Recent Developments

One saw the good and the ugly in the first two games against the Padres at Wrigley Field this week.  On Tuesday, the Cubs played a great game to top San Diego 6-0.  Especially encouraging was the performance of rookie pitcher Kyle Hendricks who so far looks like a keeper.

Rizzo continued his hot streak and Alcantara continued to impress.  Alcantara has shown a lot so far.  I was impressed with his AB yesterday when he walked to load the bases even though the Cubs rally fizzled after that, more so than his homer the day before.

Yesterday was just awful.  Eleven walks to a team that is notoriously swing happy.  Go figure.  Wada is obviously not the answer and Grimm continues to be wild all the time.  Probably time to send him down.

I was surprised by some of the Cubs personnel moves this week.  Although Barney has not hit much over the past two seasons, I still thought he had a future with the Cubs as a utility guy.  Actually he has done a lot better the past month when he has had regular playing time and his splits against left-handed pitching are very good, right up around .300 with a .700 OPS.

Olt had to go down as he was just not hitting anything at all.  He has the makings of a decent 3B if he could even hit .250 as he has real power and walks a lot as well, or at least he has walked a lot before he started striking out nearly every AB.  You wonder whether these infield moves presage a promotion for Baez or even Bryant or whether they mean the Cubs just overvalue Bonafacio and Valbuena, two guys who are substitutes at best.

I saw an interesting article in Sports Illustrated this week concerning how radical defensive alignments have affected hitting and run production.  Worth a read.  Personally I think the current dominance of pitching has more to do with defensive strategy and the lack of plate discipline, especially with two strikes, than the emergence of power pitching.

If you really look around both leagues you do not see a preponderance of super-dominant pitchers such as were the norm in past era of pitching dominance. I mean, sure, there is Kershaw in LA and Hernandez in Seattle, and, of course, Wainwright in St. Louis, but I don't think even these guys are in the same category as Gibson and Jenkins and some of the others of the last pitching dominated era.  Anyway, there are certainly not more of them and the quality of pitching in general is a lot more diluted despite the emergence of new pitches and better conditioning.

The article makes the point that the current shifts have really shut down left-handed bats.  It really forces guys to use the whole field and to shorten up with two strikes.  However, players nowadays are reluctant to change their style of play, in some cases to the detriment of their career.  I think Carlos Pena was the first guy whose career broke down because of the shifts, but, as the article makes clear, he is not the last.  In a way, that makes Anthony Rizzo's season a lot more impressive, though clearly the shifts have hurt is batting average.

Oops

Here's an indication of just how bad things have become for the Cubs.  It seems that in last evening's loss to Arizona, Rick Renteria came out to make a double switch and forgot to remove his struggling starter Travis Wood.  Bizarre to say the least.  From the account of the game at the Cubs website:

How strange are things for the Cubs? Renteria forgot to remove Wood during a double switch in the sixth.
"It's very unorthodox, but not illegal," Renteria said, chuckling.
The manager went out to tell home-plate umpire Jim Joyce about the change, which is required.
"I was talking to Jim," Renteria said. "I grabbed the rail [of the dugout], because I was going to take a spill, and I grabbed the rail and I'm laughing. I said, 'Gosh, I think I blew my shoulder out,' and I'm giving him the switch.
"As I kept continuing to talk to him, I lost track that I left my pitcher out there," Renteria said. "I know [manager Kirk Gibson] came out, but it's not illegal because I never went to the hill."

Not to worry.  Wood was eventually replaced by Villanueva who promptly allowed the two inherited runners to score anyway, effectively putting the game completely out of reach.

Yuck

Not much Cubs news to speak of since the trade.  Lost 8 of 10 before the break, which, as we have noted before, was not unexpected.

There is talk the Yankees might be interested in Edwin Jackson.  Boy, they must be desperate for pitching if this is true.  If it is true, trade this guy right now no matter how bad the return offer is.  Last night was a great example of vintage Jackson.  Super for four or five innings, then disaster.

People keep thinking if this guy could put it together consistently for an entire game, he could be some kind of player.  Here's a clue, folks.  He has been with eight teams now over twelve seasons and he hasn't done it yet.  He can't and he won't.

Last night was also vintage Renteria.  He is carrying 9 relievers right now.  Use them before the game gets out of hand not after and use guys who are likely to get you out of the jam even if it is only the sixth inning.

Also, what is with the lineup and by that I mean why is Sweeney playing and why do you not hit for him in the ninth inning with a man on third and one out?  Oh, I get it, he bats left-handed, but aren't Lake and Olt more likely to hit a fly-ball, or even Wood.

There have been some interesting pieces lately that reflect somewhat on the trade and the Cubs strategy.  Two pieces from fivethirtyeight.com  that pundits have referenced show the apparent correlation between highly regarded prospects and success in terms of WAR.  That's kind of true.  However, a fair amount of the good numbers are the result of a handful of star prospects, guys like Harper and Trout.  The real correlation, as the articles correctly point out, is salary.  The bigger the payroll, the more likely a team is to win.

Another nice article from Fangraphs discusses the apparent logjam of shortstops and infielders the Cubs have accumulated.  It concludes that there is none as these guys are just potential stars not actual ones and the odds of them all succeeding are pretty remote.

Six and Counting

The Cubs have lost six in a row since the Samardzija/Hammel trade.  I suppose that is hardly unexpected news.  These guys would be likely to make thirty more starts between them over the remainder of the season.  The Cubs could certainly expect to win half of them and more than likely two-thirds.  So in reality the team has traded off ten wins given the quality or lack thereof of potential replacements and the quality or lack thereof of the remainders.

Something you do not immediately factor in is the pressure the trade places on the bullpen.  This was pretty evident when the Cubs blew a 5-0 lead Tuesday night.  Plus this must be pretty demoralizing to the team as a whole given they had been playing fairly well, all things considered, since around the end of May.  Looks like another 100 loss season is on the way, 95 for sure.

As for the rest of the team, well, you cannot expect to win much when you do not score at least four runs.  Right now the Cubs are lucky to tally one or two with no improvement in sight.  Lacking any consistent production from anyone but Rizzo and Castro, it is hard to say where help might come from, at least this year.  Lake and Olt are thought to have potential, but they play infrequently and when they do, they strike out all the time.  Olt has had some better ABs recently, but Lake should be sent down to get his swing straightened out.

The Deal

Well, the Cubs finally pulled the trigger on Samardzija and Hammel.  Not surprising, but you have to wonder about the thought process behind the move.

I've been railing for weeks about the wisdom of trading Samardzija, knowing deep down they were going to do it.  Hammel, OK, he's a free agent anyway at year's end, but Samardzija, who is the only first-class pitcher to have come through the farm system since Carlos Zambrano and Mark Prior?

The real puzzler is why another shortstop.  McKinney I can see, a left-handed hitting outfielder, something the Cubs do not have in their system in any abundance.  But, even here, the kid is 19 and, realistically, more than two years off.

Addison Russell is, by all accounts, a potential phenom.  But, come on, a 20 year old shortstop?  At least a year away and probably two.  Even if he is another Mike Trout, you have to question the acquisition and the risk involved given the current situation.

The pitcher involved is this year's version of Justin Grimm.  At least in the Garza deal they picked up Olt and Ramirez who were ready for the majors the following year even given Olt's struggles to achieve consistency.

All in all, you have to question the whole approach the Cubs are taking, which is basically the small market, long-term rebuild.  It's not just the chips and potentials you acquire with each chess move, but the big picture as well.  Had the Cubs acquired an outfielder with Rizzo's potential who was operating on the same timetable as Rizzo, I might think differently, but that is not the case here.

It is fashionable now among GMs to operate this way, but, again looking at the big picture, how many of the trades of ace pitchers for prospects have panned out in terms of producing winning teams?

What have the Indians done since shedding Sabathia and Lee?  The Royals since trading Greinke?  Are they perennial contenders?  The Twins after trading Santana?  The Blue Jays after dealing Halladay?

The point is that these deals are kind of a crapshoot that generally cannot be evaluated for several years.  My own view is that in general they always help the receiving team more in terms of what really counts, which is winning games in the major leagues even when individual players on the receiving end turn out to be stars in the future.  Probably because just in the nature of things the sellers are dealing from weakness and the buyers from strength.