The Cubs Chronicle

Road Trip to Cooperstown (Allen St. John, Wall Street Journal, 12/26/2003) (sub. req’d)

Here’s a rundown on some of the players on this year’s ballot, roughly in order of their chances of enshrinement.

Paul Molitor . . . .

Dennis Eckersley . . . .

Ryne Sandberg: (second year, 49.2% on last year’s ballot): Mr. Sandberg is clearly among the top 10 second basemen of all time – only Joe Morgan, Eddie Collins and Rogers Hornsby have a clear edge over him. Compare him with Hall of Famers Bobby Doerr and Tony Lazzeri, factor in his nine Gold Gloves, and it becomes obvious that Mr. Sandberg is deserving.

Related posts:
Bill James on Ryne Sandberg
Northside Lounge [external site]: Tom Verducci Has Lost His Mind

The signing of Todd Walker (for a cheap $1.75M) means at least two things. First, the Cubs will be paying $1M less to the guy who will get most of the playing time at second base. Walker has been saying all the right things about this so far: The AP report notes that he stated he is not trying to take Mark Grudzielanek’s job away from him. Walker also said, “I passed up a few starting jobs to put myself in this position [to win a World Series].” Yet as Eat at Joe’s notes, Walker hits significantly better than Grudzielanek does against righthanded pitchers. And the AP quotes Jim Hendry as saying, “It was no secret a couple weeks ago we were very right-handed heavy and now we’ve evened things out.” Despite being the better defensive player, Grudzielanek should be on the bench against righties.

The second thing the Walker acquisition means is that 24 of the 25 roster slots are set, barring injury or further transactions (perhaps Grudzielanek gets shipped because of this?–I’m doubtful). The only battle left is for the final bullpen spot. (As the Daily Herald’s Bruce Miles notes in an interview with Any Team Can Have A Bad Century, Felix Sanchez, Todd Wellemeyer, Sergio Mitre, and Jon Leicester will all get opportunities to win the job.) That, in turn, means neither David Kelton nor Jason Dubois nor any other Cubs minor leaguer will be given a shot to win a big league roster spot in the spring. Hendry has been high on Kelton in particular for awhile now. He’ll be 24 next year, and it looks like he will be spending it here in Iowa for the second straight year. Which probably is not a bad thing, given his mediocre 269/338/446 line last year.

On Friday (12/20), the Cubs traded Triple-A starter Wilton Chavez for backup infielder/outfielder Jose Macias. The Cubs then gave Macias a $750,000 contract for next year. (The Cubs have also done some other manuvering lately to populate their bench – signing Todd Hollandsworth, and re-signing Paul Bako and Ramon Martinez – an analysis of which I may, or may not, get to at another time).

At this point, I am having a hard enough time understanding the acquisition of Macias. I admittedly know little about him, but his chief attributes appear to be that he hits (using that term liberally) from both sides of the plate and can play both infield and outfield. But he really can’t hit. The STATS, Inc. scouting report currently posted at his ESPN.com page says he “swings at almost everything, but has a knack for making contact with anything remotely near the plate.” He has a career .255/.302/.378 line. He hasn’t posted an OBP% above .300 since 2001, and last year hit an atrocious .239/.273/.353. And he will be 32 next year. In other words, he’s a bad offensive player – essentially Randall Simon without the power – and getting worse. Granted, Macias will be the 25th man on the roster, but there’s no rule that says teams must throw away their final roster spot.

UPDATE (12/21/2003 1:05am): After non-tendering Simon, perhaps the Cubs realized they just couldn’t do without one of those swings at everything, but makes contact players.

UPDATE II (12/21/2003 1:10am): Here’s Hendry’s comments on Macias:

“We’re glad to pick up Macias. We felt he’s been a quality extra player. He can play all over the field. He can still run and he gives us some insurance in center field. He’s a good bench player, can steal a base. We thought he was a good fit. . . . He’s a guy we’ve had on our radar screen.”

You just have to love those guys who can run, but can’t get on base.

UPDATE III (12/21/2003 7:50pm): The Cub Reporter on Macias: “[I]s [the] 25th man really a spot that needs to be filled in December, and for more than the league minimum?” I vote no.

Chris Yarbrough of the Yarbage Cub Review has sent around an email questionnaire to the Cubs Blogger Army seekings responses for a story he is doing for class. Here were my responses to him:

1.) I would like a little background about why you became a Cubs Fan (growing up in Chicago or family etc etc….)?

Grandpa and WGN (i.e., the Cubs were always on).

2.) How much time during the season would you say that you spend on your site? Second part, how much time reading the other Cub blog sites?

This has changed since I exited law school and became a practicing attorney. I now have a lot less time during the day to read blogs.

3.) With the numerous Cub Blog sites, what do you think makes one site better the other?

To slightly change your question, here’s what I think makes a good blog: 1) regularly updated; 2) insightful commentary that I can’t get elsewhere; and 3) civil commentary. For that reason, I tend not to read blogs that just repeat the news (unless it’s news that isn’t receiving national coverage or coverage in the Chicago papers) or just post game recaps, because I can get those things elsewhere. It also helps that a blogger is occassionally funny. I also don’t read blogs with lots of swearing and/or have poor grammar. (I also think it’s important to keep in my mind that blogs are very individual. Different people like to write different things and different people like to read different things. So my list of what makes a good blog is merely what I like to read.)

4.) Why did you start publishing and writing your own site?

I like the Cubs and I like to write. Blogging satisfied both of those. Additionally, I like to talk to others about the Cubs. Whether through the comments on my site or through others’ blogs, I’ve been able to have a lot of good conversations with other Cubs fans.

5.) In regards to the major coverage (Trib and the Sun-Times), do you think the quality of writing is better on-line? What advantages do the Blog writers have that newspaper reporters do not?

6.) Over the past months I have seen that many more Cub Blogs have popped up(which could be a cause of the playoff run), but overall do you see a bigger trend this kind of coverage is more preferable than regular coverage? Do you think at some point a newspaper will have to make changes to keep the readers refreshed?

Generally, newspapers and blogs serve different purposes. Newspapers report news. Bloggers comment on that news, and on other things they observe (though we are starting to see some elements of traditional reporting within the larger blogger community). I personally would have a lot less to write about were it not for the newspapers. Other Cubs bloggers, though, rely less on newspapers than I do.

7.) What are some goals for your site?

I really don’t have any goals for the site. Given the time flexibility I had this past spring and summer, I don’t think I’ll ever be as prolific as I was then, which means my readership won’t ever be as high as it was then. I guess my only goal for The Clark & Addison Chronicle is to occasionally write something that some people consider worth reading.

In response to the previous post regarding the Cubs’ interest in Luis Castillo, one commenter expressed his desire that the Cubs instead attempt to trade for Jose Vidro. Today, Alex at ball talk (no permalink that I can decipher) has a good post on why the Cubs should do exactly that.

UPDATE (11:25pm): Castillo isn’t coming. He re-signed with the Marlins.