If you want to classify the tenure of Jim Hendry as a Cubs executive, well, he definitely joins the ranks of nothing special or worse. When we stop to think about the Hendry era, we sometimes don't realize how far back it goes, all the way back to 1995 when he headed up the farm system, and to 2002 when he officially took over as GM. That's a long time with very little tangible achievement. Sure, they won three division titles, but they have not built a perennial contender.
If I had to sum things up in a single thought, it would be OK at small scale incremental changes, bad at big trades, big changes, worse at overall strategy and building a winning team. In other words, this guy is a tolerable small market leader and a failure at big market moves. To the extent the Cubs are a major market team - and you have to say that with their payroll and profitability they cannot be considered anything else - Hendry is the wrong guy for the job.
Hendry was the major player in the minor league and scouting areas from 1995 until he became GM. So as far as first round picks go, you've got Kerry Wood in '95, Jon Garland in '97, Corey Patterson in '98, Mark Prior in '01 and pretty much dreck until you get to Tyler Colvin in '06. Colvin is the first product of the Oneri Flieta/Tim Wilken era anyway, where player development efforts seem to have picked up. Garland was traded away for garbage. Throw in Dontrelle Willis, also traded away basically for the journeyman Matt Clement, and Carlos Zambrano and that's pretty much it for the Hendry era. Maybe throw in Ricky Nolasco who was drafted in '01 as well and similarly traded away for nothing. Outside of the pitchers there's nothing much to write home about, and half of them were discarded. The system's inability to produce position players with any consistency has been a notable failure. Lately, the Cubs have been able to promote a major league catcher in Soto and a good shortstop in Starlin Castro, but their much heralded prospects, guys like Felix Pie, for example, have fizzled.
I suppose on the strength of this performance, Hendry was promoted to GM in the middle of 2002, having pretty much served in that capacity for a little while before the formal announcement. The first move he made was to fire Don Baylor, a good move. He promptly hired the first of two celebrity managers, Dusty Baker in '03 followed by Lou Piniella in '07, both of whom enjoyed initial success and both of whom were run out of town at the end of their generous contracts.
Hendry made his best moves at the start of his GM career and has lost the magic as time passed. He has always been pretty good at dumping toxic contracts, and one of his first moves was to somehow convince the Dodgers to take Todd Hundley off his hands in return for Mark Grudzielanek and Eric Karros, both of whom were on the downside of their careers, but both of whom played well for the Cubs in 2003 and helped a lot in what was, arguably, their best run in modern times. Most of the rest of the '03 team was in place when Hendry took the reins, i.e. Alou, Patterson, and Sosa in the outfield, etc. The arrival of Prior and Zambrano as dominant starting pitchers carried the Cubs into early contention.
Hendry then pulled off the most spectacular trade of his life, and actually probably the only major trade he ever made that worked to the teams benefit when he managed to pick up Aramis Ramirez, Kenny Lofton, and Randall Simon from the Pirates more or less for nothing.
The following year, he picked up Derrick Lee in the off-season, also pretty much for nothing, probably his second best trade. He also let Lofton walk after the season, counting on Patterson returning to the level of play he displayed before his injury in 2003. This was a big mistake. After that I think it is fair to suggest that Hendry had seen his best days as GM recede behind him. The blockbuster deal at the 2004 trade deadline for Nomar Garciaparra was a bust. Nomar was hurt and his career had already hit the skids.
After the Cubs fell apart at the end of 2004 and after the injuries to Wood and Prior, the remainder of Baker's tenure as manager was a death march and Hendry was unable to do anything significant to stop it, other than holding on to Baker for the remainder of his contract even though it was obviously time to pull the plug.
Things changed radically beginning in 2007 when the Cubs dipped heavily into the high-end free agent market, mostly in a fairly successful attempt to inflate the resale value of the franchise while diminishing its value on the field. They picked up Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis to bolster their pitching, the Lilly signing being overall the only beneficial one.
Anyway, the real puzzler was signing Alfonso Soriano, a guy who really has no idea how to play baseball and never has, to an eight-year deal. There are still four years left on this deal at about $18 million per year. This alone would be cause for any respectable team to just fire their GM on the spot.
The team played pretty well though in 2007 and Piniella managed to cobble together a pretty decent run, dumping several useless cogs that Hendry had accumulated like Cesar Izturis and half-a-dozen second basemen in favor of home grown talents like Ryan Theriot. The signing of Mark De Rosa, a relatively minor acquisition at the time, helped immensely.
The following season, the Cubs went out and got Kosuke Fukudome for big bucks. I've never been one to fault Hendry for this signing. Everybody wanted Fukudome and projected him as a solid player. The Cubs are paying him too much money, but he is, at least in my view, rather an undervalued performer considered just on the basis of his skills and their value to a team that is consistently weak defensively and in terms of fundamentals.
The real plus moves that pushed the Cubs into contention, though, again were small, and arguably lucky, choices, mainly the signing of Jim Edmonds and Reed Johnson who turned out to be a surprisingly potent tandem in center field. That, and a career year for De Rosa.
During this same stretch the Cubs gave lucrative extensions to Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster, Derrick Lee, and Aramis Ramirez. In all honesty, it is hard to argue with these decisions, however much in retrospect they may now seem excessively generous. I'd probably have made the same moves under the same circumstances.
The really stupid signing came in '09 when Hendry went out to get Milton Bradley as a left-handed bat even though he was always better as a right-handed hitter and he was a known nutcase. Everybody knows that story, but again Hendry did demonstrate a remarkable ability to exchange bad contracts and come up with something in return when he dealt Bradley to the Mariners for Carlos Silva.
What emerges from all this is the portrait of a GM who really does not have solid judgment most of the time and who seems to spend money foolishly and to no set purpose. The Cubs don't really seem to have a plan in mind on the kind of team they want to create, nor any idea how good, consistent teams are built.
Just for comparison, look at the Phillies development through this same period when they had about the same or even slightly lower budgets and competed for pretty much the same pool of talent, especially in the free agent market. The Phillies were more fortunate or more skillful in developing home-grown position players, bringing up Ryan Howard, Jimmy Rollins, and Chase Utley through their own farm system and trading for young players like Jason Werth and Shawn Victorino. Their biggest weaknesses were 3B, LF, and starting pitching. They managed to cycle through free agents in LF and 3B and get the kind of production they needed. A good case in point was LF, when the Phils gave up on Pat Burrell and decided they needed a left-handed bat there. They signed Raul Ibanez. The Cubs, in the same position signed the abominable Milton Bradley even though Ibanez was available at the time.
The Phillies decided to construct a balanced power-hitting team built around their ballpark. They also knew they would need exceptional pitching to overcome the inherent problems of playing in a stadium where cheap home runs were the norm, so they concentrated their efforts on acquiring really, really good pitchers, guys like Lee, Halladay, and Oswalt, even if it meant giving up prospects to get them.
Now contrast that same era with the Cubs who seem to have had no obvious plan, who cannot seem to build a lineup that is balanced and makes sense, starting with the leadoff man, who do not seem to understand the strengths of their team or minor league system or the kind of team they need to build.
Strong arguments for change at the top, which, of course, is not forthcoming. One may only hope, but without much confidence, that some lessons have been learned. Maybe Hendry can pull off a hat trick and dump Soriano in the same way he unloaded Hundley and Bradley. (Incidentally, I would take the rumored Soriano for Zito trade in a minute). Maybe Hendry will look at the Giants as a model for rebuilding, which would not be a bad start. Maybe pigs can fly. Well, whatever, there is always next year.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Playing Tom Ricketts
The Cubs have chosen Mike Quade over Ryne Sandberg as their new manager. Let me be clear that I have nothing in particular against Mike Quade other than that, as I have noted in an earlier piece, he is Jim Hendry's guy. In fact, the team did well for the six weeks he managed them, and I do wish him well. We need to be clear, however, about what just happened and what it probably bodes for the future.
Actually, you have to hand it to Hendry. He may not be much of a GM. In fact, you can argue that he is a pretty bad one, and I will make that argument in a subsequent post. But the guy is one hell of a bureaucrat, quite the consummate inside player, and his playing of Ricketts, and Cubs fans in general, since the ownership change has been Machiavellian in its subtlety and success. In the process, I think Ricketts has lost a real chance to exert control over the franchise.
That's a pity, because Ricketts really had a chance to change things from the relative laughing-stock of baseball organizations the Cubs have become. To do so, he had to take charge immediately, minimally finding himself a trusted baseball adviser, but ideally cleaning house right from the start. Retaining Hendry and Piniella was the big mistake.
So instead of asserting himself from the beginning, Ricketts chose to evaluate matters for a year, concentrating on raising ticket prices, repairing the washrooms, commissioning statues of macaroni, and selling bison that he just happens to produce on one of his ranches, and, aw, shucks, just trying to be the best fan he can be and hoping for the best.
I'm afraid this guy is small-time running a major market team. In this respect he has found his ideal consigliere in the overstuffed person of Jim Hendry. Hendry has never been comfortable running a big time operation and even his forays into the free agent market have been in the main half-hearted efforts to prove he is doing something big when everyone knows it is just pretend, that he is overpaying for leftovers. Hendry has always been most attuned to bottom-feeding and bargain hunting. Sometimes you strike gold there, most often not.
For Hendry though, it is all about control and who he feels comfortable being around. I'm not sure he ever felt comfortable with Baker or Piniella, but they kind of got him off the hook and shifted attention from his own feeble efforts to build a winning team. You want a manager, OK, take these mopes. Sandberg, or for that matter Girardi or Brenly, would have meant a change of course and a shifting of attention to people on the upsides of their careers, rising stars whose success or failure would shift the attention from the GM and who might just create a power base independent of his own.
Think about it, how many GMs can most serious baseball fans name straight off? I know I can't think of half-a-dozen, but, like most fans, I can rattle off twenty or so managers. That's as it should be. But it is not the world where Hendry thrives.
So, in this case, what Ricketts provided was time for Hendry to consolidate his position. Ricketts clearly doesn't know much about baseball other than that he likes it and it is always nice to be king. Giving Hendry a year to work things out was kind of like giving Dracula a second chance to straighten up.
In retrospect, everyone should have seen this coming even though it was a shrewd play by Hendry and really a no-lose situation. I mean, who names a new manager to fill out the term of a prematurely retired manager who didn't get fired, but just decided to quit twice in one month for family reasons and calls him a replacement for the remainder of the season not an interim or an acting choice? And what team doesn't fill out the term with the bench coach, though maybe the first audition was Trammell and he just flubbed it so bad they had to move on?
Chump that he is, Ricketts bought the idea. Hendry had nothing to lose here and made a pretty shrewd bet that, first off, Piniella had a lot to do with the team's execrable performance, and, secondly, teams usually experience a bounce when a skipper is bounced, particularly one so obviously at wit's end as Sweet Lou. Now if you do well, hey, the team you assembled was never that bad after all and this unknown character is some kind of low-key genius who has earned the right to labor through the two seasons you have left on your own contract. If not, if Quade is a flop, well, what do you expect from this guy anyway, he's only a stopgap, some genial mope who has been bouncing around from Pawtucket to Toledo to Pocatello for nearly twenty years? We move on to Plan B, which might have been Eric Wedge, I guess, although some people think Wedge might have been Plan A all along until Quade surprised everyone by winning games.
What's most disappointing is that we are apparently headed for more of the same, no big changes, no accountability, small market moves from a big market team. Carry on, Brownie, you're doing a hell of a job. Anyway, we are stuck with the situation, and, as I say, you could do worse. But we ought to recognize what went on here and who came out the big winner. Not the fans. Not the owner. Not the new manager either.
As for Sandberg, well I almost never agree with Phil Rogers, but he got played here as well, big time.
Actually, you have to hand it to Hendry. He may not be much of a GM. In fact, you can argue that he is a pretty bad one, and I will make that argument in a subsequent post. But the guy is one hell of a bureaucrat, quite the consummate inside player, and his playing of Ricketts, and Cubs fans in general, since the ownership change has been Machiavellian in its subtlety and success. In the process, I think Ricketts has lost a real chance to exert control over the franchise.
That's a pity, because Ricketts really had a chance to change things from the relative laughing-stock of baseball organizations the Cubs have become. To do so, he had to take charge immediately, minimally finding himself a trusted baseball adviser, but ideally cleaning house right from the start. Retaining Hendry and Piniella was the big mistake.
So instead of asserting himself from the beginning, Ricketts chose to evaluate matters for a year, concentrating on raising ticket prices, repairing the washrooms, commissioning statues of macaroni, and selling bison that he just happens to produce on one of his ranches, and, aw, shucks, just trying to be the best fan he can be and hoping for the best.
I'm afraid this guy is small-time running a major market team. In this respect he has found his ideal consigliere in the overstuffed person of Jim Hendry. Hendry has never been comfortable running a big time operation and even his forays into the free agent market have been in the main half-hearted efforts to prove he is doing something big when everyone knows it is just pretend, that he is overpaying for leftovers. Hendry has always been most attuned to bottom-feeding and bargain hunting. Sometimes you strike gold there, most often not.
For Hendry though, it is all about control and who he feels comfortable being around. I'm not sure he ever felt comfortable with Baker or Piniella, but they kind of got him off the hook and shifted attention from his own feeble efforts to build a winning team. You want a manager, OK, take these mopes. Sandberg, or for that matter Girardi or Brenly, would have meant a change of course and a shifting of attention to people on the upsides of their careers, rising stars whose success or failure would shift the attention from the GM and who might just create a power base independent of his own.
Think about it, how many GMs can most serious baseball fans name straight off? I know I can't think of half-a-dozen, but, like most fans, I can rattle off twenty or so managers. That's as it should be. But it is not the world where Hendry thrives.
So, in this case, what Ricketts provided was time for Hendry to consolidate his position. Ricketts clearly doesn't know much about baseball other than that he likes it and it is always nice to be king. Giving Hendry a year to work things out was kind of like giving Dracula a second chance to straighten up.
In retrospect, everyone should have seen this coming even though it was a shrewd play by Hendry and really a no-lose situation. I mean, who names a new manager to fill out the term of a prematurely retired manager who didn't get fired, but just decided to quit twice in one month for family reasons and calls him a replacement for the remainder of the season not an interim or an acting choice? And what team doesn't fill out the term with the bench coach, though maybe the first audition was Trammell and he just flubbed it so bad they had to move on?
Chump that he is, Ricketts bought the idea. Hendry had nothing to lose here and made a pretty shrewd bet that, first off, Piniella had a lot to do with the team's execrable performance, and, secondly, teams usually experience a bounce when a skipper is bounced, particularly one so obviously at wit's end as Sweet Lou. Now if you do well, hey, the team you assembled was never that bad after all and this unknown character is some kind of low-key genius who has earned the right to labor through the two seasons you have left on your own contract. If not, if Quade is a flop, well, what do you expect from this guy anyway, he's only a stopgap, some genial mope who has been bouncing around from Pawtucket to Toledo to Pocatello for nearly twenty years? We move on to Plan B, which might have been Eric Wedge, I guess, although some people think Wedge might have been Plan A all along until Quade surprised everyone by winning games.
What's most disappointing is that we are apparently headed for more of the same, no big changes, no accountability, small market moves from a big market team. Carry on, Brownie, you're doing a hell of a job. Anyway, we are stuck with the situation, and, as I say, you could do worse. But we ought to recognize what went on here and who came out the big winner. Not the fans. Not the owner. Not the new manager either.
As for Sandberg, well I almost never agree with Phil Rogers, but he got played here as well, big time.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
The Championship Series
I picked the Yankees to beat the Rays and advance to the World Series. I have to stick with the Yanks to top the Rangers. I haven't followed the AL West much this season, but I have to say the Rangers have a surprisingly strong and balanced team. That being said, their bullpen will be their undoing.
Another way to pick these series - and I am sure I will offend some of my loyal followers in doing so - is the Red State/Blue State theory. When in doubt, always plump for the Blue State team. In the case of the AL series, of course, there is a clear choice. And honestly, just one look at the grinning face of W. in the stands, and all these Texans wearing antler t-shirts made up my mind.
I picked the Phillies to beat the Giants and advance. I haven't changed my mind as to which is the better team, but I am rooting for the Giants just so the Phillies do not advance to the World Series for a third consecutive year. The Red State/Blue State theory provides no guidance here, but the Phillies fans are a genuinely obnoxious bunch and this sways my sentiments in terms of a rooting interest even though the Phils are probably the stronger team.
Another way to pick these series - and I am sure I will offend some of my loyal followers in doing so - is the Red State/Blue State theory. When in doubt, always plump for the Blue State team. In the case of the AL series, of course, there is a clear choice. And honestly, just one look at the grinning face of W. in the stands, and all these Texans wearing antler t-shirts made up my mind.
I picked the Phillies to beat the Giants and advance. I haven't changed my mind as to which is the better team, but I am rooting for the Giants just so the Phillies do not advance to the World Series for a third consecutive year. The Red State/Blue State theory provides no guidance here, but the Phillies fans are a genuinely obnoxious bunch and this sways my sentiments in terms of a rooting interest even though the Phils are probably the stronger team.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Evaluating Larry Rothschild
Larry Rothschild has exercised his option to remain as the Cubs pitching coach for another season. Apparently this means that if it is OK with the new manager, he gets to stay. One of the odd things about Jim Hendry's tenure as GM is the number of no-trade contracts and player's and coach's options he has handed out. Generally speaking, I would suppose that these are not a good thing, especially with respect to coaches. One would suppose that team management would not want to tie the field manager's hands by saddling him with holdover coaches, but Rothschild has just completed his ninth season with the Cubs and, if retained, will be working on his fourth manager in 2011. So it goes in Cubland.
It is always difficult to evaluate a coach's influence. There are so many variables and so much of pitching is dependent on factors outside the coach's control, as well as the material he has to work with. Still, nine years is a long time, and I think we can reach some conclusions, or at least some intuitions.
I would argue that there are two key factors to consider in evaluating any pitching coach, and these are the potential of the players he has to work with and whether they improve or regress under his tutelage. Judged on these criteria, one would have to put Rothschild somewhere in the middle of the pack, nothing special and certainly not incompetent, but not an invariably positive influence either. In other words, not a game changer by any means.
On the talent level, you would have to say that throughout Rothschild's tenure, Cubs pitching has been above average, sometimes dominant, sometimes just pretty good, but even in off years, such as the last two, not at all bad and probably not the reason the team disappointed.
So what has Rothschild been able to do with these guys? In 2002 the Cubs had a pretty bad team. Their top starters were Kerry Wood and Matt Clement. Mark Prior was a rookie, as was Carlos Zambrano. Nobody had a standout year, but whoever was responsible for moving Zambrano into the rotation deserves some credit here.
The following season, 2003, the Cubs had one of the best rotations in all of baseball in Wood, Prior, Zambrano, and Clement. Over the course of the next few years, Wood and Prior broke down, Wood for the second time and Clement returned to mediocrity before being dumped off to the Red Sox before he too broke down. Zambrano was the only one of the four to perform consistently well over the entire span and his performance, though tolerable even at its lowest points, declined each year under Rothschild until his dramatic upswing at the end of this season.
Cubs pitching after 2004 was pretty much indifferent for the next few years with the exception of Zambrano. The big news focused on the struggles of Wood and Prior to regain their health.. The Cubs farm system produced little of note. Nothing to brag about here, though eventually the Cubs were able to revive Wood's career for a second time. They also managed to turn Dempster back into a starting pitcher, so some credit is due on that score.
In 2007, the Cubs went out into the free agent market and acquired Jason Marquis and Ted Lilly, neither of whom were coming off career years. Lilly had several good seasons. Marquis was mediocre to pretty awful. Beginning around the time Piniella was hired, the farm system started to produce some prospects, nothing of the caliber of the early 2000s when they brought up Prior and Zambrano, but some decent kids.
So what is Rothschild's record with this material? Fair to middling. Sean Marshall came up in 2006. The Cubs never seemed to be able to figure out what to do with him, trying him first as a starter on a fairly limited basis. He has finally realized his potential as a setup man in 2010. Rich Hill showed up in 2005 and had a breakout year in 2007 when he won 11 games. After that, he lost his command. Maybe not Rothschild's fault, but not a feather in his cap either.
Carlos Marmol broke in in 2006 as a starter, but moving him to the bullpen where he has been a dominant force since 2007 has to be a plus for Cubs management. Jeff Samardzija was rushed up in 2008, rather as Andrew Cashner was this season. He has been awful ever since and probably has no future.
The Cubs cycled through a number of middling prospects during the Piniella era, among them Sean Gallagher and Kevin Hart. They also brought in Rich Harden as a free agent, and his career was mediocre as well. I'm not saying that all these guys had more in them than they showed on the field, just that it is at least more probable than not that a really great coach would have achieved better results, especially with the veterans, that you would expect more from a guy to whom you had committed nine years.
As for the current crop of youth, the jury is still out on Coleman and Cashner. They have potential, and Coleman in particular could blossom into a back of the rotation starter. The discovery of Wells was a big plus, though he suffered through a sophomore season that does not argue in Rothschild's favor.
The relief pitchers were a major disappointment in 2010 after showing promise in the minors and the previous year. Caridad, like Guzman, was hurt. Berg, Russell, and a host of others regressed. Gorzelanny, I would argue, stayed about the same, a middling fifth starter. People forget that he won 14 games for the Pirates several years ago. The one real credit on Rothschild's blotter in recent years has to be the revival of Carlos Silva's career, something no one expected.
According to Paul Sullivan, Rothschild has some sort of special bond with Carlos Zambrano. You sure would not know it to look at the results, and if he had anything to do with demoting him to the bullpen, well, with friends like that, you don't need any enemies, do you? Also, I thought his remarks in the Sullivan article about Zambrano were ungracious, especially for a guy who has an allegedly special relationship. Maybe he has seen these streaks before, but mentoring is all about instilling confidence. You can think it, but you don't say it.
Rothschild has spent most of the past two seasons serving as an ancient-looking bookend to the worn-out Lou Piniella. He's only in his fifties, but he looks like he is a hundred. Nine years is a long time with this organization, especially if you have little to show for it and lots of regrets. You cannot say the Cubs will be worse-off if the new manager keeps Larry around, but, like most fans, I would really like to see a new face and new ideas. Dumping him would not be the end of the world and might signal a change of tone.
It is always difficult to evaluate a coach's influence. There are so many variables and so much of pitching is dependent on factors outside the coach's control, as well as the material he has to work with. Still, nine years is a long time, and I think we can reach some conclusions, or at least some intuitions.
I would argue that there are two key factors to consider in evaluating any pitching coach, and these are the potential of the players he has to work with and whether they improve or regress under his tutelage. Judged on these criteria, one would have to put Rothschild somewhere in the middle of the pack, nothing special and certainly not incompetent, but not an invariably positive influence either. In other words, not a game changer by any means.
On the talent level, you would have to say that throughout Rothschild's tenure, Cubs pitching has been above average, sometimes dominant, sometimes just pretty good, but even in off years, such as the last two, not at all bad and probably not the reason the team disappointed.
So what has Rothschild been able to do with these guys? In 2002 the Cubs had a pretty bad team. Their top starters were Kerry Wood and Matt Clement. Mark Prior was a rookie, as was Carlos Zambrano. Nobody had a standout year, but whoever was responsible for moving Zambrano into the rotation deserves some credit here.
The following season, 2003, the Cubs had one of the best rotations in all of baseball in Wood, Prior, Zambrano, and Clement. Over the course of the next few years, Wood and Prior broke down, Wood for the second time and Clement returned to mediocrity before being dumped off to the Red Sox before he too broke down. Zambrano was the only one of the four to perform consistently well over the entire span and his performance, though tolerable even at its lowest points, declined each year under Rothschild until his dramatic upswing at the end of this season.
Cubs pitching after 2004 was pretty much indifferent for the next few years with the exception of Zambrano. The big news focused on the struggles of Wood and Prior to regain their health.. The Cubs farm system produced little of note. Nothing to brag about here, though eventually the Cubs were able to revive Wood's career for a second time. They also managed to turn Dempster back into a starting pitcher, so some credit is due on that score.
In 2007, the Cubs went out into the free agent market and acquired Jason Marquis and Ted Lilly, neither of whom were coming off career years. Lilly had several good seasons. Marquis was mediocre to pretty awful. Beginning around the time Piniella was hired, the farm system started to produce some prospects, nothing of the caliber of the early 2000s when they brought up Prior and Zambrano, but some decent kids.
So what is Rothschild's record with this material? Fair to middling. Sean Marshall came up in 2006. The Cubs never seemed to be able to figure out what to do with him, trying him first as a starter on a fairly limited basis. He has finally realized his potential as a setup man in 2010. Rich Hill showed up in 2005 and had a breakout year in 2007 when he won 11 games. After that, he lost his command. Maybe not Rothschild's fault, but not a feather in his cap either.
Carlos Marmol broke in in 2006 as a starter, but moving him to the bullpen where he has been a dominant force since 2007 has to be a plus for Cubs management. Jeff Samardzija was rushed up in 2008, rather as Andrew Cashner was this season. He has been awful ever since and probably has no future.
The Cubs cycled through a number of middling prospects during the Piniella era, among them Sean Gallagher and Kevin Hart. They also brought in Rich Harden as a free agent, and his career was mediocre as well. I'm not saying that all these guys had more in them than they showed on the field, just that it is at least more probable than not that a really great coach would have achieved better results, especially with the veterans, that you would expect more from a guy to whom you had committed nine years.
As for the current crop of youth, the jury is still out on Coleman and Cashner. They have potential, and Coleman in particular could blossom into a back of the rotation starter. The discovery of Wells was a big plus, though he suffered through a sophomore season that does not argue in Rothschild's favor.
The relief pitchers were a major disappointment in 2010 after showing promise in the minors and the previous year. Caridad, like Guzman, was hurt. Berg, Russell, and a host of others regressed. Gorzelanny, I would argue, stayed about the same, a middling fifth starter. People forget that he won 14 games for the Pirates several years ago. The one real credit on Rothschild's blotter in recent years has to be the revival of Carlos Silva's career, something no one expected.
According to Paul Sullivan, Rothschild has some sort of special bond with Carlos Zambrano. You sure would not know it to look at the results, and if he had anything to do with demoting him to the bullpen, well, with friends like that, you don't need any enemies, do you? Also, I thought his remarks in the Sullivan article about Zambrano were ungracious, especially for a guy who has an allegedly special relationship. Maybe he has seen these streaks before, but mentoring is all about instilling confidence. You can think it, but you don't say it.
Rothschild has spent most of the past two seasons serving as an ancient-looking bookend to the worn-out Lou Piniella. He's only in his fifties, but he looks like he is a hundred. Nine years is a long time with this organization, especially if you have little to show for it and lots of regrets. You cannot say the Cubs will be worse-off if the new manager keeps Larry around, but, like most fans, I would really like to see a new face and new ideas. Dumping him would not be the end of the world and might signal a change of tone.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
The Managerial Sweepstakes
If we are to believe Bruce Levine, the search comes down to three front-runners, Eric Wedge, Mike Quade, and Ryne Sandberg, with the possible inclusion of Joe Girardi if the team is willing to await the outcome of the playoffs and has some kind of signal he will make himself available.
I favored hiring Girardi four years ago when the Cubs put their money on Lou Piniella even though it was clear Girardi was being groomed for the Yankees job. Now I'm not so sure. I'm not so sure he would be interested for one thing. Who would even think about leaving a perennial World Series team for the Cubs in the midst of what will undoubtedly become a rebuilding or retooling season? Girardi is also the favorite among all the know-nothing sportswriters and commentators, so right there you rather lose my interest. These guys, the Phil Rogers and Dave Kaplans of the world are almost always wrong. Kaplan has recently suggested trading Carlos Marmol, the second best closer in all of baseball who works now for the equivalent of the minimum wage in baseball terms, because you could really get some great prospects in exchange. Duh!
Anyway, Girardi strikes me as a bit of a tight-ass and that might be another strike against him. This team is a pretty fragile mix and I don't think they need that right now. I mean, they need to play tighter baseball and concentrate, but I'm not sure a looser version would not be a better choice. I wouldn't think he was doomed to failure, nor would I actively dislike the guy, but - and maybe my reasoning is a little idiosyncratic - I have more than a few doubts. The other problem, of course, is you could wait around until mid-November and lose out altogether on your secondary choice.
I can't figure out what the deal is with Eric Wedge. You have to certainly consider some sort of history with the team and their fans as a plus, but Wedge has nothing to relate to here. He seems to be a buddy of Jim Hendry, a black mark already, and his career with Cleveland was undistinguished. He inherited a team packed with stars of the caliber of C.C. Sabathia and Cliff Lee and Grady Sizemore among others and he won, I guess, a division title before the front office started dumping salaries again and eventually dumped him.
Mike Quade is the wild card. Nobody would have thought him a serious contender prior to his stopgap appointment to fill out the season after Piniella's desertion. He did very well, or the team did. That has to count in his favor. Against him are these considerations. First off, he is a Hendry guy, which, to my mind, creates doubts straight off. Hendry is nearly always wrong. He had a great run, but the team as a whole played better in only one clear respect, viz., their pitching was exceptional. His lineups were pretty predicable and not well thought out even allowing for the limited chips he had to play, especially after injuries closed the book on Colvin, Soto, and Silva.
Actually, I don't know why the Cubs don't give the job to Sandberg and call it a day. Given the direction Ricketts seems to be signaling, that is a renewed emphasis on player development, Sandberg is the one guy who really knows the minor league system, having manged his way up the ladder from A ball to AAA and having had a hand in the development of most of their current prospects. Sandberg is also the only guy who has said anything sensible about his philosophy of building a team when he praised the Twins approach that emphasized a consistent style of play throughout their system and consistent expectations of the prospects they develop. This is a dose of medicine the Cubs genuinely need.
The other plus is that he is not a guy who is entirely a creature of Jim Hendry. I like the idea that he has in a sense called Hendry's bluff. Apparently he came to Hendry four years ago and asked for consideration for the manager's job. Hendry supposedly suggested he had no experience and he should go down to the minors and work his way up, perhaps little thinking he would take him up on the idea. Sandberg did what Hendry suggested, and he was successful at it. Maybe I am sentimental, but I do think there is a kind of implicit obligation created there, and that it would really be dishonest for the organization to move in any other direction.
I also really think having a certain amount of tension between the field manager and the general manager is not a bad thing. I also think Ricketts is nuts if he trusts Hendry to make the final selection given his prior track record. Actually I think he is nuts to even let Hendry conduct the preliminary interviews.
I favored hiring Girardi four years ago when the Cubs put their money on Lou Piniella even though it was clear Girardi was being groomed for the Yankees job. Now I'm not so sure. I'm not so sure he would be interested for one thing. Who would even think about leaving a perennial World Series team for the Cubs in the midst of what will undoubtedly become a rebuilding or retooling season? Girardi is also the favorite among all the know-nothing sportswriters and commentators, so right there you rather lose my interest. These guys, the Phil Rogers and Dave Kaplans of the world are almost always wrong. Kaplan has recently suggested trading Carlos Marmol, the second best closer in all of baseball who works now for the equivalent of the minimum wage in baseball terms, because you could really get some great prospects in exchange. Duh!
Anyway, Girardi strikes me as a bit of a tight-ass and that might be another strike against him. This team is a pretty fragile mix and I don't think they need that right now. I mean, they need to play tighter baseball and concentrate, but I'm not sure a looser version would not be a better choice. I wouldn't think he was doomed to failure, nor would I actively dislike the guy, but - and maybe my reasoning is a little idiosyncratic - I have more than a few doubts. The other problem, of course, is you could wait around until mid-November and lose out altogether on your secondary choice.
I can't figure out what the deal is with Eric Wedge. You have to certainly consider some sort of history with the team and their fans as a plus, but Wedge has nothing to relate to here. He seems to be a buddy of Jim Hendry, a black mark already, and his career with Cleveland was undistinguished. He inherited a team packed with stars of the caliber of C.C. Sabathia and Cliff Lee and Grady Sizemore among others and he won, I guess, a division title before the front office started dumping salaries again and eventually dumped him.
Mike Quade is the wild card. Nobody would have thought him a serious contender prior to his stopgap appointment to fill out the season after Piniella's desertion. He did very well, or the team did. That has to count in his favor. Against him are these considerations. First off, he is a Hendry guy, which, to my mind, creates doubts straight off. Hendry is nearly always wrong. He had a great run, but the team as a whole played better in only one clear respect, viz., their pitching was exceptional. His lineups were pretty predicable and not well thought out even allowing for the limited chips he had to play, especially after injuries closed the book on Colvin, Soto, and Silva.
Actually, I don't know why the Cubs don't give the job to Sandberg and call it a day. Given the direction Ricketts seems to be signaling, that is a renewed emphasis on player development, Sandberg is the one guy who really knows the minor league system, having manged his way up the ladder from A ball to AAA and having had a hand in the development of most of their current prospects. Sandberg is also the only guy who has said anything sensible about his philosophy of building a team when he praised the Twins approach that emphasized a consistent style of play throughout their system and consistent expectations of the prospects they develop. This is a dose of medicine the Cubs genuinely need.
The other plus is that he is not a guy who is entirely a creature of Jim Hendry. I like the idea that he has in a sense called Hendry's bluff. Apparently he came to Hendry four years ago and asked for consideration for the manager's job. Hendry supposedly suggested he had no experience and he should go down to the minors and work his way up, perhaps little thinking he would take him up on the idea. Sandberg did what Hendry suggested, and he was successful at it. Maybe I am sentimental, but I do think there is a kind of implicit obligation created there, and that it would really be dishonest for the organization to move in any other direction.
I also really think having a certain amount of tension between the field manager and the general manager is not a bad thing. I also think Ricketts is nuts if he trusts Hendry to make the final selection given his prior track record. Actually I think he is nuts to even let Hendry conduct the preliminary interviews.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Playoff Preview
One of my followers asked for a playoff preview and predictions, so here goes. If a little belated, I'll try to go with my honest sentiments before they started even though we are in the second day of play.
AL: The winner of the Yankees/Twins series will win the championship and I will pick the Yankees. This series on paper looks as if it matches the two best teams, but, frankly, the Yanks own the Twins, and yesterday's game did nothing to contradict that impression. I have to respect the Rays even though I think they are a flawed team. I mean you have to be doing something right to win the AL East. Having said that, however, it looks like they are getting their clock cleaned again by the Rangers. The Rangers have Cliff Lee, but if they advance, I think the Yankees will be too much for them. Sentimentally, I like the Yankees as well because Girardi is their manager (the Cubs should have hired him in 2007, but they shouldn't do so in 2011 and a victory in the Series will pretty much block that move) and also because they picked up Kerry Wood to pitch late relief (the Cubs should think about signing him for 2011).
NL: The Phillies will beat the Reds. I was thinking the Reds would give them a run for their money, but after the Halladay no-hitter, I'm not so sure. The Reds also have Dusty in the dugout, which effectively means he will find a way to lose somewhere along the line. The Giants/Braves series definitely matches the two worst teams in the playoffs. The Giants will advance and probably lose to the Phillies, although if you are looking for a dark horse (and frankly I would like to see an upset here) the Giants pitching can take them a long way.
The Yankees will beat the Phillies in seven games.
AL: The winner of the Yankees/Twins series will win the championship and I will pick the Yankees. This series on paper looks as if it matches the two best teams, but, frankly, the Yanks own the Twins, and yesterday's game did nothing to contradict that impression. I have to respect the Rays even though I think they are a flawed team. I mean you have to be doing something right to win the AL East. Having said that, however, it looks like they are getting their clock cleaned again by the Rangers. The Rangers have Cliff Lee, but if they advance, I think the Yankees will be too much for them. Sentimentally, I like the Yankees as well because Girardi is their manager (the Cubs should have hired him in 2007, but they shouldn't do so in 2011 and a victory in the Series will pretty much block that move) and also because they picked up Kerry Wood to pitch late relief (the Cubs should think about signing him for 2011).
NL: The Phillies will beat the Reds. I was thinking the Reds would give them a run for their money, but after the Halladay no-hitter, I'm not so sure. The Reds also have Dusty in the dugout, which effectively means he will find a way to lose somewhere along the line. The Giants/Braves series definitely matches the two worst teams in the playoffs. The Giants will advance and probably lose to the Phillies, although if you are looking for a dark horse (and frankly I would like to see an upset here) the Giants pitching can take them a long way.
The Yankees will beat the Phillies in seven games.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Astros Series
The Cubs took two of three from the Astros to finish the season. Once again it was pitching that dominated, even though they scored 8 runs to give Zambrano his 8th consecutive win on Saturday night. Coleman pitched well on Friday night, probably his best outing of the year. He may just have earned himself a place in the rotation next season. Dempster was a little shaky on Sunday, not awful, but not dominating either. The Cub defense broke down a bit early in the game and their hitting, as usual, was absent.
It is hard to know what to make of the turnaround initiated by Piniella's departure. How much of it was Quade's doing and how much of it just being rid of Lou? Quade certainly shined, but the team will need more than that over a long haul next year. One thing they will need is consistent hitting and an everyday lineup that makes sense from the point-of-view of scoring runs and playing defense. Obviously, Quade's options were limited, especially after Soto's and Colvin's seasons ended prematurely, but still I didn't see much offense, nor much of a coherent philosophy in crafting these lineups. I guess the jury is still out here.
You might say the Cubs rode out the season on the coattails of some of their more maligned players, namely Zambrano, Ramirez, and Fukudome. Anyway, I was pleased to see that Hendry officially took Zambrano off the trading block. Maybe this will end the constant drone of now's the time to get rid of this guy and pay half his salary so he can win someone else a pennant.
It is hard to know what to make of the turnaround initiated by Piniella's departure. How much of it was Quade's doing and how much of it just being rid of Lou? Quade certainly shined, but the team will need more than that over a long haul next year. One thing they will need is consistent hitting and an everyday lineup that makes sense from the point-of-view of scoring runs and playing defense. Obviously, Quade's options were limited, especially after Soto's and Colvin's seasons ended prematurely, but still I didn't see much offense, nor much of a coherent philosophy in crafting these lineups. I guess the jury is still out here.
You might say the Cubs rode out the season on the coattails of some of their more maligned players, namely Zambrano, Ramirez, and Fukudome. Anyway, I was pleased to see that Hendry officially took Zambrano off the trading block. Maybe this will end the constant drone of now's the time to get rid of this guy and pay half his salary so he can win someone else a pennant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)