The Crawfish Boxes

ooh, that of another:

I didn’t see any crazy hit-and-run plays from Coop. Maybe that was because the ’stros had so few baserunners, but baby steps, people.

That was probably a typical Astros game

the offense is very good, but the starting pitching is shaky and the bullpen backs up with a solid performance.

jonthefon - April 9, 2009 reply

Ortiz's performance was a positive note.

Once he got in a groove, he had the strike out pitch going. His FB was in the low 90’s, and his change up was a killer.

Were the solo HRs a statistical oddity? Or is this something we can expect, given the number of players with a poor OBP history?

clack - April 9, 2009 reply

I thought about Ortiz,

but the first pitch out of his glove in two years was anti-viagara for me: Fontenot jack with two on.

And so, he had three earned runs in three innings of work with 73 pitches. If he has a groove, he needs to find it quicker.

pel - April 9, 2009 reply

the guy isn't a relief pitcher....and I give him a pass on the HR....

by all accounts, the batter was cheating on the fastball and got it. Ortiz should have thrown a change up perhaps, but that’s all hindsight. The other two runs he allowed came because he likely was left in the game too long, which is indicated by the walks in that final inning. Cooper admitted after the game that he made a mistake leaving Ortiz in the game when he was gassed. That said, if Sampson had done his job, Ortiz would only have given up 1 run.

My comment about “being in a groove” is based on the way he wascutting down Cubs’ hitters, including 4 or 5 Ks in a row at one point. Ortiz tied Lidge for most strike outs by a relief pitcher in an outing.

clack - April 9, 2009 reply

I'll take the latter

High SLG, Low OBP for everyone but Berkman.

Not to be a jerk here but...

Berkman, Keppinger, Matsui, Pence, and Pudge all went yard; every Astro even had a hit!! All to know avail—ridiculous loss.

I’m pretty sure it should be “no” not “know”….

Artest4Prez - April 9, 2009 reply

You're right

And not a jerk.

Your guy Dave Raymond

Made a great point, this is one of those games where the Cubs walk away with a win, but its pretty bittersweet. I’m sure TRL was not happy giving up 4 Homers, to me the only shiny spots from that game (as a Cubs fan) would be the potential — and I mean that with utmost cautiousness, that Dome has figured out a better hitting approach. And that David Patton got 6 outs, which may or may not mean anything. After they pulled Lilly, I figured that would be your guys opportunity to pour it on, since the mid relief is our question mark.

personally

I’d say the Cubs’ main question mark is in starting pitching depth, and maybe depth behind the starting position players (though the Cubs’ offense is so well-balanced that I doubt it will be an issue). The Astros’ TV broadcasters pointed this out last night: the Cubs are so stacked right now that Jeff Samardzija was sent down to AAA simply because they ran out of room. The middle relievers aren’t unbelievable, but many have closer-quality stuff, and I wouldn’t be worried about giving up many leads.

But the problem is that Harden is highly injury prone (it’s practically a given that he’ll have a major injury at some point this year) and Zambrano is starting to feel the effects of years of abuse. And I wouldn’t be too confident in the abilities of Dempster and Lilly to take their places, nor do I think that the Cubs’ system has enough to land Peavy or Halladay at the deadline. There’s the possibility that they could sign a guy like Ben Sheets after he recovers from surgery, but that’s a big if, too. If Zambrano goes down, I don’t think the team can get it done in the playoffs. The Astros tried that whole great-offense-alright-pitching thing in the late 90s, and it didn’t work out so well.

Then, going forward, I think the Cubs have totally screwed themselves with their payroll situations. It’s a win or die trying situation this year (and maybe next) for the Cubs, I think, and they just don’t have the depth they need at the game’s most important spot or the prospects to provide that depth through trades or otherwise.

On the farm

You are correct. However, Shark does not have the stuff to be a starter, so sending him to AAA is the best thing for him to continue to develop. As for Zambrano, time will tell, everyone could be saying the same about CC. I think Hardens injury-prone nature has been built into his place in the rotation. And while a Peavy deal could be far-fetched we still are in the running (supposedly). We do have high payroll numbers, but that is the new era for the Cubs, once the Ricketts ownership is settled the payroll is going to continue (perhaps to smaller degrees) to climb. I think you under estimate TRL and Demp, both had very good years last year and easily could have been some teams 1&2 guys. Teds peformance last night is not the shining example of his abilities. Hes not lights out by any means, but when he is on, he keeps a huge offensive team in the running. I disagree thats its a win this year or next situation. For one, we are not the Brewers…we have signed quality players to contracts that keep us competative for at least 3 years. And yes there is a posibility that such contracts could bite us in the ass, however I would not be surprised to see guys moved around for younger talent as time goes by. And yes, our minor league system is very scant — but that has usually been the case…and there are many reasons for this, biggest being a guy named P.K. Wrigley.

Another point

With regards to salary and being “screwed” basically any team is going to find itself in this situation if they are paying free agents big bucks. I mean it is true we could become the Braves. But we also could continue to be competative within our division for years to come. As I said, we are not like the Brewers where once the price gets out of reach we have to slink back into our cave and wait for another decade for a slew of minor league talent. By mid-season they will need to slough off some of the contracts they have signed (for example Prince Fielder) b/c at this point they have serious holes in thier pitching…and as much as they have offense they do not have the pitching to back it up. Going forward I see us remaining just as competative as the Cards. We are not going away — the talent level could decline, but in this division I think I like our chances.

look, the Astros are in the same situation (albeit to a lesser degree) with their contracts.

And it’s easier to say “We’ll just pay more free agents” than to actually do it.

First, there’s the matter of capitalization. The Cubs have a lot of money, but it’s not infinite. How much more money can the Cubs commit to expensive free agents?

Second, as your free agents age, they’re still on the books. Derek Lee is going to be on the payroll until 2011, right? Alfonso Soriano, Zambrano, Aramis Ramirez, etc. are all aging, and nobody’s going to take on their contracts. The Cubs have a big payroll, but aging players and back-loaded contracts are going to kill a lot of their flexibility.

Third, it’s not like the immediate free agent classes are all that impressive. Ultimately, free agency is limited by the players who enter it, and there just aren’t that many superstar FA’s entering the market. More teams – teams like the Brewers and Royals and Rays – are willing to offer their young stars lengthy extensions, and that means that the big-market clubs just have less to pick from.

Let’s use the Cubs’ first-base situation as an example. Derrek Lee is a good player, but he’s aging quickly and the Cubs will need a replacement pretty soon. Who do you turn to? What’s going to be on the market this offseason? Adam Laroche will be available, though he’s not much of an improvement. Otherwise, that’s it. Maybe you sign Matt Holliday and move Soriano to first (though, given the way he throws a hissy fit when someone suggests he not bat leadoff, I’m not sure how he’d take it). Maybe you wait until Fielder hits the market, but it’s just not a very active market right now.

That’s just an example, but it shows that you can’t just rely upon free agency to build your team. There’s just not enough FA’s or money to go around, and the Cubs aren’t the only ones trying to sign these players. They have to compete with every other mid-to-large market team out there: Dodgers, Giants, Yankees, Mets, Braves, Angels, Red Sox, White Sox, Tigers, Cards and, yes, the Astros.

With regards to salary and being "screwed" basically any team is going to find itself in this situation if they are paying free agents big bucks.

I find it pretty interesting- when fans react like this to a criticism towards their team. If you said, “The Astros’ pitching is terrible,” a good response from me would not be, “Yes, but a lot of teams have bad pitching.” That’s not the point. Payroll inflexibility is not some sort of moral indictment towards the Cubs – it’s just a business fact. Yes, lots of teams find themselves in these situations because they signed a bunch of players and now can’t sign any more – the Giants and Dodgers seem to do it pretty frequently – but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a bad situation for the Cubs to be in.

As for Lilly and Dempster, neither is an ace. Both are good 2/3/4 guys, but neither is going to carry the pitching staff if Zambrano goes down. Starting pitching quality, bullpen quality, and team defense are the things that most strongly correlate with playoff success. The Cubs have the last two covered (maybe not defense in CF, but that remains to be seen), but I’m not confident that they have the first down. If they run into the Dodgers or Braves in the playoffs, I think we’re going to see another repeat of the last two NLDS.

I think the problem is you're assuming a big drop off in production for all of the stars the Cubs have signed for more than this year

You say things like Zambrano is feeling the effects of years of abuse without saying anything more. Of course the Cubs will be in trouble if all of their great players start playing poorly in two years. But they will still be a great team if those players are still playing well.

Zambrano might be signed for 3 years after this one, but he’s still 4 years younger than Oswalt, who seems to have held up okay. Aramis Ramirez is signed for 2 more years, but is 4 years younger than Tejada.

I think you’re basically just saying the Cubs are taking a risk that by signing players to long deals, they might not be as good as they age. But most of the players are not that old and will probably still be good for a couple more years.

Texas Wahoo - April 9, 2009 reply

Cubs a great team?

Definitely if you’re counting pre-season hype.

ol Pete - April 9, 2009 reply

It depends on what you mean by "great"

I consider them a great team relative to the rest of the NL. I’m not talking murderers row great, just 2009 NL great.

Texas Wahoo - April 10, 2009 reply

I'm assuming that everyone ages pretty typically

most of the Cubs’ core is between 31 and 33. Zambrano is 29, but he’s been abused pretty hard throughout his career. The reason I have more confidence in Oswalt’s ability to decline gracefully is his lack of such an injury history. He’s had his typical pitching injuries throughout his career, and those are always reason for concern, but the simple fact is that most of Roy’s comparables had relatively injury-free careers and he’s never had any significant issues with his arm. Zambrano had arm problems all through last season. Big Z might be younger, but his arm has a lot more wear on it.

Ramirez is actually the one guy I’m most confident in among the Cubs. He’ll see a decline, like all players, over the next few years, and there’s always reason to worry about a player on the hot corner, but he seems like the one heading for the least sharp decline among the stars over 30. Lee started his decline two years ago. Soriano loses speed each year, but keeps putting up good power numbers, but he’s also 33.

I think you’re basically just saying the Cubs are taking a risk that by signing players to long deals, they might not be as good as they age. But most of the players are not that old and will probably still be good for a couple more years.

That’s essentially what I’m saying. But I’m also saying that those long deals will prevent the Cubs from signing new free agents to supplement the team, and (other than a few top prospects), the Cubs don’t have much that’s going to ease the pain. The Cubs have to win now, and I think the injury problems associated with their top two starters don’t bode well for that.

They will certainly be less able to buy up new free agents

Because they already have players at those positions taking up chunks of payroll. But the only way that is a problem is if those players’ production drops off a great deal. It’s all the same argument.

Either way, it will certainly be interesting to watch. Speculating about payroll is kind of silly anyway considering the Cubs new ownership is not set yet.

Texas Wahoo - April 10, 2009 reply

And you

are completely entitled to your speculation. I was actually not reacting to “criticism” towards my team, since I did not think that is what you were doing. I acknowledged your points and countered with the notion that we could indeed become like other teams that are saddled by back-loaded contracts with minimal minor league talent [see Braves, Altanta – National League Ball Club East]. While some players may soon enter true declining years, your own argument regarding free-agent availabilty will create value for thier skills — so say you move guys like DLee or Ramirez to another team, it allows for youthful talent to enter the mix without having a fire sale or turning into a team with old guys [see Giants, San Francisco – National League Ball Club West]. You insinuate that I seem to have an all-to-common ignorant fan reaction to your supposed criticism, when in reallity I was suggesting the same thing you did, that the Cubs payroll obligations are a Business Reality — for many teams. In fact, unless you can turn back the hands of time, and convince Cubs management from the early 60s to start developing a solid scouting and farm system…its hard for us to be in any other position. Do I agree with you its a bad position — certainly, I wish we were a young team filled with nothing but prospects, but that as you said is not reality. So going forward, to stay competative the Cubs will have to find ways to keep players that they cannot afford to lose, and move players that still have value. And sometimes you move guys you would like to keep but then thats business. And Texas Wahoo made a great point below, you take a risk anytime you sign a long term deal…thats just the way it is.

In 2 years when we are down in the dumps with gramps pitching and everyone on the DL then you get to be right and I get to be wrong, agreed?

came off as snarky, didn't mean to be.

I meant that we all tend to do this – it’s just poor argument that I find a lot of people (myself included) using frequently.

Braves have some good young talent, actually, and we’re starting to see some of that impact talent coming up. Schafer certainly flashed that on opening night, but you’ll start to see other pieces come up as time goes on. I think they’re real contenders for the wild card this year.

While some players may soon enter true declining years, your own argument regarding free-agent availabilty will create value for thier skills — so say you move guys like DLee or Ramirez to another team, it allows for youthful talent to enter the mix without having a fire sale or turning into a team with old guys

Not as things stand right now. You might find a stupid team to take on Ramirez or Lee’s contracts, but I doubt that. And nobody is going to take both the contract and give you talent, it’s one or the other in these things these days. Right now, teams are valuing money too highly to take on an aging player’s contract unless they’re true superstars. You might actually get something for Ramirez after a year or two, but Lee’s essentially untradeable.

In fact, unless you can turn back the hands of time, and convince Cubs management from the early 60s to start developing a solid scouting and farm system…its hard for us to be in any other position.

Not really. It’s not like the Cubs’ failures to construct farm teams in the 1950s really affect them now. They’ve actually scouted talent fairly well over the last ten years or so, it’s just that right now their farm system is pretty limited (not nearly as limited as the ‘stros, but still pretty bad). The team’s built to win now, and that’s fine. It’s just that the price they paid to compete right now is going to be increasingly heavy over the next few years. Gotta catch a flight, so I’ll respond to Wahoo’s stuff later.

I'll leave the Braves alone

because you are right, I really am speaking for the last 5 years or so. But still, they did have a nice stretch of inactivity, which could be the eventuality for the Cubs later on. I also did not mean to suggest that by unloading a contract that means we get young talent in return. For example, Josh Vitters our #1 prospect will become a very good 3rd baseman. Right now he still needs time to develop, but lets say after 2 years (assuming we still have him) we let Rami go with another team…then Vitters comes up. Now I doubt that will happen, Vitters will likely be delt away with us also absorbing some other players salary, but its an example. If the Cubs can limp by moving some of the contracts while not creating huge holes, they can remain competative. Will they be the touted team they were and are this year/last year, well no but I think like other teams in our division we could still give fits and be in a race for the playoffs. As for scouting, we have one of the smallest scouting departments in MLB, it was never a priority for the Wrigleys and while the Trib has made alot of headway we are still behind the times. That was my point. And unfortunatly, for the good talent in the last 10 years it usually ends up on the disabled list or other teams.

BTW, very nice discussion I have enjoyed you and other Astros fans perspectives, you have been more than hospitable and have become a welcome pit stop to my BCB time.

Made it to my first game of the season last night

Obviously it didn’t work out as well as one would hope, but I had my peanuts and my beer and live major league baseball in front of me, so it could have been a lot worse.

One thing that really surprised me was the horrid attendance. I wasn’t paying attention to see what the announced numbers were, but there were entire sections completely empty (especially in the view deck and the mezzanine). I had assumed that the third game of the season, with the Cubs in town, it would have been at least relatively full. That actually may have been the worst attended game I’ve been to in a few years. Is it that people are THAT down on the Astros? Is it really the economy? I figured the latter, only because it was actually mostly the cheap seats that were vacant (most of the field level and club level sections were at least peppered with people). Very strange.

I’m fortunate to work in an industry that’s pretty insulated from economic recession, so I’m not one that has a pulse on the current woes, but are folks around here going to be attending significantly fewer games than in previous years? I suppose that’s not a fair question, since we’re probably mostly the diehard fan segment of the population.

Anyway, I was shocked at how sparse the crowd was last night. I’d hate to see it in a few months if we end up being as bad as a lot of people fear we might be.

littlevisigoth - April 9, 2009 reply

Thanks for the update

That’s interesting and slightly frightening. Low attendance will just induce the front office to claim poverty even more in the next offseason.

attendance was listed at 30,147, which doesn't seem that bad for a weekday night.

But then, maybe some season ticket holders didn’t show up or something. If the attendance is dragging, I would guess the economy is the main culprit. I don’t think most average fans are attuned to what the Astros are projected to do, or let it the pundits’ forecasts affect their game attendance this early in the season. If the Astros are buried at mid-season, it probably will affect attendance. Heck, fans in the crowd who have been interviewed over the last couple of days expect the Astros to win the division.

clack - April 9, 2009 reply

I suspect it's a combination of a few things

the economy is tight, even in Houston, and so people are cutting back on entertainment budgets. It’s a weeknight in April, so a drop off in attendance is to be expected.

As for the “casual fan” noticing the state of the team, I think most are far more savvy than we typically give them credit for. Most who even followed the offseason in passing, surely noticed that the Astros didn’t do much other than the signing of Hampton and Pudge, and, judging from most reactions I’ve heard, that’s generally seen as a series of pretty lame acquisitions.

The Bourn Believer - April 9, 2009 reply

Even Though We Lost...

Im still proud of the team, they fought hard. 1-2 isnt that bad since we played the Cubs but well get the Cards. Lee will most likely show up in this series and im thinking 2 wins out of it…

Taking two against the Cards would be

SWEET