The Cubs have signed Scott Hairston to a two-year deal. Not sure what that really means other than that the Cubs are trying to look like they are trying to become a competitive team while they wait for their prospects to mature.
As far as this signing projects, Hairston is a career reserve outfielder who is strictly a right-handed platoon. Since their other outfield addition, Nate Schierholtz, is a similar caliber player who bats from the left side, it seems logical to assume they will platoon in right field. Both of them strike out a lot and hardly ever walk.
Presumably David DeJesus will move to center field. Lots of people think this means the Cubs have lost faith in Brett Jackson and Dave Sappelt. I rather think the opposite is the case. Look for the Cubs, who have made a big deal about restructuring Jackson's swing, just as they did last year with Anthony Rizzo, to start Jackson in the minors and move him full-time to the majors in June or July.
With respect to Sappelt, I notice he had a good run in winter ball and that he played a lot of center field. Sappelt has played quite a lot of center field in the minor leagues and he has always done better against lefties, so I kind of look for him to platoon with DeJesus. The only odd part of Sappelt's winter league performance is that he hit poorly against lefties. This is an anomaly for him, so maybe it was just a fluke.
This leaves Soriano as the everyday left-fielder, which is, from my viewpoint anyway, bad news. Actually, all of this is not a cause for optimism. None of these potential regulars are championship caliber players. The biggest problem with all of them with the exception of DeJesus is they don't get on base.
The single most important insight that Bill James and the sabremetric analysts have brought to baseball is the relationship between the number of base-runners and the number of runs scored and the relationship between scoring a lot of runs and winning games.
So far none of the additions made by Epstein in the off-season seem to contribute to this end. Realistically, the only players on the team who work the count at all are DeJesus, Rizzo, and maybe Castillo, and then it is not like they are walk-machines like Pena or Youkilis or even Fukudome. Good teams, really good teams, score 800 or more runs. Last year the Cubs scored 613. I don't see how they break 650 right now.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The Latest
Sorry I haven't posted much lately. I really should do an assessment of the post-season moves. Maybe I will make it my next project. Honestly, aside from retooling the pitching rotation with some chancey acquisitions, not much went on. The Cubs are likely a better team now than they were in September, but then, how could they be worse?
To my mind, the biggest news to come out of the Cubs convention was Alfonso Soriano's threat to end his career as a Cub and to finally bring a championship to Chicago. To the mind of cynics like myself, these are two mutually exclusive propositions.
The other big news came in the form of the release of plans to refurbish Wrigley Field without government assistance, at least of the monetary kind. I rather welcome the recognition on the part of rich men who own sports franchises that are literally gold mines that it is their responsibility to build or remodel their own facilities.
Chicagoans and Cubs fans probably need to read the fine print, though. In return, Cubs management is asking for some easing of restrictions on the landmark status of the ballpark and how the park operates in the neighborhood.
Personally, I have nothing against increasing the number of night games. I've lived within walking distance of Wrigley Field the majority of my adult life. This neighborhood has changed a lot. Right now it is a far cry from being a classic residential area. In fact, especially along Clark Street, it is mostly congested all the time anyway.
In fact, I would wager that most of the opposition to proposed stadium changes will come from the rooftop owners who seem to have a lot of political clout and are and have been a blight on the neighborhood to begin with.
From the drawings presented by the Cubs, the actual physical changes to the park don't seem that bad. It looks like they have left the relatively iconic elements alone, things like the ivy and the scoreboard. The devil is likely to be in the details, especially the demand for a freer hand in allocating advertising within the park itself.
One thing I do think would be objectionable though, from an architectural standpoint anyway, is the design for the new or rebuilt upper deck. The whole cantilevered look is kind of cool, but it seems totally out of character with the rest of the stadium's architecture.
The rest of the plans, i.e., the concourses and lavatories and batting cages and stuff look good, but one wonders how they are going to shoe-horn all this into the limited space available.
To my mind, the biggest news to come out of the Cubs convention was Alfonso Soriano's threat to end his career as a Cub and to finally bring a championship to Chicago. To the mind of cynics like myself, these are two mutually exclusive propositions.
The other big news came in the form of the release of plans to refurbish Wrigley Field without government assistance, at least of the monetary kind. I rather welcome the recognition on the part of rich men who own sports franchises that are literally gold mines that it is their responsibility to build or remodel their own facilities.
Chicagoans and Cubs fans probably need to read the fine print, though. In return, Cubs management is asking for some easing of restrictions on the landmark status of the ballpark and how the park operates in the neighborhood.
Personally, I have nothing against increasing the number of night games. I've lived within walking distance of Wrigley Field the majority of my adult life. This neighborhood has changed a lot. Right now it is a far cry from being a classic residential area. In fact, especially along Clark Street, it is mostly congested all the time anyway.
In fact, I would wager that most of the opposition to proposed stadium changes will come from the rooftop owners who seem to have a lot of political clout and are and have been a blight on the neighborhood to begin with.
From the drawings presented by the Cubs, the actual physical changes to the park don't seem that bad. It looks like they have left the relatively iconic elements alone, things like the ivy and the scoreboard. The devil is likely to be in the details, especially the demand for a freer hand in allocating advertising within the park itself.
One thing I do think would be objectionable though, from an architectural standpoint anyway, is the design for the new or rebuilt upper deck. The whole cantilevered look is kind of cool, but it seems totally out of character with the rest of the stadium's architecture.
The rest of the plans, i.e., the concourses and lavatories and batting cages and stuff look good, but one wonders how they are going to shoe-horn all this into the limited space available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)