Anatomy of FAIL

After this latest Cubs loss, my brother and I dissected their myriad problems and summed them up with an explanation that is both simple and complex: all the moves made in the off-season have turned into disasters of varying magnitude.

Now, there’s still time for things to improve. I’m absolutely leaving open the possibility that we could be singing a totally different tune come August. But so far, I submit that not a single one of the changes made to this club has resulted in any improvement. Quite the opposite. And anything that’s gone smoothly to this point has resulted from the Cubs deciding to leave well enough alone.

Furthermore, if things don’t turn around, I’m inching dangerously close to the conclusion that this entire season can be blamed on the failure to acquire Jake Peavy. I never thought I would say that because, as much as I’d love to see Peavy don Cubbie blue, I’ve never considered him a franchise savior or anything. And given that the past two playoff failures have been more the fault of the offense than the pitching, this seemed even more the case. But think about it. How many of the off-season moves can be directly or indirectly traced back to the failed pursuit of Peavy? Let’s inspect some of them, shall we?

FAIL: Trading DeRosa/Signing Miles/Promoting Fontenot to Everyday Player

OK, DeRo hasn’t exactly set the world on fire with his middling batting average over in Cleveland. But his 30 RBIs would be good for the team lead with the Cubs, and his seven homers would have him second. Plus, his veteran leadership would sure look nice in the middle of this losing streak. And his glove sure would look nice at third base in Ramirez’s absence.

The decision to trade DeRosa—and then fill his utility man role with the much cheaper Aaron Miles, and his second base role with the much cheaper Mike Fontenot—was based on the need to clear some space on the books for Peavy’s salary. If the Peavy trade was made, then perhaps his addition offsets the sacrifices made here. But with no Peavy, this is all loss and no gain. And trading for Ryan Freel in an attempt to upgrade the infield has also yielded no positive results.

FAIL: Lack of Quality Lefty Relief Options

The Cubs only lefty option out of the pen is Neal “Walk-o-Matic” Cotts. Cotts has walked an impressive nine batters, and given up an impressive nine earned runs, all in just 11 innings of work.

But imagine for a minute that Jake Peavy is one of the Cubs’ five starters. That means Sean Marshall, provided he wasn’t included in the trade—and perhaps a major assumption, I’ll grant—is in the bullpen and Cotts maybe isn’t even on the roster.

FAIL: Lack of Quality Relief Options, Period

Not that Kerry Wood (two blown saves, ballooning ERA) has been so wonderful in Cleveland, but his departure did set off a chain reaction in the bullpen. Suddenly, almost everyone was moved into a new role. And so far, those are roles many of them have proven ill-suited for. Without an established closer, the Cubs were left to choose between someone with all the stuff but no experience, and someone with less impressive stuff but some experience. The decision to let Wood leave, like the decision to trade DeRosa, was a move meant to free up money for Peavy’s salary. Plus, the Cubs shipped off some of the leftover parts intended for the Peavy deal, and got in return Aaron Heilman, who has a Cottsian 15 walks in just under 20 innings of work.

Let’s not forget David Patton. Look, if you’re not going to use him, then don’t keep him on the roster, even if he is a Rule 5 pick.

FAIL: Trading Jason Marquis

With Peavy allegedly on his way, there was no longer a place on the roster for Marquis or his expensive contract. I still hate Jason Marquis, but so far he’s eaten up more innings than every Cubs starter but Ryan Dempster. And his record, ERA and WHIP, while not anything to write home about, still compare favorably to just about every Cubs starter except Ted Lilly. And he’s done all this while making half his starts in a notoriously hitter-friendly ballpark.

Unloading Marquis makes all the sense in the world, assuming that you can replace him with someone better. Peavy would have been someone better. Oh, and the unwanted contract that the Cubs took on in this trade? That dude isn’t even on the roster anymore.

***

And then, there are the moves that failed all on their own, moves for which there is not the luxury of blaming Jake Peavy…

FAIL: Signing Milton Bradley

The success of the Milton Bradley signing was predicated on him remaining healthy, consistent, and well behaved—or at least two of those three. But he’s already been injured, he’s struggled to reach .200, and he’s been suspended once. All this in just two months of work. That’s impressive even by Bradley’s own lofty standards. Particularly galling was his insistence on appealing that suspension, “on principle” mind you, instead of taking it while he was hurt and not playing anyway. Someone should have reminded Bradley that he’s not in charge, and nipped that in the bud. I’m not sure why that didn’t happen. Piniella doesn’t seem like an inmates-running-the-asylum type of manager. That’s more Dusty Baker territory. Maybe, after enough years in Chicago, all managers turn into Dusty Baker.

FAIL: Signing Joey Gathright

‘Nuff said.

***

And finally, a few possible FAILs in the making…

FAIL?: Throwing Lots of Money at Ryan Dempster/Picking Up Harden’s Option

I still maintain that, at today’s prices, even a passable season from Harden will wind up being a bargain. But, like Milton Bradley, Rich Harden has managed to make all our worst fears come true in just two months. Intermittent control issues: check. DL stint: check. And so far, it’s looking like it would have been cheaper and more effective to keep Marquis around and let Dempster go. Of all the Cubs currently playing below their potential, Ryan Dempster is high on my list of those who I believe can turn it around. But he better get on that.

The Peavy factor is fairly minimal with both of these moves, since they were made before the Peavy talks really heated up. Still, one could argue that Harden seemed like a risk worth taking when the presumed acquisition of Peavy would make him no more than a fifth starter. And one could argue that retaining Ryan Dempster became a more urgent matter when two of his fellow clubhouse leaders, Wood and DeRosa, both left for Peavy-related reasons.

FAIL?: Not Even Entertaining the Possibility of Trading D-Lee

For reasons I’ve already covered in past posts and have no desire to revisit, D-Lee may have outlived his usefulness as a Cub. And I say that as someone who would be tremendously sorry to see him go. Yet—and this is a recurring theme—so far Lee has been a living, breathing example of why assuming the worst is sometimes a smart idea. With the injuries, and with the whole league seeing all his flaws on full display, and with his hefty salary, Lee might be untradeable at this point. At the very least, you won’t get the value for him that you could have gotten not too long ago.

The Peavy factor is again minimal, unless you want to argue that trading Lee for pitching didn’t seem like a necessary move with Peavy about to join the team.

***

Now, throw in a bunch of injuries, and it’s not surprising that the Cubs season has so far been bad. In fact, maybe one game below .500 is actually the best outcome we could have hoped for. The division is still there for the taking. Sooner or later, some of the breaks might start falling our way. In fact, that is why I was supremely confident that we’d win on Sunday. My confidence was not based on anything I’d seen on the field, just on my belief that sooner or later the law of averages has to take over and we have to win at least one game. (My confidence that we’d win yesterday was based on playing the Pirates.)

Then again, and I hate to dust off this whole bit but it’s too obvious not to, if the law of averages hasn’t taken over in the last 101 years, then 8 games ain’t nothing.

The Challenge

The ACC – Big Ten Challenge is a great marketing tool created by ESPN to make college basketball fans care about early season, non-conference game.  And they’ve done a great job with that marketing, even though the ACC has completely dominated the event.

As much as marketing ploys annoy me in sports, as a fan I must admit that they make it easy for me to watch and decide who to cheer for.  For example, just a few hours ago I was cheering for Wisconsin to hold off an aggressive Virginia Tech team that came from as many as 13 down to tie the game with about 6 or 7 seconds left.  And then the Badgers hit a little shot in the lane with .9 on the clock.  Exciting game.  Really legitimate competition, which is relatively rare early in the season.  And a made-for-TV battle between conferences that really didn’t care much about each other until March before they invented this deal.

I’m going to be optimistic that the Big Ten is a much stronger conference than they were last year, and I’m anticipating their first victory in the event.  Sure, Michigan State can take North Carolina.  Maybe.  But it will be fun to cheer for them. 

Anyway, in my mind, this week of basketball signals that the season is really underway.  So tune in to ESPN for some quality games this week (I hope), pick your conference and cheer!

What To Do With Wrigley?

In a press conference after his no-hitter, Carlos Zambrano professed his admiration for Miller Park, noting how its facilities when well beyond what Wrigley offers players. He even went so far as to say that he wished the Cubs would build a new ballpark like Miller Park. At first, the comment was sort of glossed over during the immediate aftermath of the no-no, an aftermath understandably focused on the feat itself.

But now that the no-hitter is a few days past, and now that the Cubs have almost wrapped up the division, the media is looking for a new stories. So several reporters have taken it upon themselves to ask the other Cubs players: Do you agree with Zambrano’s sentiments, despite the fact that many would consider them blasphemous? Would you like to see Wrigley replaced with a new ballpark? And while all have professed their reverence for the history of Wrigley, and their love for its legendary atmosphere, most of them have agreed that it would be nice to have a ballpark with a clubhouse larger than a bread box, or with state-of-the-art workout and rehab amenities. The players are nearly unanimous. They’d welcome a new ballpark.

As much as I love Wrigley and love the history, I am somewhat inclined to agree. The fact of the matter is that Wrigley will not last forever. No manmade structure is going to stand forever. Every single ballpark, no matter how historic, is going to be torn down eventually. Sooner or later, Wrigley will have to be replaced, or at least gutted and rebuilt. And that “sooner” might be fast approaching.

First things first. The Cubs need to win a world series. No one is going to let a historic field like Wrigley get razed with a historic drought still in tact. And furthermore, nothing’s going to happen until the sale of the team finally goes through. But if the Cubs should manage to bring this season’s success to its ultimate completion, and if the sale goes through this off-season, as most expect, it might be time to start getting the public used to the idea of a new ballpark sometime within the next five years or so.

Jason Marquis had perhaps the most interesting idea. He wants to see a replica ballpark built on the same site. Build a new park, he suggests, with the ivy and the bricks and such still around, but put in modern conveniences like all-new facilities for the players, better concessions and seats for the fans, and a jumbotron (fashioned to resemble the current old-school scoreboard).

I don’t think I can stand for the idea of a jumbotron. I don’t need a screen telling me when to “Make Some Noise!” I’m an informed fan. I know when to make noise. If I’m not making noise, it’s a deliberate choice. Like, I’m not going to make noise to encourage a crappy reliever who shouldn’t even be in the game in the first place (*cough* Howry *cough*). I can think for myself; I don’t need the jumbotron doing the thinking for me. But overall, his idea has merit.

Perhaps my favorite plan is another I’ve heard floated from time-to-time, one somewhat similar to Marquis’ suggestion. Leave everything from foul pole to foul pole in tact. That includes the poles themselves, the ivy, the bleachers and the scoreboard—i.e., the things most quintessentially “Wrigley.” Then, tear the rest of it down and build a modern ballpark with all the bells and whistles we’ve come to expect, but one that still fits structurally and aesthetically with the core of the old park. And then move the iconic marquee to the front of the new park and call it a day.

Of course, this plan would probably mean the Cubs would have to play an entire home season away from Wrigley, most likely playing at US Cellular Field. That might make for rough sailing that season, but it would be worth it in the end. The fans and the history of the team—futile as that history is—are what really make Wrigley a great place to see a game. So long as the new ballpark doesn’t work against that dynamic, I think everyone wins.

Let’s All Hold Out Together

Devin Hester has, at least for now, ended his holdout and reported to training camp. Traditionally, players who hold out don’t get much sympathy from the fans. First of all, it’s hard for a middle class schlub to swallow the notion that anyone making an athlete’s salary, even the lowest of athlete’s salaries, is underpaid. Second of all, it seems selfish. Third of all, there’s the “you made your bed, now lie in it” philosophy that says if you signed your name to a contract, you need to honor your word. No fair going back on it just because you changed your mind.

I am in the camp that thinks that millionaires should stop whining, that it seems selfish because it is, and that your word is your bond. However, notice that nearly all holdouts are in football. Most other sports don’t really have a vocabulary for it, other than the opt-out clauses built into certain contracts, such as the one that A-Rod infamously exercised a little while back.

And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why holdouts run rampant in the NFL while being almost unheard of in other leagues. NFL contracts are not guaranteed. If you sign an MLB contract and then accidentally stab yourself in the hand while trying to put the cap back on the pen and as a result never play another inning, the team will have a hell of a time getting out of even one penny of that contract. But other than signing bonus money, nothing in the NFL is guaranteed.

An MLB contract offers shared risk. The player is giving up the possibility of more money on the open market for the security of a guaranteed payday. In the name of acquiring or keeping a productive player, the team is accepting the possibility that he may underperform, get injured, or otherwise fail to live up to the expectations of the deal. And so Barry Zito makes more than $120 million for serving up meatballs.

However, an NFL contract offers mostly one-sided risk. If a player outperforms his deal in the NFL, he has no recourse. But if he underperforms, the team does have recourse. They simply pull a Heidi Klum and auf wiedersehen! And since the NFL carries perhaps the greatest physical risk of any of the major sports…well, I still can’t condone a holdout, but I can see why they exist.

I don’t claim to know everything about collective bargaining agreements. I do know that the NFL has probably the strictest salary cap in professional sports. I do know that they have a salary floor as well. This prevents the spectacle that we have in the MLB, where the Yankees outspend the Marlins by about a 10:1 ratio, and where revenue sharing can line an owner’s pockets without the benefits ever being passed onto the players themselves. The result is that the NFL is a much more competitive league, and ultimately competition benefits the players when it comes to to commanding a salary on the open market (should they ever get there) and when it comes to winning championships—which is what most all players ultimately claim to be about. In other words, no league is perfect.

Personally, I’d prefer guaranteed contracts. To me, that’s the essence of a contract: both parties binding themselves. If a team can ix-nay a player for underperforming, it seems like a player should have some method of being compensated for overperforming, without alienating fans and teammates by acting like a selfish jerk.

And the league that tries hardest to have it both ways, the NBA, has only done so by building a structure so convoluted that it winds up turning the whole thing into a game of who can best manipulate the system. But, in my opinion, that’s not so bad. If you’re smart enough to master a complicated system AND figure out how to use that system to your best advantage, I say bully for you. Why should you not reap the benefits of that? The downside is that the fans can’t keep up, but few fans care about the economics anyway. NBA fans don’t have to put up with their favorite player holding out, nor do they have to put up with their team getting outspent by some arrogant arseholes from New York. The only downside is that you might have to put up with losing a key role player because all your team could offer was a “mid-level exception,” whatever the bloody heck that means.

All leagues have their systems that can be exploited. Figure out how to build talent in your farm system, and you can succeed on the cheap in the MLB. Figure out how to trade one oft injured, overpaid pitcher for a potential star under your control, and you can succeed in the MLB (nice job, Kenny Williams). Figure out how to lock up the league’s most explosive return man for less than $500K a year, and you can…go 7-9 just one year after making the Superbowl. Good show, Jerry!

The New and Improved Blackhawks

I know that vows have been made not to discuss hockey, but in this case the hockey news affects another Chicago team as well, since the Blackhawks poached well-liked Cubs Team Prez John McDonough to fill the same post in their organization. Can’t really blame McDonough. His future was going to remain up in the air until the Cubs got sold, and that whole business is likewise up in the air. It’s also interesting because McDonough comes from the marketing side of things, so this appears to be yet another step in the Blackhawks’ suddenly aggressive campaign for relevance.

I’m guessing this newfound drive—promising rookies, home games on TV, new and very visible president, etc.—can be traced to one, or both, of two things. I’d like to think that the B’hawks see that the time is ripe for them to return to relevance. Two of the other four professional teams, the Cubs and the Sox, aren’t playing right now. And the other two, the Bears and the Bulls, have been a massive (huge, gigantic, monstrous—take your pick) disappointment so far. Chicago fans expected to have not one but two contending teams to cheer on at this point in time. And what have we got? Zipola. But the Blackhawks have actually been somewhat respectable this year. They’re in the thick of the playoff hunt, notwithstanding the fact that it is still too early in their season to seriously talk playoffs. So there’s the nice and squishy-sounding reason: the Hawks are hoping, in this holiday season, to bring joy to a city full of despondent sports fans.

Now the mean and hard (and far more likely) reason. When Bill Wirtz kicked the bucket a little while back, hockey fans in Chicago seemed torn between two competing impulses. The first impulse was to follow the traditional pattern of lionizing the dead, however much you may have loathed them while they were alive. The second impulse was to conclude that death was no reason not to tell the truth: that Wirtz had all but run the franchise into the ground with his bass-ackward ways of doing things. Far be it for me to speak ill of the dead, but I’m inclined to follow the latter impulse. And while I’m sure that Rocky Wirtz, “Dollar” Bill’s son and new Blackhawks Chief (oh come on, let me have that one), would never be caught saying mean things about his recently deceased father, his actions have not been a ringing endorsement of ol’ Billy-boy. I’m sure Wirtz the Younger will continue to pay lip service to all the wonderful things his father did for the franchise, but actions speak a whole lot louder than words. There is no greater indictment of Wirtz the Elder’s handling of the Blackhawks than the fact that his son has run fast and far in the exact opposite direction.

And you know what? Good for him. Good for him for not caving to pressure to carry on the tradition that his father began. Some traditions are better off dying out.