Why the 2010 Milwaukee Brewers Will Suck

Editor’s Note: Yes, it’s that time of year again - the time for us to settle back into our protective bubble where the Chicago Cubs are destined for greatness, and every other team in the National League Central is bound for spectacular failure. If you’d care to check out last year’s fare:St. Louis Cardinals, Cincinnati Reds, Milwaukee Brewers, Pittsburgh Pirates, Houston Astros. Already featured for 2010: Cincinnati Reds, Houston Astros.

The 2010 Major League Baseball season is nearly upon us, and that means two things: (1) we’re all so deprived of real baseball action that we’re willing to treat meaningless Spring Training games like they’re the playoffs, and (2) the prognosticators are out in full force. Yes, every sports publication in the world puts out a season preview. Some are interesting, some aren’t. For the most part, folks just don’t have the time necessary to do the kind of in-depth preview that is going to be of any use to a reader that actually follows the team being previewed.

So most previews end up being pretty surface level, and boring. Well, we’re not going to do that here at Bleacher Nation. It’s much more interesting (notice how I subtly pat myself on the back?) to simply examine why the team currently sucks and is going to suck in 2010.

So enjoy - we’ll be previewing the suckiness (suckosity?) of the other teams in the National League Central over the next five weeks. Up next, Bud Selig’s favorite beer-swillers, the Milwaukee Brewers. Read the full preview on why the 2010 Milwaukee Brewers will suck, after the jump.

Share

Why the 2010 Houston Astros Will Suck

Editor’s Note: Yes, it’s that time of year again - the time for us to settle back into our protective bubble where the Chicago Cubs are destined for greatness, and every other team in the National League Central is bound for spectacular failure. If you’d care to check out last year’s fare:St. Louis Cardinals, Cincinnati Reds, Milwaukee Brewers, Pittsburgh Pirates, Houston Astros. Already featured for 2010: Cincinnati Reds.

The 2010 Major League Baseball season is nearly upon us, and that means two things: (1) we’re all so deprived of real baseball action that we’re willing to treat meaningless Spring Training games like they’re the playoffs, and (2) the prognosticators are out in full force. Yes, every sports publication in the world puts out a season preview. Some are interesting, some aren’t. For the most part, folks just don’t have the time necessary to do the kind of in-depth preview that is going to be of any use to a reader that actually follows the team being previewed.

So most previews end up being pretty surface level, and boring. Well, we’re not going to do that here at Bleacher Nation. It’s much more interesting (notice how I subtly pat myself on the back?) to simply examine why the team currently sucks and is going to suck in 2010.

So enjoy - we’ll be previewing the suckiness (suckosity?) of the other teams in the National League Central over the next five weeks. Up first, the home of Fat Elvis: the Houston Astros. Read the full preview on why the 2010 Houston Astros will suck, after the jump.

Share

Why the 2010 Cincinnati Reds Will Suck

Editor’s Note: Yes, it’s that time of year again - the time for us to settle back into our protective bubble where the Chicago Cubs are destined for greatness, and every other team in the National League Central is bound for spectacular failure. If you’d care to check out last year’s fare: St. Louis Cardinals, Cincinnati Reds, Milwaukee Brewers, Pittsburgh Pirates, Houston Astros.

The 2010 Major League Baseball season is nearly upon us, and that means two things: (1) we’re all so deprived of real baseball action that we’re willing to treat meaningless Spring Training games like they’re the playoffs, and (2) the prognosticators are out in full force. Yes, every sports publication in the world puts out a season preview. Some are interesting, some aren’t. For the most part, folks just don’t have the time necessary to do the kind of in-depth preview that is going to be of any use to a reader that actually follows the team being previewed.

So most previews end up being pretty surface level, and boring. Well, we’re not going to do that here at Bleacher Nation. It’s much more interesting (notice how I subtly pat myself on the back?) to simply examine why the team currently sucks and is going to suck in 2010.

So enjoy - we’ll be previewing the suckiness (suckosity?) of the other teams in the National League Central over the next five weeks. Up first, the ward of the gentleman to the right: the Cincinnati Reds. Read the full preview on why the 2010 Cincinnati Reds will suck, after the jump.

Share

Baseball Prospectus Projects the 2010 Cubs to Suck

We’re coming up on Spring Training, which means it’s time to start prognosticating. For us here at Bleacher Nation, it means our series of posts about why each team in the National League Central is going to suck (are you getting excited?).

But Baseball Prospectus has jumped the gun on projecting the entire NL Central to suck this year, including the Chicago Cubs. BP puts together projected W/L records for every team in the majors based on the component pieces of their team.

The good news is that BP sees the St. Louis Cardinals winning just 79 games, and the Brewers winning just 81. The bad news is that they see the Cubs winning just 76 games - finishing 10 games under .500. They’ve got the Brewers winning the division with their .500 record, topping the Cardinals, Reds, Cubs, Astros, and Pirates, in that order.

The key to the Cubs’ projected struggles? Nope, not the offense, which they project to be average. It’s the pitching and defense: the Cubs are expected to give up the third most runs in the entire National League. Finally someone has noticed the potential pitching disaster looming for the Cubs.

Share

After a Physical, Xavier Nady Will Be a Chicago Cub

Yesterday, the Chicago Cubs agreed to terms with outfielder Xavier Nady on a one-year, $3.3 million deal, which also offers some $2 million in incentives for games played. Nady, 31, essentially did not play last year after elbow problems led to his second Tommy John surgery. Now fully-recovered, the Cubs hope Nady can be a good platoon-mate for Kosuke Fukudome in right field, and can back-up Alfonso Soriano in left field and Derrek Lee at first base. Nady is expected to take his physical later this week, and because of the two Tommy John surgeries, it is less perfunctory than others might be.

In his last full season - the 2008 season, split between the Pirates and the Yankees - Nady was excellent: .305/.357/.510, with 25 homers, 97 RBI, and 37 doubles. Had Nady put up those numbers last year for the Cubs, he would have been the best outfielder, and second best hitter on the entire team. His career line is a very solid .280/.335/.458. The guy can hit.

If Nady starts putting up those 2008 kind of numbers, it will be hard to keep him out of the starting lineup. However, expecting a return to top numbers is probably a bit ambitious - but not for the reason you might think. I am much less concerned about any lingering elbow issues, which should have a minimal effect on Nady at the plate. Instead, I am more concerned with the fact that he has not faced Major League pitching in over a year. Hopefully he’s completely healthy in Spring Training, and can take that time to see a whole lot of pitches.

In the field, of course, Nady’s elbow will be something of a concern. Positional players who return from Tommy John surgery are less impacted than pitchers, but usually there is a visible impact. Prior to this second surgery - the first was almost ten years ago - Nady was considered an average defender in the corner outfield spots, and a below average defender in center field, where he hasn’t played in a few years. He hasn’t played at first base much in the past few years, but presumably his defense there is nothing special.

In the end, if healthy, Xavier Nady makes this Chicago Cubs team much better. In fact, he probably makes the team better than almost any bench signing could. But the “if healthy,” as it is with any player, is a huge caveat here. I feel strangely confident in that regard. Given the plethora of options for the Cubs - Jonny Gomes, Jermaine Dye, Reed Johnson, Rocco Baldelli - I don’t think the team would have given Nady such a relatively large guaranteed commitment if they weren’t confident about his health.

One last interesting tidbit: Nady will make more this year than the free agent “starting” outfielder the Cubs signed. Marlon Byrd’s 2010 salary is just $3 million, compared to Nady’s $3.3. Of course, Byrd’s three-year deal was heavily backloaded, and averages $5 million per year. Then again, if Nady hits his performance bonuses, he’ll eclipse that number, too.

Share

Neal Cotts is a Pittsburgh Pirate

The Pittsburgh Pirates have signed (now) former Chicago Cubs reliever Neal Cotts to a minor league deal. Cotts is rehabbing from mid-season Tommy John surgery, and was non-tendered by the Cubs earlier this offseason. Most thought Cotts would accept a minor league deal with the Cubs, but perhaps he realized that if he makes it back next year, he’ll have a better shot of making the big club in Pittsburgh than in Chicago.

Cotts was a bit of a bust with the Cubs, never again finding the dominating success that he saw in 2005 (what? a non-closer reliever who had big time success in one season but was otherwise unpredictable? zoinks!). Neither was he particularly effective as the designated “lefty” in the pen.

Share

Matt Capps is Gonna Get Paid

Reliever Matt Capps, who had an ERA approaching 6 last year, has drawn a tremendous amount of attention this offseason following his non-tender by the Pittsburgh Pirates. Among the interested teams, the Chicago Cubs want to insert him into the bullpen in a set-up role. With extremely limited funds available to make moves, the Cubs have already sunk nearly $4 million for 2010 into Capps’ former teammate, John Grabow. Surely, the Cubs wouldn’t drop that kind of money again on another far-from-a-sure-thing reliever?

Right? Right?

According to MLB sources, Capps will receive somewhere between $7 and 8 million as part of a two-year contact. The Cubs have strong Interest (sic.) in Capps, who would go into the role of the primary setup man from the right side in the bullpen. Capps would also give manager Lou Piniella a solid backup closer to finish games off when Marmol wasn’t available.

With the addition of Capps, the back end of the Cubs bullpen would be among the strongest in the National League. ESPN Chicago.

How many years, following big money free agent signings by Jim Hendry, in a row have we heard some variation of “this year’s bullpen is totally going to be a strength”? It feels like it’s every single year. And it probably is.

If the Cubs land Capps, they will have spent some $8 million of the 2010 payroll - practically all of the amount we were led to believe the Cubs had available to spend - on two relievers, neither of whom is even remotely a lock to be a quality option next year.

Sobering thought - neither Capps nor Grabow has been as successful as any of the following relievers in the years before they joined the Cubs: Scott Eyre, Bobby Howry, Mike Remlinger, LaTroy Hawkins.

Share

Jim Hendry Hearts Relievers: Cubs Are Finalist for Capps

After finally trading Milton Bradley, Jim Hendry can turn his focus to the clear, singular problem with this team: the lack of middle relief.

Um. Guh?

Matt Capps is the primary target this point. Capps, the closer for the Pittsburgh Pirates last year, was absolutely terrible, posting a 5.80 ERA. He was therefore non-tendered by the club, but he’s drawn heavy interest as a free agent because he’s still relatively young, and because prior to last year, he was pretty darn good.

And among those teams, the Cubs look to be a finalist.

Capps’ agent, Paul Kinzer, said Capps could be down to two teams today, the Cubs and almost certainly the Washington Nationals, who are offering a chance to close. ”That’s the only thing the Cubs have going against them,” Kinzer said. CHICAGO SUN-TIMES.

The Nationals are rumored to be offering only one year, which means the Cubs are probably offering two. Which, like, Hendry, duh.

Share

Next Page »