The Cubs’ Offseason Sucked

Sports Illustrated’s Jon Heyman threw together a list of the eight most disappointing offseasons in Major League Baseball this year, and – no surprise – the Chicago Cubs made the cut. In fact they came in at number two behind only the New York Mets, who at least added a big bat in Jason Bay. High praise, this is not.

It’s never going to be a great winter when the big goal is to undo the biggest move of the winter before. They did finally get rid of Milton Bradley but had to take Carlos Silva, poster of an impossibly bad 8.60 ERA last year and one of the worst pitchers in baseball since signing for $48 million over four years, in return from Seattle. Marlon Byrd’s acquisition allows them to move Kosuke Fukudome to right field, where he’s excellent, although Byrd isn’t exactly a Gold Glover in center. John Grabow was overpaid at $7.5 mil for two years, and Xavier Nady seems similarly fortunate to get $3.3 million (plus $2 million in incentives) given that he didn’t play after April last year and needed a second Tommy John surgery. But the bigger issues were beyond their control. Ted Lilly’s injury could be a big blow, and Alfonso Soriano proved to be even more untradeable than [Luis] Castillo. No matter, they remain very talented and still have an excellent shot to get back to the playoffs. Jon Heyman – SI.com.

Although I don’t agree with his assessment of the Xavier Nady signing, which I regard as the team’s best move this offseason, and his comment that Alfonso Soriano “proved” untradeable seems strange given the Cubs never endeavored to trade him (did they?), Heyman is spot on in the rest.

Heyman didn’t even mention the fact that the 2010 Cubs are down one very good starting pitcher in Rich Harden.

Live Together, Die Alone: LOST and the Chicago Cubs

“Every man for himself is not going to work. It’s time to start organizing. We need to figure out how we’re going to survive here. Now, I found water. Fresh water, up in the valley. I’ll take a group in at first light. If you don’t want to go, then find another way to contribute. Last week most of us were strangers. But we’re all here now. And God knows how long we’re going to be here. But if we can’t live together, we’re going to die alone.” - Jack Shephard

I have generally avoided using this space to pontificate on things personal and outside of baseball. I figure you all come here to read about the Cubs, not my thoughts on health care reform. And for a guy who has an obsession with the television show LOST that is equaled only by his obsession with the Cubs, it’s hard not to go off about the show from time to time. Warning: this is one of those times.

But the truth is, this post is as much about the Cubs as it is about LOST. The parallels weaving their way through the show, the Chicago Cubs, and Cubs fandom are worth at least one, little article as we approach tonight’s premiere of the much-anticipated final season and dramatic conclusion of LOST. The article’s a bit longer than our usual fare here at Bleacher Nation, but I think it’s worth your time if you’re a fan of the Cubs or a fan of the show. Keep reading up on the Cubs-LOST crossover.

Andrew Cashner Could Wind Up the Cubs Fifth Starter

At the outset of the 2010 season, the Chicago Cubs will have two holes to fill in their rotation – those left by Ted Lilly, who will be recovering from shoulder surgery, and Rich Harden, who will probably also be recovering from shoulder problems, but will be doing so in Texas. The Cubs are expected to fill the slots internally, with the primary candidates being Sean Marshall, Tom Gorzelanny, Jeff Samardzija, and Carlos Silva.

But there is another possibility: the Cubs’ 2008 first round pick, Andrew Cashner.

“I need to have a good spring training, and whether I make the team or not, I still can make a good impression for later on down the road,” Cashner said. “I have a chance at the rotation and a chance at the bullpen, so I have to pitch good and let (the Cubs’ organization) do the worrying.”

Cashner was selected by the Cubs 19th overall in the 2008 draft. Since then, he has worked his way up through the Minor Leagues quickly, posting a 2.60 earned run average in 24 games played in 2009 in both the A and AA levels.

Right now, Cashner spends his off-season days in Tomball, Texas, near his hometown of Conroe, working out with former Horned Frogs-turned-professionals, brothers Chad and Royce Huffman. With some hard work, Cashner said he has a good chance to get his shot at the big show sometime this season, if not at the beginning.

“I’ve just got to make the team first,” Cashner said with a chuckle, bringing himself back to the present. “Even if I don’t make it, guys get hurt later on in the year, and I think I’d have a good chance later in the season, but I’m going to give it my best shot. I just want to help the team win and help them get to the World Series.”

In his time at TCU, Cashner was utilized out of the bullpen as a closer, shutting down opposing offenses with a powerful fastball. However, at the Major Leagues level, Cashner said he would like to see batters from the other side of the game and gain valuable lessons from the four starters the Cubs already have slotted for starting roles.

“I think being in (the Cubs’) starting rotation, that would be awesome,” Cashner said. “There’s some great guys to learn from. I mean you’ve got (Carlos) Zambrano, (Ryan) Dempster, (Ted) Lilly and (Randy) Wells up there right now. There are guys that have been there for a while and can really help you out a lot.” TCU Daily Skiff.

Manager Lou Piniella mentioned at the Cubs Convention last month that Cashner would be given a chance to win the fifth starter spot. Cashner was brilliant last year in his first full professional season, but because he was a reliever in college, the Cubs had him on a pretty serious pitch count. It seems highly unlikely that he would be ready to not only go deep enough into Major League games as would be necessary, but also to go the full season.

Still, he’ll have a shot, and he’s certainly got the stuff. It’s more likely that Cashner makes his way up to the big club via the bullpen in the second half of the season, not unlike Jeff Samardzija did two years ago.

Boing: Cubs Actively Pursuing Ben Sheets

For weeks I’ve contended that the Chicago Cubs, rather than focusing on the bullpen, should be looking to pick up another starting pitcher. With Ted Lilly laid up following shoulder surgery (notice how his return ETA keeps getting pushed back? It’s now been reported that early May is “optimistic”), and Rich Harden off to Texas, the Cubs rotation to start the year is Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster, Randy Wells, and then two question marks.

That said, the kind of pitcher I had in mind was a Jon Garland type – consistently good, if not great, but reliable, veteran, and somewhat inexpensive.

But if the Cubs instead are wanting to take a run at a guy who offers incredibly high upside together with the risk of injury… ah, what the hell. Go for it: the Cubs are actively pursuing pitcher Ben Sheets.

General manager Jim Hendry declined to comment, but he spoke to Sheets’ agent at the winter meetings in Indianapolis and major-league sources say the Cubs are one of Sheet’s preferred destinations.

Sheets reportedly has been asking for a two-year deal averaging around $10 million to $12 million per year, but the Cubs believe they have a good shot at landing him with an incentive-laden deal.

The 31-year-old right-hander, who spent his entire career with the Brewers, has a history of injuries, including arm and back problems, an inner-ear infection and blisters. He missed the 2009 season following elbow surgery. chicagotribune.com.

As the offseason drags on without serious rumors attached to Sheets’ name, things only look better for the Cubs. It is possible that no team is willing to offer a good deal of guaranteed money. If that’s the case, the Cubs have as good a shot as any team at landing Sheets.

Let’s just hope that Sheets agrees to provide his medical records to the Cubs before they make any kind of serious commitment.

The 2009 Chicago Cubs: Recalling Those “Worst Case Scenarios”

Oh those Chicago Cubs. They are, as always, predictably unpredictable – with the exception that they are predictably disappointing. Now, with the advent of 2010, we can finally reflect dispassionately on the 2009 Chicago Cubs.

The 2009 iteration of the Cubs was no exception in the disappointment department. We didn’t quite know how things would play out, but we knew it would end with us nestled up to a gutter, clinging to our hopes for next year like a vagrant clings to his dwindling bottle of booze – to which we are also clinging.

Still, we didn’t think it would be quite this bad. The 2008 Cubs, after all, had been the best in the National League, and the team had added a full year of Rich Harden and a new, stellar switch hitter in right field. But a certain level of skepticism was necessary for protection from heartache. To that end, we had this to say:

We know, intellectually, the 2009 season will not play out as we project. Seasons never do. However, we assume that it will play out closer to the averages, to our expectations, than something else.

But what if that something else happens? What if – God, yes God, forbid – the worst happens? Not just for a couple players, but for every single Chicago Cub. What would that season look like, and would you survive it?

And with that, we laid out the worst case scenarios for the 2009 Chicago Cubs – never believing, of course, that the foreboding predictions would prove closer to reality than the outlandish fiction they were supposed to approach. Like a certain episode of the Simpsons, we thought, certainly something bad could befall one of the Cubs. Maybe even two. Maybe even three Cubs would struggle for various reasons. But all of them (except Homer)? Surely that’s the stuff of fantasy.

Or nightmare. Because those “worst case scenarios” absolutely became our hellish reality in 2009. Enter the nightmare, after the jump.

The Cubs Are Talking to Ben Sheets

Much like the rumor that the Chicago Cubs are pursuing starting pitcher Joel Piniero (Buster Olney even had the Cubs as the “leader” at one point), there is a rumor involving the Cubs and a starting pitcher making the rounds that I’d like to be true, but almost certainly isn’t. Or, more precisely, the rumor isn’t quite as certain as it sounds.

Various reports (most of which are originating with ESPN) indicate that the Cubs have been talking to free agent pitcher Ben Sheets. You’ll remember Sheets from his time with the Milwaukee Brewers; time alternately spent schooling fools and rehabbing something or other.

2009 was a completely lost season to Sheets as he could not find a team willing to pay him to not pitch (everyone knew his elbow was about to ess-splode), so he had surgery and rehabbed. He now says he’s back and ready to go. Sounds like a great guy to sign to a one-cheap-year-plus-bigger-money-option-year deal, no? Well, yeah. Except he wants his big money now. More on Sheets and the Cubs, after the jump.

Rich Harden is a Texas Ranger

Fresh on the heels of trading Kevin Millwood, the Texas Rangers have signed Cubs castoff Rich Harden. The deal is reportedly a one-year, $7.5 million deal with a $11.5 million option (presumably a team option) for 2011, per NBC Sports.

This signing – and the speed of it – definitely lends credence to the theory that Harden would have accepted arbitration from the Cubs.

Still doesn’t excuse not trading him mid-season, of course.

Bruce Miles Defends the Harden Arbitration Decision – and Fails

The Chicago Cubs’ decision yesterday to not offer arbitration to pitcher Rich Harden has been the subject of much hand wringing. We’ve been no exception. So it is a credit to anyone who can cogently defend the move, as Bruce Miles has done. But that said, Bruce is just plain wrong.

I really hate to do it, because I generally find Bruce Miles to be the best of the Cubs’ mainstream writers.

It’s been pretty clear since the middle of last summer that the Cubs were not going to offer arbitration to Harden, and this has been the subject of much consternation among some followers of the Cubs. Harden, a Type B free agent, made $7 million last year, and it’s possible that he and his agent would be seeking $10 million or more in arbitration. DailyHerald.com Blogs.

If it has been clear since mid-summer, the Cubs should have put on the full-court-press to move Harden when their chances in the NL Central (don’t get me started on the Wild Card – er, actually, I’ll get started in a few paragraphs) fizzled around the same time.

Further, where does that $10 million number come from? First of all, just because Harden would seek it doesn’t mean he’d get it. I’ve been seeking Jessica Simpson for years, and I still can’t get it (even after she … expanded). Harden would assuredly get a raise, but there is no reason to believe he would get a near 50% raise for barely topping 140 innings, posting an ERA over 4 and a .500 winning percentage.

If the Cubs offered arbitration to [Harden] (or to Johnson, who made $3 million), [he] would immediately accept, and the Cubs would be on the hook to pay out money they don’t have.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Is this based on some information to which you are privy that we all are not? I have read nothing – not one thing – that would indicate that Harden was a lock to accept arbitration. To the contrary, I’ve read multiple reports regarding other teams who are interested in signing Harden. Immediately accept? Without exploring those possibilities? Absurd.

Let’s see how it plays out with Harden. Teams figure to be very cautious about handing out a multiyear deal to a pitcher with a history of shoulder problems and to a guy who had to be held out of starts near the end of the year.

Ah, so if the gamble in not offering Harden arbitration happens to prove correct (i.e., Harden does not get a better deal than he would have by accepting arbitration with the Cubs), then Jim Hendry gets the credit. Fair enough. Except…

The other question I’ve been asked is why the Cubs didn’t trade Harden to Minnesota after the Twins claimed him on waivers in August. From what I’ve been told, there would not have been much in the way of prospects coming back, and the Cubs weren’t ready to quit on the season at that point.

Hendry was WRONG about that gamble! Jim Hendry gambled that Rich Harden’s presence in September would somehow catapult the Cubs over five other teams in the Wild Card race. Albert Pujols couldn’t have done that for the Cubs. And given that Harden ultimately started just three times in September, I’d say this decision was a colossal mistake. So where’s the blame for Hendry?

Not much in the way of prospects? That’s more than not much in the way of anything, no?

The Cubs would never come out and say a guy is a medical risk, but when they praise the pitching coach and trainer for getting the player ready to start 26 games, you can pretty much figure there could be trouble ahead. And what would people be saying if Harden were to blow out in spring training with the Cubs having to pay him $10 million to rehab?

This last point is Bruce’s best, but even it feels like it is lacking. Notably, unless the Cubs became aware of medical issues that precluded offering Harden arbitration only after the trade deadline, they can hardly now offer it as an excuse to having lost Harden for nothing. If the Cubs felt he was such a risk that they might end up paying him big money to rehab next year, that’s a reason to trade him when it should have been clear that the Cubs were realistically out of the race. The fact that Harden was ultimately shut down for the last few weeks of the season only reinforces this point. Are we to believe the Cubs felt it was necessary to Harden’s health – a guy that they knew they weren’t resigning and upon whom they’d pinned their Wild Card hopes – to shut him down, and yet the revelation that Harden had serious shoulder issues had only just dawned on them?

In the muddied mess of possible explanations for this turn of events, none cast the Cubs and Jim Hendry in a positive light. Trying to put together a grab bag of partial explanations, that, when taken together, could possibly explain how the combination of not trading Harden and then not offering him arbitration was not a comedy of errors is a mistake. Sometimes a spade is a spade.

Next Page »