is a good sign that the Cubs are willing to cut their losses and admit mistakes, but some bloggers and fans seem to think this is controversial and, especially in the case of Harden, a mistake.
Part of this, I suppose, is rooted in a lack of understanding of what the arbitration offer means. If a team offers a free-agent arbitration, it means that the player can choose to accept the offer, which usually results in a pay increase even if the player is expendable or has not performed to expectations. The player can refuse the offer, in which case, if he is a Type A or Type B free-agent, the club is entitled to compensation in the form of a draft pick. So the risk here for the team is that if you are not committed to the guy in the first place, you run the risk of being stuck with him at a high price.
Obviously, the case of Chad Fox is simple. He has been disabled now for two seasons and every attempt to come back has resulted in aggravating his injuries. He should have retired two years ago, and it is fairly certain that he will now. The other obvious case is Gregg. Cubs' fans and the Cubs want no part of this guy and the real problem is trying to comprehend why they ever wanted him in the first place and why they stuck with him as the closer for so long. Nobody wants this turkey for significant money, so if the Cubs had made an offer and if he were smart, he would have taken it no questions asked.
Johnson is a little bit more of a problem. He had a great season in 2008, when the platoon with Edmonds was a real difference-maker for the Cubs and their failure to replace this tandem's productivity one of the basic reasons for their decline in 2009. But Johnson at his best is a platoon player with a history of injuries. The reason the Jays cut him loose in 2008 was worries about his back that caused him to miss a lot of time the prior year. He had a recurrence of the back problems before he broke his foot last year. I would sign him to a cheap one-year deal as a fourth or fifth outfielder, and I rather suppose the Cubs have tried to do this and failed. But the decision not to offer arbitration is the right decision.
With respect to Harden, when he is good he is very, very good, but when he is bad he is awful. Yes, yes, yes, he has shoulder problems and one must be careful with him, but that is just the point. He cannot make thirty or more starts in a season, and when he does start, more often than not, he lasts six innings on a good day. He is looking for a multi-year deal with second or third stater pay. This isn't going to happen, so the Cubs are wise to cut their losses here as well.
Lots of bloggers and sportswriters, for example, David Kaplan here, are questioning the decision and further speculating that this leaves a hole in the rotation that must be filled. Both these views are wrong, and Kaplan's post in particular betrays, as many of the comments that follow his post correctly observe, a real lack of analysis and savvy about baseball in general on his part.
One speculation is that the Cubs have some inside knowledge about how bad Harden's injuries really are. I don't think you need to go that far. I think the Cubs have decided he is not worth the risk of a multi-year deal and that they had pretty much made that decision towards the end of last season.
However, remember what happened with Harden in September after they pulled back on the waiver deal that would have sent him to Minnesota for some minor-leaguers. That's right, he didn't pitch, or actually he pitched a total of twelve innings before they mutually agreed to shut him down. I've got to think that in the back of Harden's mind at least was the thought that any further effort would only hurt his chances on the free-agent market. I'm not suggesting that the guy should have pitched when he was hurt or in danger of getting hurt, but from the Cubs' viewpoint at least, you've got to think that if he accepted arbitration, you'd be in the same boat next year and it could be more costly to the team if they were seriously in contention.
It's really weird, but I find myself in agreement or at least some sympathy with most of the decisions Hendry is making so far. Maybe it is the new owners or maybe it is some sort of parallel reality, but it gives me the creeps. Anyway, the real problem for the Cubs is going to be Piniella and getting him on board with the direction they want to take. Piniella is an old guy who is managing in his, by his own declaration, last campaign. He is going to want to win now, and that could be costly for the Cubs' long-term interests.
Part of this, I suppose, is rooted in a lack of understanding of what the arbitration offer means. If a team offers a free-agent arbitration, it means that the player can choose to accept the offer, which usually results in a pay increase even if the player is expendable or has not performed to expectations. The player can refuse the offer, in which case, if he is a Type A or Type B free-agent, the club is entitled to compensation in the form of a draft pick. So the risk here for the team is that if you are not committed to the guy in the first place, you run the risk of being stuck with him at a high price.
Obviously, the case of Chad Fox is simple. He has been disabled now for two seasons and every attempt to come back has resulted in aggravating his injuries. He should have retired two years ago, and it is fairly certain that he will now. The other obvious case is Gregg. Cubs' fans and the Cubs want no part of this guy and the real problem is trying to comprehend why they ever wanted him in the first place and why they stuck with him as the closer for so long. Nobody wants this turkey for significant money, so if the Cubs had made an offer and if he were smart, he would have taken it no questions asked.
Johnson is a little bit more of a problem. He had a great season in 2008, when the platoon with Edmonds was a real difference-maker for the Cubs and their failure to replace this tandem's productivity one of the basic reasons for their decline in 2009. But Johnson at his best is a platoon player with a history of injuries. The reason the Jays cut him loose in 2008 was worries about his back that caused him to miss a lot of time the prior year. He had a recurrence of the back problems before he broke his foot last year. I would sign him to a cheap one-year deal as a fourth or fifth outfielder, and I rather suppose the Cubs have tried to do this and failed. But the decision not to offer arbitration is the right decision.
With respect to Harden, when he is good he is very, very good, but when he is bad he is awful. Yes, yes, yes, he has shoulder problems and one must be careful with him, but that is just the point. He cannot make thirty or more starts in a season, and when he does start, more often than not, he lasts six innings on a good day. He is looking for a multi-year deal with second or third stater pay. This isn't going to happen, so the Cubs are wise to cut their losses here as well.
Lots of bloggers and sportswriters, for example, David Kaplan here, are questioning the decision and further speculating that this leaves a hole in the rotation that must be filled. Both these views are wrong, and Kaplan's post in particular betrays, as many of the comments that follow his post correctly observe, a real lack of analysis and savvy about baseball in general on his part.
One speculation is that the Cubs have some inside knowledge about how bad Harden's injuries really are. I don't think you need to go that far. I think the Cubs have decided he is not worth the risk of a multi-year deal and that they had pretty much made that decision towards the end of last season.
However, remember what happened with Harden in September after they pulled back on the waiver deal that would have sent him to Minnesota for some minor-leaguers. That's right, he didn't pitch, or actually he pitched a total of twelve innings before they mutually agreed to shut him down. I've got to think that in the back of Harden's mind at least was the thought that any further effort would only hurt his chances on the free-agent market. I'm not suggesting that the guy should have pitched when he was hurt or in danger of getting hurt, but from the Cubs' viewpoint at least, you've got to think that if he accepted arbitration, you'd be in the same boat next year and it could be more costly to the team if they were seriously in contention.
It's really weird, but I find myself in agreement or at least some sympathy with most of the decisions Hendry is making so far. Maybe it is the new owners or maybe it is some sort of parallel reality, but it gives me the creeps. Anyway, the real problem for the Cubs is going to be Piniella and getting him on board with the direction they want to take. Piniella is an old guy who is managing in his, by his own declaration, last campaign. He is going to want to win now, and that could be costly for the Cubs' long-term interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)