Month: October 2004

Wait ’til next year

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

In spite of what some people might believe, I was not devastated by the Cubs’ final-week collapse. Yes, it was a big disappointment, and certainly this team should have won the wild card easily in Boston Red Sox fashion. It’s hard to get too depressed when the prospects are so bright.

The Cubs’ starting rotation posted the best ERA in the National League, and the nucleus of Prior, Wood, Maddux and Zambrano will be together — and, hopefully, healthy — for at least two more years. Ramirez and Lee gave the Cubs their best all-around corner infielders since the Santo-Banks days of the late ’60s, while Barrett was the best offensive catcher in the National League.

Patterson, in spite of his struggles, showed that the first half of 2003 was no fluke. He still has much room to grow, especially if Baker handles him correctly by encouraging his plate patience and not batting him in the leadoff spot. With Alou’s departure, the Cubs will have a huge opportunity to upgrade in left field to a lefthanded hitter who makes contact and gets on base (Carlos Beltran and J.D. Drew come to mind).

While Garciaparra may not come back, he seems at least willing to consider the Cubs. The other weakness, the bullpen, is easily remediable with several top closers on the market (Hoffman, Percival and Benitez). I believe the Cubs will be willing to push the $100 million payroll mark and Hendry has proven he knows how to put the pieces together.

The biggest question outstanding is Sammy Sosa’s future with the club, given his disappearing act in the final game and apparent dispute with manager Dusty Baker. In spite of what some ignoramuses are suggesting, it’s highly unlikely that Sosa will be traded. In fact, considering that the Cubs would have to pick up most of his very hefty salary and that it’s still possible for him to rebound to offensive decency, it would be an unwise move.

This much is clear, though. In spite of his reputation for being adept at managing clubhouse personalities, Baker has proven himself pretty incompetent at it this year. Judging by Sosa’s comments, Baker obviously failed to stroke the biggest ego in the Cubs’ clubhouse. And Baker failed to step in and make clear to Moises Alou and Kent Mercker that their comments directed at the broadcast booth and umpires were inappropriate. Combine this with Baker’s clearly demonstrated strategic incompetence, and he may have one year left to win with what will no doubt be an even more talented ballclub come spring.

In the end, the Cubs put together their second consecutive winning season for the first time since 1971-72. They actually finished one game better than last year, in spite of all the bad luck (10 games below .500 in one-run games, 25 blown saves, Wood and Prior injured and inconsistent, Borowski effectively injured the entire season). With the right moves, the Cubs could very easily come back to register an upper 90s-win season next year, if not a 100-win season.

The most important point to remember is that this team has shown it intends to be a contender for years to come. Perhaps this season may have served its purpose by clearing away some of the deadwood that has lately occupied the Wrigley Field stands — spectators so spoiled by last year’s success that they’ve booed at the drop of a hat. It was a tough, frustrating year, but it may wind up being a valuable learning experience for everyone involved.

Even good franchises don’t achieve their goals every year. The crucial thing is that the Cubs were — even as late as the game I attended Tuesday night — in a position to make the playoffs. They just didn’t do it. But they can do it next year. Just wait.

In the meantime, I’ll be rooting for my second favorite team — the Red Sox — to finally beat the Yankees. And on the National League side, I’m disposed to root for the Astros for reasons of marital harmony.

Lowlight reel

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

Here was what I thought was the most telling moment of last night’s presidential debate:

KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, “The enemy attacked us.”

Saddam Hussein didn’t attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaida attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn’t use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world’s number one criminal and terrorist.

They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other.

That’s the enemy that attacked us. That’s the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains. That’s the enemy that is now in 60 countries, with stronger recruits.

[SNIP]

LEHRER: Thirty seconds.

BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.

Let’s go to the tape. Take a look at Dubya’s desperate attempt to clarify that he understands that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are unrelated and that the former was the true culprit behind 9/11, while he has spent the last three years insinuating that they’re one and the same — bosom buddies on par with Laverne and Shirley.

On point after point, Kerry directly attacked Dubya’s horribly failed foreign policy. Kerry has no real solutions to the problems Dubya created, but he finally put the onus on the president to defend his terrible record. No wonder Dubya was so annoyed.