Now that I've got my venting out of the way about the Cubs, I better do a preview of my White Sox before I start getting compared to those fans who focus more on hating a team than liking another.
But before I start that, typing that last paragraph got me thinking. "I better do a preview of MY White Sox." Too many people have a problem with the useage of the word "my" when talking about the sports team you root for. Well let's put it this way: If the White Sox play five or six days a week (the norm for a team over the course of a season, and each game last 2 1/2 hours, than I more than likely watch them play anywhere from 10-15 hours a week. If I spent that time doing something "useful" like studying or working out, I'd be a lot more successful in one way or another. But I don't. I choose to use that time watching the team that I love. Not to mention the fact that the money I spend on tickets, parking, concessions, and memorabilia probably equals somewhere around $300-500 a year (except last year where I spent well over $500 and attended 12 games). The point is, I think I've invested enough time, money, and even energy rooting for them, that I've earned the right to call the White Sox MY team. And so has anyone who cares about their team enough.
ANYWAYS, enough ranting.
I've gone through this entire offseason not quite knowing what I'm to think about the 2007 Chicago White Sox. In a sense, I'm pissed about their offense and incredibly pessimistic about their chances judging by their offseason moves. This in turn pisses me off more because I want another season like 2005.
But at the same time I can be really optimistic. Because after all, we won a World Series in 2005 and I have to abide by the Sports Guy's Sports Fan's Rule that you can't bitch about management for five years after winning a Championship. So part of me wants to look at the McCarthy trade, the lack of any big move and the Vasquez extension and say Hey, it's Kenny Williams. He won us our first Championship since my grandparents were kids; I'm going to trust anything he does until it doesn't work.
And you know what? That's exactly the mentality that I'm going to enter this season with. I expect the White Sox to compete and play well because we have the management that can build a winner and coaches who can coach them. I don’t expect them to win a Championship this year, but I expect them to be competitive enough that come October they have chance to win another one. And I’m perfectly OK with that.
The team breaks down interestingly. The fact that it’s basically the same team from last year which wasn’t incredibly different from the ’05 team makes it completely plausible that they get out to a hot start like they did in ’05. But the question marks they have mean they could just as easily start off slow and with the Twins, Tigers, and Indians, that could be futile.
The team’s biggest question is obviously the fifth starter. And anybody who followed the team closely before the ’05 season knows how horrible it can be without a fifth starter as in 2004 White Sox’s fifth starters went a combined 1-657.
So to start the White Sox hopes in 2007 are on the shoulders of John Danks. Apparently he was one of the minor leaguers who came over in the McCarthy trade, but I didn’t know that because I was so befuddled at the deal at the time that I didn’t even take the time to find out who we got for him. Danks beat out Gavin Floyd for the spot by throwing four one-hit innings vs. the Rockies in the same game that Floyd gave up a grand slam. Danks followed that up by giving up six runs and a ridiculous six walks in 4 2/3 innings vs. the Diamondbacks.
Now I refuse to watch exhibition baseball, so I have yet to see Danks, Floyd, or anybody else pitch this season, so to be fair, I can’t accurately assess how either has looked. So I’m going to take the same stance on this as I will on most subjects until I see the team for a good portion of the season. Assume it will all be OK, because it’s in the hands of Kenny Williams, Ozzie Guillen, and Don Cooper.
The team’s other major concern is what to do with centerfield. Fans have been crying for Aaron Rowand back and ESPN.com’s Rumor Central occasionally puts something up about the White Sox being in discussions with the Phillies about getting him back. While it would be nice to see A-Row back on the south side, I don’t think the centerfield situation is really in as much shambles as people think, and I wouldn’t give up too much to get Rowand back.
The team did acquire Darin Erstad, who’s a former gold glover that fits the “Ozzie-ball” approach the team wants so badly to revert back to. He’s one of those sold, “go-about-my-business” types of guys who just know how to play baseball. From what I understand he’s going to be the opening day centerfielder and I’ve got no beef with that whatsoever. He’s definitely good for .270, 15, and 70 if he stays healthy.
And if Erstad does get hurt or his age wears on him, the team still has Brian Anderson, Ryan Sweeney and Jerry Owens. Unlike every White Sox fan who has ever called into 670 The Score’s White Sox radio show, I’m still optimistic about BA. I don’t want the White Sox to give up on Anderson for the same reason they never gave up on Joe Crede. If you remember, Crede started his career very similarly but wasn’t as good as Anderson defensively. He struggled to find his swing for a good two-plus years but once he finally panned out he became an extremely important piece in the ’05 title. Anderson’s a former number one pick; he obviously knows how to swing the bat. He just needs to put it all together, much like Crede did, and Sox fans won’t be disappointed in him anymore. Look out for him to have a breakout 2007 campaign.
Aside from Danks as the fifth starter, the rest of the White Sox rotation looks the same as last season, which could be viewed as good or bad depending on how you look at it. Bad it you look at all of their 4-plus ERA’s. Good, if you look at the fact that they’re all guys who you know what you can potentially get from them when they’re on. Plus, Jon Garland has the potential to make the leap to 20 wins this year. The guy was lights out at the end of last season and his success compiled with the White Sox’s offense on potential off nights could very easily pull him up from 18 wins two years in a row up to 20 and possibly a Cy Young candidate if he drops his ERA.
Buehrle, Contreras and Coop are all too smart to let Buehrle and Contreras have seasons like they did a year ago. Especially Buehrle. He’s been the White Sox’s most consistent starter over the past five years and has always been able to bounce back from rough patches, so why shouldn’t he be able to this season. Not to mention the huge lingering fact that he’s a free agent after the season. I mean, lefties are already valuable, just ask Ted Lilly, so Buehrle could easily go 14-15 and still make $8 million next season. But if he comes back with a 17-9 season or something like that he’ll be the most sought after free agent on the market, and Kenny should be willing to give him what he wants.
Vasquez, on the other hand, is an enigma. In his early years with Montreal he was the young phenom who just needed to move to a big market and get recognized. So he gets signed by the biggest market imaginable, New York, and pulled a Hideki Irabu. He’s a strikeout machine and a run machine and one of those two are bound to take over at any time. That’s why, next to Danks, Vasquez is the biggest question mark on the White Sox’s pitching staff this season. It’s just really, really hard to support Williams extending him with that many questions about his performance.
One thing nobody mentions is the team’s improved bullpen. They got rid of Neal Cotts who just couldn’t seem to figure it out anymore (his ERA is over seven with the Cubs right now), and picked up a plethora of young guys that Coop should be able to mold into pitchers much like he did with Matt Thornton a year ago. Andrew Sisco and David Aardsma are both young fireballers like Thornton was who have amazing stuff but can’t get it together. Well, In Coop We Trust. If Coop can’t get these guys pitching to their potential, nobody will. And if Mike MacDougal stays healthy for an entire season, he and Thornton are a perfect lefty-righty combo to get to Bobby Jenks and either one can step in if Jenks falters.
So I guess it’ll be another interesting season on the south side. And I’m just giddy with excitement to listen to post game rants by enraged fans after they get shutout by C.C. Sabathia on opening day calling for Guillen’s head. But one thing’s for sure, nobody knows what to expect out of the White Sox this season. Sounds a little similar to ’05 doesn’t it?
March 29, 2007
March 25, 2007
March Madness Recap
Now that the Final Four is set and my bracket is screwed, let's recap this year's NCAA Tournament.
The fact that SO MANY favorites won was completely ridiculous, and I know everyone else who knows anything about college basketball is looking at their brackets and wondering why they picked Oral Roberts over Washington State, while the woman in their office is shrugging at "just how easy it was to pick the winners, because all you had to do was pick the good teams."
Seriously, after last years crazy run of upsets, how many people did what I did and just decided to pick every upset that was somewhat conceivable? Albany over Virginia? Sure! Holy Cross over Southern Illinois? Why not!? Miami (OH) over Oregon? Makes sense! But ALL the freaking favorites won! With the exception of VCU-Duke (which upset NOBODY except Duke fans), Winthrop over Notre Dame (was that really even an upset?) and UNLV-Georgia Tech (doesn't count because it was a 7-10 game), every favorite won not including the coin-flip that is the 8-9 games.
But not that I'm complaining. No really. Any real fan of college basketball has to admit that they like it better this way. While the upsets are awesome to watch in the early rounds, but once it gets down to the big games, any true fan would much rather see the higher seeds battle it out. Think about it. Of the eight Sweet 16 matchups, which was the least appealing? By FAR it was the UNLV-Oregon matchup; and once the Elite Eight is set, what would you rather see as a basketball fan? UNC-Georgetown or USC-Vanderbilt? Or even some David-Goliath matchup such as UNC-Vanderbilt wouldn't be as appealing.
I want to see the best battle the best and in Georgetown's thriller over UNC (by vote for best game of the Tournament), that's exactly what we got. We saw an incredibly accurate strategic team in Georgetown take on the most athletic team in the tournament in North Carolina. Incredibly compelling stuff. Same with the Kansas-UCLA game. It was the slow-down, defensive-minded Bruins vs. the run-and-gun, alley oop minded Jayhawks. Nobody knew who was going to win these games. And that's what made them so great to watch.
That being said, here are my awards through the Elite Eight:
Surprise Team of the Tournament--Memphis. Now I know this doesn't make much sense considering they were a two-seed who made it to the Elite Eight. But NOBODY who doesn't follow Memphis or Conference USA knew ANYTHING about Memphis and discredited them because of the weak conference. 90 percent of the brackets I saw filled out had Texas A&M beating them in the Sweet 16, myself included. They weren't even favored as a higher seed against the Aggies. I can't remember a team seeded that high not being expected to go at least to the Elite Eight.
Surprise Player of the Tournament
Good--Eric Maynor, VCU: had a swagger you don't normally see out of a small-conference school, and the guy has the body of an NBAer. I fully expect a team to take a chance on him with a second-round pick this April.
Bad--Alando Tucker, Wisconsin: Even as an Illini/Marquette fan, I've been riding the Badger bandwagon all year and after their manhandling of my Golden Eagles, were an easy pick for me to go to the Final Four (yeah, I know). But the team choked and with them did Tucker. Superstars and conference player's of the year are supposed to be the reason a team wins. In their absurd comeback against the team who's name is too long to type, it wasn't even Tucker who brought them back. In fact, they began their run RIGHT AFTER he left the game!
Disappointing Team of the Tournament--Along with the aforementioned Badgers (I'm too angry at them to type any more), I give this award to Texas A&M and Kansas, and no, not just because they were in my Final Four. A&M had me sold as a legitimate contender when they beat Kansas in Lawrence and Texas in Austin. And Acie Law IV IS the best point guard to potentially go pro. I don't care what the so-called experts say about Darren Collison and Mike Conley Jr., Law reminds me of Ben Gordon but only a better passer. He's the type of guy who can hit a shot at will but is unselfish enough to get his teammates involved. Trust me, he's a lock to be a good pro, but team's will pass him up for the potential of Collison and Conley Jr. Anyways, Billy Gillespie, who I am sold on as a pretty good coach, made a boneheaded decision by not putting the ball in his hands down the stretch against Memphis. A&M should have beat Memphis, but choked, thus they are a disappointment.
Player of the Tournament (so far)--Jeff Green, Georgetown: As much as I hate Billy Packer with a passion like none-other, he made a very good point towards the end of the game against UNC. He kept pointing out the Green wanted the ball and if his teammates could get him the ball Georgetown would be OK. And he was spot on. Once Green got going, so did Georgetown. His turnaround jumper when he has the ball on the low block is undefendable. And not even Tar Heel's freak of nature Brandan Wright could defend it. Nor could Hansbrough.
Final Four Picks--As much as I hate Joakim Noah and Florida (see above, Billy Packer), they are the same team from a year ago and UCLA is the same team from a year ago minus Jordan Farmar and plus Collison. Not much difference. UCLA still doesn't have a big man who can match up with Noah or Al Horford and the game should turn out similarly to that of a year ago. As for Georgetown-Ohio State game. I'm torn. I know as much as that I will root for whoever wins this game in the Championship game. But I have to give the edge to Georgetown. As many playmakers as Ohio State has, Georgetown is just too precise with executing their gameplan and Ohio State is a little too sloppy that the Hoyas should be able to capitalize off their mistakes and take control.
But I will leave you with this: If the Buckeyes win, it will be because Greg Oden steps over Roy Hibbert and wins the game single-handedly for Ohio State. He's been showing signs of dominance more than ever in wins over Xavier, Tennessee and Memphis and I would not be surprised if he pulls out a superstar-like dominant performance and lead Ohio State to the title.
The fact that SO MANY favorites won was completely ridiculous, and I know everyone else who knows anything about college basketball is looking at their brackets and wondering why they picked Oral Roberts over Washington State, while the woman in their office is shrugging at "just how easy it was to pick the winners, because all you had to do was pick the good teams."
Seriously, after last years crazy run of upsets, how many people did what I did and just decided to pick every upset that was somewhat conceivable? Albany over Virginia? Sure! Holy Cross over Southern Illinois? Why not!? Miami (OH) over Oregon? Makes sense! But ALL the freaking favorites won! With the exception of VCU-Duke (which upset NOBODY except Duke fans), Winthrop over Notre Dame (was that really even an upset?) and UNLV-Georgia Tech (doesn't count because it was a 7-10 game), every favorite won not including the coin-flip that is the 8-9 games.
But not that I'm complaining. No really. Any real fan of college basketball has to admit that they like it better this way. While the upsets are awesome to watch in the early rounds, but once it gets down to the big games, any true fan would much rather see the higher seeds battle it out. Think about it. Of the eight Sweet 16 matchups, which was the least appealing? By FAR it was the UNLV-Oregon matchup; and once the Elite Eight is set, what would you rather see as a basketball fan? UNC-Georgetown or USC-Vanderbilt? Or even some David-Goliath matchup such as UNC-Vanderbilt wouldn't be as appealing.
I want to see the best battle the best and in Georgetown's thriller over UNC (by vote for best game of the Tournament), that's exactly what we got. We saw an incredibly accurate strategic team in Georgetown take on the most athletic team in the tournament in North Carolina. Incredibly compelling stuff. Same with the Kansas-UCLA game. It was the slow-down, defensive-minded Bruins vs. the run-and-gun, alley oop minded Jayhawks. Nobody knew who was going to win these games. And that's what made them so great to watch.
That being said, here are my awards through the Elite Eight:
Surprise Team of the Tournament--Memphis. Now I know this doesn't make much sense considering they were a two-seed who made it to the Elite Eight. But NOBODY who doesn't follow Memphis or Conference USA knew ANYTHING about Memphis and discredited them because of the weak conference. 90 percent of the brackets I saw filled out had Texas A&M beating them in the Sweet 16, myself included. They weren't even favored as a higher seed against the Aggies. I can't remember a team seeded that high not being expected to go at least to the Elite Eight.
Surprise Player of the Tournament
Good--Eric Maynor, VCU: had a swagger you don't normally see out of a small-conference school, and the guy has the body of an NBAer. I fully expect a team to take a chance on him with a second-round pick this April.
Bad--Alando Tucker, Wisconsin: Even as an Illini/Marquette fan, I've been riding the Badger bandwagon all year and after their manhandling of my Golden Eagles, were an easy pick for me to go to the Final Four (yeah, I know). But the team choked and with them did Tucker. Superstars and conference player's of the year are supposed to be the reason a team wins. In their absurd comeback against the team who's name is too long to type, it wasn't even Tucker who brought them back. In fact, they began their run RIGHT AFTER he left the game!
Disappointing Team of the Tournament--Along with the aforementioned Badgers (I'm too angry at them to type any more), I give this award to Texas A&M and Kansas, and no, not just because they were in my Final Four. A&M had me sold as a legitimate contender when they beat Kansas in Lawrence and Texas in Austin. And Acie Law IV IS the best point guard to potentially go pro. I don't care what the so-called experts say about Darren Collison and Mike Conley Jr., Law reminds me of Ben Gordon but only a better passer. He's the type of guy who can hit a shot at will but is unselfish enough to get his teammates involved. Trust me, he's a lock to be a good pro, but team's will pass him up for the potential of Collison and Conley Jr. Anyways, Billy Gillespie, who I am sold on as a pretty good coach, made a boneheaded decision by not putting the ball in his hands down the stretch against Memphis. A&M should have beat Memphis, but choked, thus they are a disappointment.
Player of the Tournament (so far)--Jeff Green, Georgetown: As much as I hate Billy Packer with a passion like none-other, he made a very good point towards the end of the game against UNC. He kept pointing out the Green wanted the ball and if his teammates could get him the ball Georgetown would be OK. And he was spot on. Once Green got going, so did Georgetown. His turnaround jumper when he has the ball on the low block is undefendable. And not even Tar Heel's freak of nature Brandan Wright could defend it. Nor could Hansbrough.
Final Four Picks--As much as I hate Joakim Noah and Florida (see above, Billy Packer), they are the same team from a year ago and UCLA is the same team from a year ago minus Jordan Farmar and plus Collison. Not much difference. UCLA still doesn't have a big man who can match up with Noah or Al Horford and the game should turn out similarly to that of a year ago. As for Georgetown-Ohio State game. I'm torn. I know as much as that I will root for whoever wins this game in the Championship game. But I have to give the edge to Georgetown. As many playmakers as Ohio State has, Georgetown is just too precise with executing their gameplan and Ohio State is a little too sloppy that the Hoyas should be able to capitalize off their mistakes and take control.
But I will leave you with this: If the Buckeyes win, it will be because Greg Oden steps over Roy Hibbert and wins the game single-handedly for Ohio State. He's been showing signs of dominance more than ever in wins over Xavier, Tennessee and Memphis and I would not be surprised if he pulls out a superstar-like dominant performance and lead Ohio State to the title.
March 23, 2007
Preparing for Baseball Season
Cubs fans make me sick.
All of their unfettered optimism entering each season and unwillingness to point out their team's obvious flaws entering a season makes me giggle. And the fact that they always think the Cubs are going to win the division and compete for a World Series, NO MATTER WHAT they did in the offseason is downright humorous. Well, this season is no different.
It's no secret that the Cubs spent more money this offseason then Chevy on the "This is Our Country" commercials. But they didn't fix nearly enough problems to make them contenders, and the fact that Vegas is buying into the hype (they're 9-1 odds to win the World Series are second to the Mets in the National League) proves that everyone is just looking at Alfonso Soriano and Lou Pinella and absolutely nothing else.
Consider this, only once has a team had a payroll of 100 million or more and has won a World Series (2004 Red Sox), and the Yankees' highest payroll during their late '90's run was 92 million in 2000. Furthermore, the defending champion Cardinals, the team the Cubs should really try to mirror, have never had a payroll of more than 92 million. The Cubs' payroll this season is estimated to be in the high 100-millions, and what have they gotten to show for it? Soriano and a whole bucket of crap.
They will be paying Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis (a combined 29-29 and an average of 5-16 ERA) a combined 61 million dollars over the length of their contracts (four years for Lilly, three for Marquis). You could make a joke that general manager Jim Hendry had to have been sick to sign Lilly for that kind of money, but he actually was. He was ACTUALLY hooked up to an EKG machine in the hospital when the Lilly deal got done. And if you don't believe me, check this out. http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9855166.
Despite all of this ridiculous spending, reporter after reporter kept claiming that the Cubs rounded out their rotation by signing these players. So let's recap.
This is what the Cubs rotation could potentially look like in 2007.
-Carlos Zambrano (Cy Young candidate and "Most likely to kill another player and get suspended for life" candidate)
-Ted Lilly (the numbers speak for themselves, but hey, he's left-handed!)
-Jason Marquis (higher ERA than Johan Santana and Francisco Liriano COMBINED last season)
-Mark Prior (the prodigal son who can't ever pitch but nobody ever knows why)
-Wade Miller or Rich Hill (former Astro who, according to Steve Stone is "the only guy in the majors with worse mechanics than Kerry Wood," or an unproven guy with potential)
I guess this can be viewed as an improvement from the likes of Carlos Marmol and Angel Guzman, but how exactly did this make people believe the Cubs are legitimate contenders?
Oh don't worry, I'm not done.
Aramis Ramirez made 11 million dollars this year and quit on his manager and team. He didn't start putting up numbers until the Cubs were in the basement and realized "Hey, if I swing for the fences on every at-bat, some sucker's going to give me a big contract."
So who was that sucker? You guessed it. So now Ramirez will be making 15 million dollars a year to coast through June and piss off everyone in the clubhouse. Why would the Cubs shell out that kind of dough when they could have swung together a Jacque Jones, Prior and prospects to LA-Anaheim for Chone Figgins (who made 2.5 million last year and was available this offseason)? It's the Cubs management's unwillingness to part with Prior, Wood, or any of the Cubs' amazing prospects who never pan out.
Having said that, here's the Cubs' projected 2007 lineup:
C-Michael Barrett (same as last year)
1B-Derrek Lee (who everyone has already labeled a sure-thing superstar after one great season)
2B-Mark DeRosa (will he be an upgrade from Ronny Cedeno?)
SS-Cesar Izturis (pretty good defensively and career .259 hitter)
3B-Aramis Ramirez (see above)
LF-Matt Murton (or will they give it to Cliff Floyd?)
CF-Alfonso Soriano (We know his talent but how good is he for the clubhouse?)
RF-Jacque Jones (same as last year)
Again, this doesn't quite look like a team poised for a World Series run, nor does it look too differently from the 66-96 team a year ago. Not to mention the fact that their bullpen is no different then last season. I just don't understand where the optimism comes from.
And I know what anyone who knows me will say, that I'm just a Cub-hater who should worry what my precious White Sox are going to do this year. But what stands out is that this same thing happens every year! Soriano played on bad teams in Texas and Washington and instead of putting up MVP-type performances and leading them out of the basement, he just put up great individual numbers and pissed off his team enough that they still didn't want him. And Pinella is a pretty good manager when he has talent around him. It's not too hard to have success when he has the likes of Ken Griffey Jr., Alex Rodriguez and Randy Johnson as he did in Seattle nor does he have the competitive flair he did in Cincinatti. He's like the MLB's version of Bill Parcells. Mean enough that people listen but old enough to not make a difference anymore.
So I'm sorry to say it but it's going to be another long season in Wrigleyville and the Cubbie fans will yet again be disappointed by the result. I'm just counting the days until fireloupinella.com starts.
All of their unfettered optimism entering each season and unwillingness to point out their team's obvious flaws entering a season makes me giggle. And the fact that they always think the Cubs are going to win the division and compete for a World Series, NO MATTER WHAT they did in the offseason is downright humorous. Well, this season is no different.
It's no secret that the Cubs spent more money this offseason then Chevy on the "This is Our Country" commercials. But they didn't fix nearly enough problems to make them contenders, and the fact that Vegas is buying into the hype (they're 9-1 odds to win the World Series are second to the Mets in the National League) proves that everyone is just looking at Alfonso Soriano and Lou Pinella and absolutely nothing else.
Consider this, only once has a team had a payroll of 100 million or more and has won a World Series (2004 Red Sox), and the Yankees' highest payroll during their late '90's run was 92 million in 2000. Furthermore, the defending champion Cardinals, the team the Cubs should really try to mirror, have never had a payroll of more than 92 million. The Cubs' payroll this season is estimated to be in the high 100-millions, and what have they gotten to show for it? Soriano and a whole bucket of crap.
They will be paying Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis (a combined 29-29 and an average of 5-16 ERA) a combined 61 million dollars over the length of their contracts (four years for Lilly, three for Marquis). You could make a joke that general manager Jim Hendry had to have been sick to sign Lilly for that kind of money, but he actually was. He was ACTUALLY hooked up to an EKG machine in the hospital when the Lilly deal got done. And if you don't believe me, check this out. http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9855166.
Despite all of this ridiculous spending, reporter after reporter kept claiming that the Cubs rounded out their rotation by signing these players. So let's recap.
This is what the Cubs rotation could potentially look like in 2007.
-Carlos Zambrano (Cy Young candidate and "Most likely to kill another player and get suspended for life" candidate)
-Ted Lilly (the numbers speak for themselves, but hey, he's left-handed!)
-Jason Marquis (higher ERA than Johan Santana and Francisco Liriano COMBINED last season)
-Mark Prior (the prodigal son who can't ever pitch but nobody ever knows why)
-Wade Miller or Rich Hill (former Astro who, according to Steve Stone is "the only guy in the majors with worse mechanics than Kerry Wood," or an unproven guy with potential)
I guess this can be viewed as an improvement from the likes of Carlos Marmol and Angel Guzman, but how exactly did this make people believe the Cubs are legitimate contenders?
Oh don't worry, I'm not done.
Aramis Ramirez made 11 million dollars this year and quit on his manager and team. He didn't start putting up numbers until the Cubs were in the basement and realized "Hey, if I swing for the fences on every at-bat, some sucker's going to give me a big contract."
So who was that sucker? You guessed it. So now Ramirez will be making 15 million dollars a year to coast through June and piss off everyone in the clubhouse. Why would the Cubs shell out that kind of dough when they could have swung together a Jacque Jones, Prior and prospects to LA-Anaheim for Chone Figgins (who made 2.5 million last year and was available this offseason)? It's the Cubs management's unwillingness to part with Prior, Wood, or any of the Cubs' amazing prospects who never pan out.
Having said that, here's the Cubs' projected 2007 lineup:
C-Michael Barrett (same as last year)
1B-Derrek Lee (who everyone has already labeled a sure-thing superstar after one great season)
2B-Mark DeRosa (will he be an upgrade from Ronny Cedeno?)
SS-Cesar Izturis (pretty good defensively and career .259 hitter)
3B-Aramis Ramirez (see above)
LF-Matt Murton (or will they give it to Cliff Floyd?)
CF-Alfonso Soriano (We know his talent but how good is he for the clubhouse?)
RF-Jacque Jones (same as last year)
Again, this doesn't quite look like a team poised for a World Series run, nor does it look too differently from the 66-96 team a year ago. Not to mention the fact that their bullpen is no different then last season. I just don't understand where the optimism comes from.
And I know what anyone who knows me will say, that I'm just a Cub-hater who should worry what my precious White Sox are going to do this year. But what stands out is that this same thing happens every year! Soriano played on bad teams in Texas and Washington and instead of putting up MVP-type performances and leading them out of the basement, he just put up great individual numbers and pissed off his team enough that they still didn't want him. And Pinella is a pretty good manager when he has talent around him. It's not too hard to have success when he has the likes of Ken Griffey Jr., Alex Rodriguez and Randy Johnson as he did in Seattle nor does he have the competitive flair he did in Cincinatti. He's like the MLB's version of Bill Parcells. Mean enough that people listen but old enough to not make a difference anymore.
So I'm sorry to say it but it's going to be another long season in Wrigleyville and the Cubbie fans will yet again be disappointed by the result. I'm just counting the days until fireloupinella.com starts.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)