Byrd

This is it? I mean, this is the final piece of the puzzle? I don't think so.

I have blogged earlier on the deficiencies of this acquisition, and I hope I am wrong, but the continued love affair between Jim Hendry and journeyman outfielders is still a bit worrisome. So, to set the record straight, Byrd is not a bad player. Nor is he a particularly good player, and therein lays the problem.

You can build a good team around role players, or with the addition of role players. But frankly, I don't see the role here. Maybe I am missing something, but Byrd seems to be a pretty ordinary bat and a pretty ordinary glove. He bats right-handed, but cannot hit lefties, so he is not a platoon player. So what is his role?

I suppose this is just another example of Hendry and the Cubs front office not having a real plan. I had to laugh when Hendry suggested that there was nothing wrong with having a predominantly right-handed lineup, since the whole point of the last post-season hunt that resulted in the addition of Milton Bradley was that the Cubs were too right-handed. Now it's not a problem, I guess. It is also a misconception on the Cubs part, because they had Edmonds and Fontenot playing against righties and they had good years, and they also had a left-handed bench.

Anyway, the problems for the Cubs offensively this off-season were obviously to get rid of Bradley and to somehow replace the production they lost in relation to 2008 in CF and at 2B. I don't think this does it. Byrd does not equal the platoon of Johnson and Edmunds. In this respect, I have to agree with the ESPN guy quoted on MLB Trade Rumors who just doesn't think Byrd is a championship caliber player.