Quantcast

Travis Wood pitched well, but Shelby Miller held the Cubs down for five scoreless innings and the Cardinals bullpen did the rest. Dale Sveum got the boot in this one, arguing a call at home plate (Sveum was right about it), which would have seen the Cubs lose by at least one fewer run.

Darwin Barney hit a homer. So that was cool.

There was also this …

june 17 box

Full box.

  • Jan Forty-Two

    With the nonproductive Cubs offense, there should be a new pitcher statistic: The Cubs Quality Start. Give up no runs at all and you earn one.

    • Leroy K

      This. I guarantee we lead the league with quality starts/blown saves–or blown leads with middle relief/setup/closer’s in…

      • baldtaxguy

        I think the point was more of the lack of offensive production and less about pen performance. Ts, Cubs are likely high in league for blown save/blown leads stats.

      • http://msn Sacko

        The last I heard we have lost the lead 20 times to loose. And it leads the majors, what a surprise.

        • DarthHater

          The correct word is “loost,” not “lost.”

        • @cubsfantroy

          My head just exploded.

  • Chad

    Travis Woods E.R.A. 2.74, his BA .276. That’s awesome

    • baldtaxguy

      I agree. I’m sold on him. Maybe an extension?

      • bryan

        How many arb years he have left?

  • Frank

    I loved that play at the plate. Did anyone notice them laughing in the dugout after the play?

    • baldtaxguy

      Yes. Probably more at the ump’s pathetic call than at Molina’s speed.

  • Frank

    They’ll trade Wood. Why in the world would you want to keep a 26 year old pitcher that’s pitching coming into his own? If you did keep him, you’d have to have players behind him that could hit on a consistent basis.
    It was nice to see Barney hit one last night, but I wish he could be a singles and doubles machine.

    • Carew

      That’s exactly why you keep him. He’s a 26 year old coming into his own…

      • Chad

        I think it was sarcasm. . .

        • BluBlud

          Yeah, I’m pretty sure it was. I guess with no smiley, it was hard to tell.

      • http://msn Sacko

        It’s very possible that we will keep him, as he is one of Epstein’s trades.

  • Ron

    You know it was a bad call when the announcers keep repeating it. Is it just me or did they quit using the pitch tracks with Shelby Miller because the ump kept giving him an extra two inches outside?

    • PRcajun

      saw that and was thinking the same. at least it was consistent…that low and outside strike to righties….brutal

  • Frank

    I have a suggestion. Wire the plate. The foot or any other body part touches the plate and a big red light goes on and maybe a beep. It can’t hurt. The umpires this year are blowing calls at an alarming rate.

    • JOE

      What if the catcher (or in last night’s case, the pitcher) blocking the plate touches it and it goes off?

  • mdavis

    is it time yet to give castro and rizzo a day off? i say yes. svuem says they need to play another 100 games first, then he’ll start thinking about it.

  • Voice of Reason

    This is one of the reasons that the Jackson sign was stupid. Jackson could be pitching as well as wood and have the same record. Last year Dempster was in the hunt early in the year for the e.r.a. crown yet his record was bad.

    It doesn’t matter who pitches for this cubs team. Its the worst cub offensive team ever.

    Jackson wasn’t needed because were going no where except maybe the final year of his bloated deal. They should have signed another reclamation project that they could have traded. Jackson would have been a great sign if the cubs were in a position to win. The next time they are there will be another average starter like Jackson who eats innings.

    I shook my head when they did it and I’m still amazed that they did.

    • BT

      But if the Cubs need him next year, after they trade/lose to FA Garza, Baker, and Feldman, he would no longer be available. You have to sign guys when they are available, not necessarily when they fit your plans.

  • Chad

    The point was they signed Jackson for 4 years because they will be competitive in the 3rd and 4th years ideally.

    • Kyle

      It is very bizarre to me that people can’t see how terrible this idea is. Of course they didn’t do that.

      They signed him because they wanted him to pitch and help them win games in all four seasons. They didn’t pay him for four seasons just to get the two at the end.

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

        They probably should have just signed him after this season when he was back on the free agent market!

        • Kyle

          If your choices are not signing anyone and signing mid-level SP to a 2-year, $52 million deal two years in advance, then even I’m going to say just pass.

          • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

            For me, I include 2014, as well, so it’s three out of four. But here’s the point: your position requires you to believe that the front office would have NOT signed Jackson if they had known for sure that 2013 was going to be a lost season.

            Do you really believe they would have refused to sign Jackson to a four-year deal if they’d known, for sure, that 2013 was going to be crap?

            • Kyle

              Yes. But they didn’t believe that, so it’s moot.

              • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                I wouldn’t call it moot – I’d call it academic. Just a discussion.

                • Kyle

                  Fair enough.

                  2012 was a lost season. They signed virtually nobody.

                  2013, they committed about $100m to new free agents. They were taking a shot.

              • BT

                It amazes me that you don’t understand that people keep bringing this point (that he will help fill the rotation in later years) up to counter people who claim Jackson was a bad signing for 2013.

                • Kyle

                  There’s a difference between “he’ll still be around later” and “this year was of no use to us”

            • YourResidentJag

              That’s irrelevant. The Jackson doesn’t make sense because the Cubs have proven that can acquire SP with past histories of 2-3WAR value. Jackson has that same value. No reason to sign him, even if that his particular market value. Also, the Nationals didn’t want to extend. You could say bad move on their part. I would say that they had more confidence in getting Dan Haren to fill that role.

              • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                I’m not really sure what part of that to respond to. I’m tempted to just do this: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/harenda01.shtml

                • YourResidentJag

                  So, you’re not willing to respond to the fact that the Cubs found 2-3 WAR SP in Malholm, Baker, Wood, Feldman for a fraction of the cost and lesser years. Look up the season were these SP were having effective seasons or tabulate the mean WAR of guys like Scott Baker. I could link to multiple baseball reference articles, but as I see, from your last post, you already know how to do that. ;)

                  Couple that with the fact that Nats were willing to go 1 year on a deal with Haren when they could have Jackson. Sum it up. The Jackson really was not worth it. And I believe that Jackson is due for more starts like his recent ones, BTW.

  • Frank

    Is it me or does anyone else notice the correlation between signing a big contract and suddenly not hitting worth a snot? It might just be the voices in my head giving me bad info.

    • Edwin

      There could be some selection bias as well. Typically players who reach free agency are either in the middle of their skill peak, or right about at the age that they’ll start to decline (age 27-30). Most of the players that sign for big money probably had a “career” year the year or two leading up to FA, so in most cases they have almost nowhere to go but down.

      Also, the big contracts that “fail” seem to stick out more than the big contracts that work out. Since they’re not the “expected” result, they’re more noticeable, so you’re right. It very well could be more a case of the “voices in your head” remembering the big contracts that don’t work out compared to the big contracts that do.

      • Hansman1982

        Typically contracts between 3 and 5 years end up being a bust and will usually achieve negative WAR. Contracts of 6+ years fare much better but the best contracts end up being 1-2 years.

        In the past 5 years, teams have spent, on average, $11M per WAR via free agent contracts.

        • Edwin

          How do you define “bust”, and how do they achieve negative WAR? Are you saying that most free agents are worth a negative WAR over the life of the contract?

    • Hansman1982

      If you are talking about Castro, he hit pretty well late last year and for May this year. I chose to believe they are doing something major with his pitch selection and this is part of the process.

  • @Rooting4Wrigley

    That call cost them two runs, not one, because that sac fly for the second would’ve just ended the inning. Hard to say what the real impact was. Stuff like that really hurts your morale and motivates the opposition.

    • Voice of Reason

      It doesn’t matter if the cubs win or lose its about developing the young talent this year. This team is going no where. In fact you should hope they lose so they get a top draft pick again.

      Were building for the future and doing it right this time.

      • Frank

        Here we go with the “We’re building for the future and doing it right this time” crap. How much building is needed? The Cubs farm system went from #22 to #5 this year. Do you really think their going to catch the shitbirds farm system? Not likely.

        And while I’m at it, how old are you? I ask because you seem so patient with the rebuilding, like you have all the time in the world. I’m 64, how patient do you think I am?

        I can see it now… Headlines… Cubs win the world series!! I’m watching while the nurse wipes the drool from my chin and puts another Depends on me. Damn, life is good and the wait was worth it!

        • BT

          The fact that you are 64 doesn’t magically change the current distribution of talent or the laws of nature. Theo/Jed can’t magically waive a wand and suddenly produce impact free agents to sign or make their farm system progress 2 years in 1 week. They are stuck with the hand they were dealt. You have no choice but to be patient.

          • Frank

            Do you think you need a bunch of impact free agents to be competitive? You can go the route of the Dodgers and the Angels, but that didn’t work out worth a snot. The turdbirds keep bringing players up from their farm system and that seems to be working.

            Yes, they were dealt a crappy hand, but their also doing some crappy deals on their own.

            I’d rather watch the Cubs lose with some rookies than the over priced free agents they signed lately.

            • BT

              Make up your mind Frank, you are all over the place. Now, even though you are 64, you are cool with them losing with rookies? And why are you lecturing me about overpriced free agents? It wasn’t my idea, I assumed it was yours since you believe you have one foot in the grave and want immediate results. And by the way, you should complain about plural over priced free agents. Jackson is pretty much it.

              If you are OK with watching them lose with rookies, then I have no idea what you are griping about. That is what they will be doing for a while. In my opinion, it’s the right movie. Unfortunately, it will take patience. Which, at this point, I’m uncertain you possess.

              • Frank

                I was going to give you an answer, but let’s just close this and say your absolutely right.

        • Hansman1982

          We’ve already caught the cardinals farm system. Just most of that is because they’ve graduated most of their top prospects.

          • Kyle

            I owe you a coke.

        • Kyle

          We’ve already caught the Cardinals’ farm system. If not, then certaily by early next year. Now granted, mostly that’s because they’ve promoted so many great players to the majors and we haven’t.

        • Voice of Reason

          They tried the formula of adding free agents and having a huge payroll and where did it get them?

          The answer is in building a farm system. It does require patience. If you’re 64 then you haven’t seen them win a World Series so you’re not used to what it taste like anyway. What are you worried about??? lol

          I can’t help it that you’re 64! LOL

          • YourResidentJag

            They also tried the Epstein/Hoyer formula circa early to mid 1980s with Dallas Green and where did it get them.

            • ari gold

              Actually it got them one of the best young teams and would have went further if not for piss poor management getting rid of him. Compare all of the draft picks during the Green era to the 90′s draft picks. You’ll be amazed.

              • YourResidentJag

                Exactly. That’s part of my fear with the current operation. We’ll just have to wait it out, though. ;)

            • Voice of Reason

              Dallas Green built a farm system? I must have slept through that.
              When they won it ’84 they bought and traded for all the players less a couple of positions, same thing with 1989.
              Nice try.

              • YourResidentJag

                Dallas Green put together one of the best young teams that the Cubs had intact offensively for a long time. Resemble what Theo is doing by having a young offensive core around for a long time….ummm…..yes I believe it does. It doesn’t necessarily, especially at that time, have to involve drafting and developing your own. Way to think in absolutes.

              • JB88

                Your memory must be different from mine, because I could have sworn they drafted Dunston, Grace, Maddux, Walton, Smith, and Berryhill and used prospects to trade for Sutcliffe. That was a pretty darn big part of their nucleus and all were acquired while Green was at the helm.

                • JB88

                  They also traded prospects and players for Mitch Williams, who was huge for them that year.

              • Spriggs

                Just off the top of my head, there was Maddux, Moyer, Dunston, Rookie of the Year Jerome Walton, Rookie of the Year runner up Dwight Smith, Mark Grace, Girardi… pretty important players from that 89 division winner. Also, developed Palmeiro… More than you just gave him credit for anyway.

                • JB88

                  IIRC, Moyer was part of the trade that landed the Cubs Mitch Williams. I’m also fairly confident that trade took place before the games started in 1989 so, technically, Moyer wasn’t on that team.

  • Voice of Reason

    So then if they are going to be good 3 years from now then sign an innings eating starter then. If they’re not going to be competitive then wait. There are and will be other Edwin Jacksons when they are needed.

    They need to keep signing cheap starters that they can flip and add numbers and talent to the minor league system.

    Jackson wasn’t a good sign any this point period.

  • Voice of Reason

    Jackson wasn’t a good sign at this point it should have said. Damn the spell check…..

    • wvcubsfan

      I disagree that Jackson was a bad signing. One this team needed a proven innings eater going into the year, and no matter how things actually progressed Jackson was the only Cubs pitcher this year that fit that bill.

      Yes we all had high hopes for Shark, but he had issues with high pitch counts often last year and you don’t want to take a chance with him. Garza? Sure but we knew he was coming off an injury. Wood, Baker, Feldman, V? Yes they turned out to be really good (other than Baker) but they were all question marks.

      It’s quite funny that the “surest bet” going into the season has turned out to be the pitcher with the worse record. However, that doesn’t negate the logic behind the deal at the time it was made.

      • Voice of Reason

        Why does a team that will lose 100 games need an innings eater?

        They need chips that they can trade to build for the future. Ain’t nobody taking Jackson.

        • Voice of Reason

          And I’d like an innings eater to do well when he is eating away at the innings!
          Kind of counter productive to have an innings eater — who is supposed to pitch a lot of innings — have an era over 5.

  • bryan

    All you sveum haters just need to wait… I have a feeling 2014 will be his last year and BOLD prediction:

    Joe Girardi signs as the cubs manager.

    Face it, the yanks wont win this season and probably not next which means they will prolly move on with a new manager. As a former cub with experience managing…. just a thought I guess…

  • CraxyHorse

    Maybe its time to fire and hire a new batting coach.

  • Ramon

    Why would you hire Girardi?

    • Jp3

      We should’ve hired Girardi when we had the chance but that’s a discussion for another day. We just had to have a name brand in Pinella, I have no idea why but apparently we did.

  • 5412

    Hi,

    Both cornerstone of our future are hitting .241.

    5413

  • 5412

    Oops fat fingers on iPad

    5412

    • TWC

      Oh, gee, thanks. We never would have figures out who wrote that comment. ::rolls eyes::

      • DarthHater

        Actually, I’d like to hear from 5413. :-P

        • BluBlud

          He not available, but I can get you in touch with 5417.

          • DarthHater

            Naw, that guy sucks.

        • Jp3

          Hi,

          5413 not available

          5413

  • PRcajun

    Hey – how’bout that Henry Rodriguez appearance last night? First he nailed the ump with a 99mph fastball and then he nailed Beltran the very next pitch. I think I like what this kid brings to the table.

    • Alex S.

      He’s throwing pure belly-fire.

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+