Thursday, January 24, 2019

Two Players Hall of Fame Voters May Have Overlooked


I'm not going to waste your time debating the Hall of Fame cases of former baseball players that have had their names linked to PED use since their playing days.

Every argument that could be made for or against the Cooperstown enshrinement of the likes of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and company has already been made somewhere. The topic has been tirelessly debated for the last 15-20 years, long before the release of the 2007 Mitchell Report and the book Game of Shadows was released to shelves in 2006. Chances are, you've already formed your opinion on this subject and it cannot be swayed, and that's fine.

But has the annual discussion revolving around these polarizing figures prevented us from looking closer at the Hall of Fame cases from other fringe HOF'ers?

This year, two terrific players from the 2000s hit the ballot for the first time. Neither received more than 5 votes and both are now off the ballot moving forward.

Should they both have gotten in on the first ballot? Probably not. But the careers of Lance Berkman and Roy Oswalt should at least warrant some future consideration. We've seen many players start on the ballot with a low vote percentage, only to gain momentum over the years and make a push towards the top as baseball writers look closer at their careers.

Let's start with Roy Oswalt.

Listed at 6-foot-0 (but could have likely been 5-9 or 5-10), this right-hander was often perceived as undersized and wasn't picked until the 23rd round of the 1996 draft out of junior college. He burst onto the Major League scene at 23 years-old in 2001, going 14-3 in his rookie campaign with a 2.73 ERA and 1.06 WHIP.


In his first ten seasons (2001-2010), he was about as dominant as any starting pitcher from his era. He posted a sub-3 ERA in five separate seasons, and only had one season with an ERA higher than 3.55. He was top 6 in Cy Young voting on six different occasions. With the Astros, Oswalt delivered several gritty playoff performances, including two starts in the 2005 NLCS where he held a 100-win Cardinals team to just two runs and eight hits over 14 innings, which propelled the Astros to their first ever World Series appearance and earned him NLCS MVP honors.

A string of injuries began to derail Oswalt's career in his mid-30s, and by 2014 he had retired from baseball. Oswalt exited the game with 163 wins and a lifetime ERA of 3.36, two points lower than the career ERA of first ballot HOF'er Roy Halladay.

Oswalt was likely penalized because his career did not contain the same longevity that his counterparts' did. Soon to be inducted Halladay and Mike Mussina stuck around for 16 and 18 years respectively. Halladay was an obvious first ballot choice; a one of a kind pitcher that won two Cy Youngs, threw a perfect game, and delivered a no-hitter in a playoff game. Mussina, however, gradually rose from 20% from his first year on the ballot to just over the needed 75% five years later. If given the same opportunity, Oswalt could have experienced a similar jump over time.

Berkman's case is even more interesting. As pointed out by the Twitter user @RGBIII, Berkman and 2019 Hall of Fame class member Edgar Martinez's career numbers aren't very far off from each other.

In addition to what @RGBIII notes, both players had a .400+ career OBP. Martinez was a seven-time All-Star; Berkman garnered six All-Star selections. Berkman was top 5 in MVP voting four times. Martinez was only finished top 10 in MVP votes twice. Berkman was even the best position player on a team that reached the World Series, and later won a World Series as a key piece for the Cardinals (batting .301 on the season with 31 homers and 94 RBI's).

Martinez received 85.4% of the vote. Berkman received 1.2%.

The distinct difference between Berkman and Martinez is that Berkman played a defensive position, while Martinez had the luxury of DH-ing for over half his career. The status of designated hitter has stained the resumes of several prospective Hall of Famers in the past for the reason that designated hitters are perceived to hold an advantage over non DHs. The threat of injury in the field is entirely eliminated, and they can't be subjected to criticism from the public for weaknesses in the field. That player is never going to be in a situation where a ball can roll through his legs and cost his team the game. DH's are able to play longer into their careers due to their role not being as physically demanding. Martinez's career is very unique because his batting average, OBP., SLG, and OPS all went up in the second half of his career (when he became a full-time DH) from the first half (when he primarily played in the field). Both parts of his career were very strong, however.

For me, personally, I've never had a big issue with DH's making the Hall, but the baseball writers have. So to see an 85% gap between these two players was startling to say the least.

To be clear, I am in no way saying that Berkman was better than Martinez, and that one should be in the Hall and the other shouldn't. What I don't understand however is what exactly the baseball writers are looking for, because sometimes the voting patterns are inconsistent. Given the statistics and evidence that we have, you would not expect there to be that big of a perspective gap between two excellent players. Unfortunately for Berkman, there is.

Perhaps Berkman was hurt by the fact that even in his heyday, he was overshadowed by other stars at his position, some in bigger markets. In the late 2000's, the NL Central boasted of an outstanding crop of first baseman, including Berkman, Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Derrek Lee and Joey Votto.

Perhaps Oswalt and Berkman were victims of playing in a smaller market in Houston. Bigger market teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers typically receive more attention, and typically play on prime-time more often than teams like Cincinnati and San Diego.

Whatever the reason was, I wish the voters had taken a closer look at Oswalt and Berkman. Perhaps the Veterans Committee will someday.


Follow me on Twitter @TheJackVita.
(Images via Baseball-Reference and Houston Chronicle)

Friday, January 4, 2019

Podcast: 2018-19 NFL Playoff Preview with Jordan Morandini


Jack and Jordan get you set for NFL playoff action, discuss what went wrong for the Steelers and Vikings and where the Vikings can go from here. Jack weighs on a disappointing year from the Steelers. Then, they break down all of the first round matchups, make NFL awards picks, talk fun Super Bowl locations, and look ahead at potential playoff matchups and dark horses.



YouTube version:


Tweet us your thoughts!
Jordan: @RealJMorandini
Jack: @TheJackVita

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes! And you'll never miss an episode. You can also follow "Press On Sports" on Spotify, subscribe to the podcast YouTube channel, or subscribe on whatever platform you get your podcasts on.





Download link: https://pressonsports.podbean.com/mf/play/hzxpnn/POS_NFL_Playoff_Preview_2019.mp3

(Photo via USA Today)

Friday, December 28, 2018

How the Book of Habakkuk Has Some of the Best Encouragement for 2019


2018 was a year stained by nasty political tension and division, school shootings, sexual harassment and abuse stories, natural disasters, and countless horrible tragedies.

Stories on the evening news and social media outrage have left us distressed. Chances are, before you read this, you've already seen a dozen blog and op-ed pieces entitled something along the lines of, "Why 21st Century America is Screwed" or "Why 2018 was The Worst Year of the New Millennium". 

In the wake of our world's most recent calamities, sometimes it might feel like our world is more doomed than it ever has been before. We might ask, "Why must evil persist? Is 'good' losing? Is 'evil' winning? Are we as a society at an all-time worst?".

A few months ago, I finished reading through the entire Bible on my own, for the first time in my life. Along the way, I saw a number of stories (that I had grown up with in Sunday school) in a new light, and learned a lot about a new batch of characters that are often overlooked.

The most impactful piece of scripture I read in 2018 came late in the Old Testament, in the form of Habakkuk, a short, three-chapter book about a little-known prophet. Using March Madness terminology, Habakkuk is the UMBC Retrievers of the Bible; a mysterious, unnoticed dark horse capable of captivating your interest for a few days in March (or any month for that matter).

The book starts with Habakkuk pouring his heart before the Lord, asking God why everything in Israel is seemingly going wrong. In verses 2-4 of the first chapter, he makes his anguish known to God:

"2 O Lord, how long shall I cry for help,
    and you will not hear?
Or cry to you “Violence!”
    and you will not save?
3 Why do you make me see iniquity,
    and why do you idly look at wrong?
Destruction and violence are before me;
    strife and contention arise.
4 So the law is paralyzed,
    and justice never goes forth.
For the wicked surround the righteous;
    so justice goes forth perverted."

The closer I look at what Habakkuk is complaining of, the more I see that the problems of Israel in this time period (roughly somewhere between 700-600 B.C.) mirror those of modern civilization. In between then and now, an incalculable amount of horrible things have taken place over the course of history. While the specifics of our disasters may be different today, the root problem of them remains the same: evil (more specifically: sin).

In other words, the earth is no less evil today than it has ever been before.

What the Lord says next in response, has been my go-to verse since discovering this hidden gem of a passage.

The Lord's Answer
5 “Look among the nations, and see;
    wonder and be astounded.
For I am doing a work in your days
    that you would not believe if told.

Even in the darkness, God's light shines brightly. God is doing something great in Habakkuk's life at this time, even though Habakkuk might not see it yet. 

Also note that God doesn't say, "I am doing a work in THESE days". He says, "I am doing a work in YOUR days". Since he doesn't use "these days", we know that this message is still relevant in OUR days. This message does not have an expiration date.

So what could God be doing in your days, that you may be overlooking by being concentrated on the darkness? Or what could God be doing in your days that you might not believe, even if you were told? The answers to these questions may not be revealed for some time, but God is working right now nonetheless.

Maybe 2018 was a difficult year for you. Maybe 2018 presented several roadblocks in your personal life that you could not have anticipated. That certainly was the case for me. During our planet's last trip around the sun, I spent a night in the hospital, wore an EKG for a full month, and have dealt with continued struggles stemming from a thyroid disease that has kept me out of work.

Still, I know that God is doing an incredible work in my life right now. He's working on something so mightily wonderful – something that I never would have been able to come up with myself. Even in our momentary struggles, God is renewing us daily, filling us with joy, teaching us new lessons for our benefit, and allowing our battles to serve as an encouragement to others enduring similar challenges.

Maybe someday God will allow me to speak publicly about suffering from an autoimmune disease. Maybe one day I'll write a book about what I gained from my time on the DL (Disabled List- for those that aren't sports fans). Only God knows entirely what can be accomplished through my weaknesses. For right now, He's continuing to draw me closer to Him and giving me peace of mind over the things I cannot control.

Our world may be struggling today, but one day, it will all be worth it.

Let's enter 2019 with this in mind. Happy New Year, my friends.



Follow me on Twitter @TheJackVita.
(Image via www.skydiving.co.uk)

Sunday, December 23, 2018

Press On Sports Podcast: Tim Allen's The Santa Clause with Tommy Weber


After a two-month break, Jack is back with a new episode of Press On Sports! In this edition, Tommy Weber joins Jack to discuss one of their favorite Christmas movies, The Santa Clause (1994), starring Tim Allen.

Together, they put this holiday classic under the microscope and talk about what makes it great, spiritual and faith parallels the movie has (that relate to Christmas), ideas for a Santa Clause 4, who was initially offered the role of Scott Calvin/Santa (and turned it down!), who could play the role of Scott Calvin in 2018 and much, much more!




YouTube version:


Tweet Jack your thoughts!
Jack's twitter: @TheJackVita

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes! And you'll never miss an episode. You can also follow "Press On Sports" on Spotify, subscribe to the podcast YouTube channel, or subscribe on whatever platform you get your podcasts on.






Download link: https://pressonsports.podbean.com/mf/play/zb6s37/POS_12_17_18_The_Santa_Clause_Tim_Allen.mp3

(Photo via Disney)

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

How Jon Gruden is Finessing the Internet



Off to a 1-5 start at the beginning of his second run with the Oakland Raiders, and after trading away the team's best player, nobody in the NFL landscape has been taking more punches from the internet than Jon Gruden.

Gruden has served as both a punchline and a punching bag to bloggers, Twitter users, and anybody else on the internet that feels the need to share their opinions. Even TV and radio personalities, along with national sportswriters have gotten their licks in on Gruden. 

"Jon Gruden is overrated! He's a fool for dealing Khalil Mack. The Raiders are a train-wreck!"

This is the same Jon Gruden that won a Super Bowl, then won 11 games with Chris Sims as the team's starting quarterback three years later, and now is heading up what could be a terrific reboot for the Raiders.

Criticism of Gruden is fair in some regards, considering his team's dismal start, just two years removed from a 12-win season and first playoff trip in a decade and a half. Still, knowing his track record, you would think he would receive a certain amount of grace and slack. But, in a society obsessed with instant gratification, and an internet culture centered around overreactions, snark-iness and self-glorification, grace and patience may be difficult to find.

His broadcasting shtick that he developed over nine years in the Monday Night Football booth hasn't done him any favors either. Well, it did when he was still on the broadcasting side. Gruden related to the audience as a regular, non-pretentious, everyday commoner. He disguised his wealth of football knowledge behind cheesy puns and silly lines, still enlightening the audience with football nuggets that may not be found elsewhere. Personally, I loved it. But his broadcasting personality was extremely polarizing, and understandably so. It's easy to see why some might not respect him as a coach.

In September, the Raiders' decision to ship linebacker Khalil Mack to Chicago had drawn much criticism. When Mack put on a one-man show in Green Bay (recording a sack, a forced fumble, a fumble recovery, an interception and a touchdown all in the same half, an NFL first) on opening night, the criticism intensified. In the short-term, yes, the Raiders are not looking like a very competitive football team. But Gruden has an opportunity to set the Raiders up very well for their long-term future in Las Vegas, if he can capitalize on the high draft picks he is quickly accumulating.

With Mack entering the final year of his rookie deal, Gruden was met with a difficult choice, while working around a salary cap mess that was created prior to his arrival. Either extend Mack, trade him, or let him walk in a year for nothing as a free agent. The dollar amount Mack was looking for (and eventually got from the Bears -- he is now the highest paid defensive player in NFL history), paired with the contracts already on the books would cripple the team financially. Even with Mack on-board, was the team even going anywhere, in that division?

The Raiders swapped Mack for two picks from the Bears, a franchise that hasn't made the playoffs since 2010, and from 2014 through 2017 had a combined record of 19-45. Barring a huge turnaround, the Raiders could have some high picks coming their way. Even if the Bears finish in the middle of the pack the next two years, a pair of top 15 picks, if used correctly, could help retool the Raiders for the next decade.

Earlier this week, Gruden flipped receiver Amari Cooper to Dallas for their 2019 first round pick. Speculation around the league was that the price to acquire Cooper (who has shown equal promise and disappointment in the early years of his career) would be a second or third round pick. Cooper has just one year remaining on his rookie contract, a unique deal that featured a $15 million signing bonus, but is extremely back-loaded. Cooper was making less than $1 million annually for the first four years of the deal. In year 5, his salary will hike up to a guaranteed $14 million.

The Raiders shed $14 million in cap space for next season, and snagged another first round pick, this one, from a team that stands at 3-4, on pace to miss the playoffs. After cutting ties with Dez Bryant, the Cowboys have had a great need at the receiver position and were desperate to find help for Dak Prescott to get the team back on the right track. 

At age 24, Cooper has already appeared in two Pro Bowls, but has also ranked near the top of the league in drop percentage and drops over the last three seasons.

Now with five first round picks stockpiled over the next two NFL Drafts, Gruden is in a prime position to turn around the Raiders. According to Tankathon.com, a website that helps keep track of leagues' draft orders throughout the season, the Raiders are on pace to have three top 15 picks next April. 


At the moment, the Raiders are slotted at pick no. 4, with the Dallas pick falling at no. 8, and Chicago's at no. 15. With nine weeks left in the season, the Cowboys (3-4) and Bears (3-3) could wind up anywhere, but I would expect them to ultimately end up somewhere in the middle of the pack, between picks 10-17. And that might not be all.

At this stage, it's pretty clear that Gruden isn't stressing too much over the 2018 season, and is instead looking towards the future. A total blow-up could be in effect. I would expect to see more moves between now and next Tuesday's trade deadline. Could they dangle Derek Carr?

Like much of the rest of his team, Carr is off to a slow start. Two years ago he threw 28 touchdowns and just six interceptions. Through six games this season, he's thrown more picks (8) than touchdowns (7). Still, Carr could be extremely valuable to a team that has all the right pieces, save for the quarterback position. Look no further than Jacksonville. The Jags reached the AFC title game last season, and now sit at 3-4 with Blake Bortles struggling mightily (he was benched on Sunday). Despite the slow start, they're only a game back of the division leader Houston in a weak AFC South.

Or, what about Miami? The Dolphins made the playoffs two years ago and got off to a hot 4-2 start this fall. But with Ryan Tannehill injured once again, they're in danger of meeting the same fate as their 2017 team found. A stable quarterback could ignite one of these teams' offenses and send them back to the playoffs.

We've seen moves like this recently. In 2016, the Eagles got a first and a fourth rounder from the Vikings for Sam Bradford. If a team in danger of squandering its competitive window needs a quarterback, they'll pay up. 

If Gruden gets the right offer, he could add another first round pick to his collection and shed a guaranteed $70 million from the team's books.

While he may be sacrificing Oakland's 2018 season and his respect from internet trolls, if he can cash in on these picks and take advantage of the team's cap space, Jon Gruden can propel the Raiders to the franchise's next era of glory in Las Vegas.



Follow me on Twitter @TheJackVita and let me hear your thoughts.

(Image via CBS Sports)

Friday, October 5, 2018

How to Fix the Cubs

It's hard to believe that as I pen this on October 5th, the Cubs have already been eliminated from the playoffs for a number of days. Just three years ago, fans were overjoyed to once again have the opportunity to play October baseball. Now however, due to the team's quick emergence to the top and extremely talented roster, the Cubs organization and its fans expect much more.

There are a number of places for fans and press members alike to point the finger at where the team went wrong. The front office doubled down on what didn't work in 2017, then threw $185 million at the likes of Yu Darvish, Tyler Chatwood and Brandon Morrow- none of whom were on the playoff roster. Once again, questions arose over Joe Maddon's bullpen over-usage, as many of the team's best relievers either got hurt or didn't have their best stuff come October (see: Morrow, Pedro Strop, Steve Cishek, Carl Edwards Jr.). Other decisions by Maddon have been scrutinized, while the Cubs' bats went silent at the wrong time.

While the Cubs can't get a mulligan on 2018, they sure as heck can make some alterations that can bring them closer to once again reigning supreme in the National League. So where do they go from here? Here are the changes I would make.

1) Find a legitimate, everyday lead-off hitter
The top of my list begins with the top of the order. After two years of inconsistency in run production (the Cubs' were top 3 in Major League Baseball in "most games scoring one run or fewer" this season), the Cubs still haven't found a replacement to Dexter Fowler. Fowler's value to the 2015 and 2016 Cubs has gone somewhat uncredited. Fowler started 119 games in the lead-off spot in 2016, where he produced a .391 OBP. With Fowler setting the table in the lead-off spot, the Cubs offense soared. In the games he missed prior to the 2016 All-Star break, the team's offense looked lost and started to dip, going 11-17 without Fowler. Prior to that, the team stood at 46-20. Fowler hasn't been the same player since joining the Cardinals prior to 2017, so by no means am I saying the Cubs need Fowler back; more so, they need someone who can mirror Fowler's 2016 production.

The 2018 team couldn't identify a lead-off hitter. For the last two months, Daniel Murphy served in that role, despite only spending 12 games in the lead-off spot in his 9-year career prior. Murphy's OBP was .340 in the lead-off spot, and slumped down the stretch. Murphy had spent the last two years primarily hitting in the 3-5 spots, where he generated a .347 BA and 104 RBI's in '16 and .322 and 93 RBI's in '17. The team also struggled to cash in with runners on base, so he seemed like a more logical fit in the middle of the order.

Others to spend a chunk of time in the lead-off spot go as follows (these are splits only listing in their numbers when leading-off):
Almora (45 GS, 192 AB): .339 BA, .374 OBP, .811 OPS Rizzo (31 GS, 116 AB): .328 BA, .428 OPB, .989 OPS Zobrist (27 GS, 123 AB): .285 BA, .371 OBP, .810 OPS

Rizzo put up outstanding numbers in the lead-off spot. But does your first baseman who just drove in 100 RBI's for the fourth straight season really fit there in the long run when your team still has a problem with knocking runners in? In my opinion, Rizzo should always stay between 3-6 in the order. Which limits your options to Zobrist and Almora. At 37 years-young, Zobrist had the best year of his career in '18, batting over .300 for the first time. He's always been a strong OBP guy, but with back problems over the last couple of years and entering his age 38 season, can you depend on him to fulfill that everyday lead-off man role? Maybe. Almora is the most enticing option to me. At 24, he could very well be on the up as a potential elite defensive player and rising hitter, although he did struggle some in the second half when not playing regularly. If the Cubs don't feel they can rely upon any of these options, then they need to find their everyday lead-off man through trade or free agency this winter.

2) Ditch the power bats and embrace a consistent lineup of contact hitters

Through 22 innings of 'win and you're in' baseball, the Cubs offense was only able to muster two runs. The lineup has heavily relied upon the long ball the last two years. League-wide, home run numbers were down in '18, which begs the question, "Are the juiced baseballs gone?". In all seriousness, the boom-or-bust trend is extremely risky, and as I've harped on for the last two years, the team that strikes out the least, puts the ball in play, and fields it cleanly in the field will likely outshine a high-strikeout, home run team in a 7-game series. The '17 Astros won the World Series as the team that struck out least frequently in the entire league. The Cubs' offense has feasted on bad pitching, but when faced with the task of beating Freeland, Scherzer or Kershaw? The lineup shrinks. The lineup couldn't even pound Jhoulys Chacin, who had a 4.81 ERA just two seasons ago.

As we continue to chalk up the lineup's struggles to "inconsistency", maybe the Cubs should alter their lineup and approach. Take the Brewers for example. Adding Lorenzo Cain (.308 BA in '18) and Christian Yelich (.326 batting champ and likely MVP) helped them become 10 games better from '17 and win the Central division. Their elite outfield defense put them at second in the National League at runs saved (for an entire defense), while Cain and Yelich proved to be a consistent one-two punch at the top of the order. The Cubs had just one player bat over .300 this season (Zobrist).

The Cubs should seriously consider cutting ties with some of the high strikeout/low average/all power/limited defense guys like Kyle Schwarber and Ian Happ. Schwarber entered 2018 in the best physical shape of his career, with very high expectations from the press (remember when Chicago writers were predicting him to receive MVP votes this year?) and pretty much performed at his career average (.238 BA), while his home run numbers were down from last season (26 compared to last year's 30). His defense wasn't quite as poor as it had been in years past, but he still struggled in left from time to time, with limited range. Imagine if the Cubs had pulled the trigger on a deal centered around Schwarber and Happ for Yelich last winter? Hindsight is always 20-20, but 2018 didn't give me much confirmation that hanging onto Schwarber is worthwhile. If a player like Contreras, who is above league-average defensively struggles at the plate, it's much more forgivable than players who already struggle in the field.

In my opinion, almost everyone on this roster save for the obvious (Rizzo, Bryant, Lester, Hendricks) should be movable given the right trade offer, even Baez. While Cubs' fans would have a hard time forgiving the team for trading the popular, budding star, a number of analytics make me worrisome of Baez sustaining his 2018 success. Baez still has one of the highest chase rates in all of baseball, meaning he still swings at a lot of pitches out of the strike zone. Despite mashing .290 at the dish, Baez's OBP was just .326. He hasn't proven to be capable of drawing walks. If I was pitching to him, I wouldn't throw him a single strike until he shows me that he'll take the walks consistently, and I would expect pitchers league-wide to take that approach when dealing to Baez next season. Defensively, he's terrific at second but hasn't been that great at short. He'll make the spectacular play, but botch the routine play. The Cubs' front office has sold low on players in recent memory. Schwarber could have been dealt two years ago, Happ last year, for a bigger haul than they would yield this winter. Now is their chance to sell very high on a player. While Baez's ceiling is very high, it wouldn't surprise me if he struggled mightily in 2019 as pitchers adapt to him. If the offer is right (deGrom?), the Cubs should be open to moving almost anyone for some pitching help, and contact hitters.

Recently, teams have shown that they're more interested in prospects than young players already at the MLB level. They can control them longer and develop them however they want. Don't be surprised if a player like Schwarber gets moved for a handful of talented pitching prospects that can help replenish the Cubs' farm system for now, and be moved later if the Cubs are in need of something at the deadline.

3) Identify the team's best 8 position players and make them your regulars everyday

The next step to finding consistency is allowing your players to play in a comfortable routine each day. Every athlete I know likes to keep things the exact same in their pregrame rituals and routines. Athletes are superstitious. If they struggle for a week, then have a great game, they may wear the same pair of socks for the next two weeks. So continuously juggling the batting order, for the sake of entertaining yourself as a manager, may not sit well with all the players. If a couple of hitters are developing chemistry batting back-to-back, keep it that way. Don't be obsessed with changing things. A consistent lineup can produce consistent results.

Maddon's obsession with shaking up the lineup works well with under-talented teams, in my opinion. However, once you have a super-talented team, it may be time to pull the plug on that.

Another issue with allowing everyone to play is that it can make some players unhappy in their roles. Former Cub and current MLB Network analyst Mark DeRosa has talked about how it's imperative for players to know and accept their roles. If a guy knows he's a bench player, he's typically content with that. But if you give him hope that he can win the starting job, and starts to outperform the other guy(s) vying for that spot, then still has to play part-time, he can get very frustrated and unhappy. This can happen with more than one player, and upset team chemistry.

In my opinion, a team is most cohesive when it plays its best eight players a large percentage of the time, and always in the playoffs. I'm not saying you can't give players days off, or have a platoon at a position or two, but I don't think you can end up starting David Bote in an elimination game either. Bote batted .165 over the club's last 39 games, starting 26 of them. He's a fine replacement-level player for now, but isn't one of your best 8. I would have much rather seen Heyward (.290 vs. lefties this season) in there.

4) Bring in some veteran clubhouse leaders

The '16 world champion team had a very nice mix of veteran leaders and young players who would follow them. David Ross and John Lackey were a pair of fiery guys who always worked hard and knew what buttons to push with their teammates. Dexter Fowler was a guy on the team, a little older and more experienced, that everybody loved being around. The departure of the three has left big shoes to fill.

Maddon's laid back approach works, but when things are going wrong, I think it works better when older players are showing younger players what they're supposed to do, when they need to relax, when they need to turn it on, etc. Rossy and Lackey were vocal leaders that always worked extremely hard. Lester and Zobrist are a pair of lead by example types, meanwhile, the current Cubs' captain wants to play less games. Don't get me wrong, Rizzo is a leader, but I think the Cubs could benefit from a couple veteran additions.

Curtis Granderson, who will be 38 by the start of next season, has yet to win a World Series and is hungrier than ever for one as a free agent. The Chicago native still does a great deal of philanthropy in the area and would make a welcome addition as a fourth outfielder who would be content in his role. He's also one of the most liked players in the whole league.

Among those who could fill a need as a veteran back-up catcher from the free agent market, and also could give Contreras a little more rest from the grueling position in '19: Kurt Suzuki, Jonathan Lucroy, Martin Maldonado, Matt Wieters and AJ Ellis could all be viable options.

5) Don't overspend on free agents

Though the Cubs already have a lot of money and will have more in a few months when they sign their next TV deal, the front office has already spent over $300 million combined on just Heyward, Darvish, Chatwood and Morrow. Eventually Rizzo, Bryant, Contreras, Almora, Hendricks, Baez and co. will need new deals. If you want to keep this young core in place, you're going to need money to save for them.

Bryce Harper and Manny Machado will be the talk of the winter. The Cubs are currently the odds-on-favor to add Harper, according to the offshore casino Bovada. But does Harper really make the Cubs' that much better for what he will cost? Scott Boras will be looking for $300 million for his client that hit .249 and 34 homers, playing lackluster defense in right. You can get similar production if you hang onto Schwarber at a much cheaper price. Harper's team failed to reach the playoffs, and there have been whispers that he isn't the greatest teammate.

Machado may be a bit more appealing, however he has had serious injuries on both of his knees. He's elite defensively at third, but isn't the same defensive beast at short. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving either guy a 10-year contract, as we've seen how those contracts have financially crippled teams in the past (see: Albert Pujols). There will be a number of enticing free agents that can be had at a cheaper cost.

Whatever the Cubs plan to do with Addison Russell (an issue I don't feel comfortable commenting on), I would expect them to add a shortstop regardless. Freddy Galvis and Jose Iglesias are a pair of plus-defenders that won't cost too much. Even if the Cubs elect to keep Russell, they'll need someone to fill in for the 30ish games he'll miss.

Another potential free agent target: Jon Jay. He was very good for the Cubs in '17, serving as a lead-off man and good defensive outfield option. He would bring some depth if the Cubs choose to pass on some of the flashier outfielders past Harper (Andrew McCutchen, Michael Brantley, AJ Pollock, Nick Markakis, Carlos Gonzalez; all of whom could be solid adds).

Conclusion: 

I have no idea in what direction the Cubs will go in this winter, but I would expect some significant changes. The status quo hasn't worked for two years and the Cubs need to patch up the holes they've found since they won the World Series two years ago. I would also expect them to add a couple of relievers. Despite a lackluster 2018 season, with the right off-season moves, the Cubs aren't far from returning to glory.



Follow me on Twitter @TheJackVita and let me hear your thoughts.

(Image via Chicago Tribune)

Press On Sports Podcast: MLB Playoff Preview with Jamey Hill


Jamey Hill joins Jack to break down the Wild Card games and upcoming action in October baseball, including World Series picks. It's an episode you won't want to miss!



Youtube:



Tweet us your thoughts, and follow Jamey on Twitter!
Jamey: @jwswim1
Jack: @TheJackVita


Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes! And you'll never miss an episode. You can also follow "Press On Sports" on Spotify, subscribe to the podcast YouTube channel, or subscribe on whatever platform you get your podcasts on.






Download this episode (right click and save)
(Photo via Brewers.com)