The All Cubs Mailbag

Photo via Jack Vita

Q: Vegas gives the Cubs 4-1 odds of winning it all. Too high, too low, or just right?
-Jon, Mequon, WI

JV: TOO HIGH!

First, let's take a look at the most recent teams with the highest odds of winning the World Series.

In 2015, it was the Washington Nationals, at 6-1. In 2014, it was the Los Angeles Dodgers at 11-2. 2013? The Nationals again at 6-1. 2012?

And just how did all of those teams finish?

'15 Nationals: 83-79, missed playoffs.
'14 Dodgers: 94-68, lost to Cardinals in the NLDS 3-1.
'13 Nationals: 86-76, missed playoffs.

Meanwhile, the Kansas City Royals (my 2015 preseason pick to win it all), after winning the American League pennant and pushing the World Series champion San Francisco Giants to a closer-than-people-remember-game 7, gave gamblers a 30-1 payout when they reached the top of the sports world last October.

Many teams have difficulties when the target is on their backs. Remember when the Cubs were favored to win the World Series after winning the NLDS as underdogs? And then they got swept.

This is a team that has performed at its best when there have been no expectations at all for them. And after waiting a 108 years to emerge victorious, the last thing the team needs is more pressure.

4-1 is a casino's meanless plea for ambitious gamblers to mortgage the farm on a sexy pick. Do the odds-makers know an awful lot about this stuff? Absolutely. But they will also try to trick and trap people in to bad bets, and in addition to that, if the Cubs do win the World Series, the payout won't be that high. So really, a good job done by them on this one.

In addition to the pressure, I don't expect the Cubs to be better than they were last season. Arrieta had a historically great season that won't be replicated by ANYBODY anytime in the foreseeable future. Arrieta will still be good. I don't think it was a fluke season and he can still make his first all-star appearance. However, I do worry about pitchers following up a 238-inning season, especially after never going more than 156 prior. But let's assume Arrieta is fine. He will NOT go 22-6 again. Let's say he wins 15 games this year, that means 7 wins will need to be picked up by other pitchers. (More on this in a bit)

Remember when you TP'd some girl's house in junior high? The first time it was fun and all, but the next time she overheard you were having a sleepover with your boys she and her friends prepared and threw eggs at you and your plan was much less effective? Let those awkward junior high moments serve as a symbol of what to expect out of the Cubs second-year players.

After impressive rookie campaigns from Addison Russell, Kris Bryant, Jorge Soler and Kyle Schwarber, the honeymoon phase is over. Pitchers are going to have all kinds of tendencies researched, and they are going to have a better idea of how to pitch to these guys.

We should know because as fans, we learned from experience. The 2013 season was one of the most miserable summers of my life. Following Anthony Rizzo's standout rookie season, the soon-to-be-star took a significant dip (.233 BA). Why? Because that's just a part of the process. It's growing pains and it happens to the best of them.

Expecting Bryant (.275 BA, .369 OBP, 26 HR's, 99 RBI's in 151 games), Schwarber (.246 BA, .355 OBP, 16 HR's, 43 RBI's in 69 games), Russell (.242 BA, .307 OBP, 13 HR's, 54 RBI's in 142 games) and Soler (.268 BA, .324 OBP, 15 HR's, 47 RBI's in 125 games) to up their production in their sophomore years would be flat-out unfair. Don't be surprised when half of those guys struggle this year. They'll be alright long-term; it's just a part of the process.

The Cubs will be in the mix in 2016, but to pick them as the favorites? If you take a closer look, you might realize that it is a tad bit far-fetched.

So who should be favored to win the World Series?

The same team has won the World Series every even-numbered year of this decade. The San Francisco Giants are backed by a Hall of Fame manager, a stacked lineup, a very much improved pitching rotation and a steady bullpen. The Giants made the moves that I wanted the Cubs to make. Jeff Samardzija is poised for a bounce-back season after a forgettable 2015. Johnny Cueto, despite his inconsistency, has shown that he has the capability to mow teams down when it matters. Couple the pair with the most dominant postseason pitcher of this era (Madison Bumgarner) and you are looking at an absolutely filthy team. Neither Cueto or Samardzija will be asked to be an ace, and if they struggle, they lose nothing from the moves. They also don't play in the best division in baseball (the N.L. Central) and have a better chance of avoiding the play-in game. But if they do face the play-in game, they can just throw Bumgarner at their opponent.

I'd give the Giants the highest odds at 6-1.

Q: How well does John Lackey fit into the rotation?
-Andrew, Valparaiso, IN

JV: The signing of John Lackey was an odd one, although we should have seen it coming. Lackey was a pick up of Theo's in Boston, and he, along with Josh Beckett and now current teammate Jon Lester (reunited!) were the at head of the pitching rotation for the Red Sox.

Lackey enjoyed his best statistical season in year 13 of his career in 2015, posting an ERA of 2.77 and winning the lone game he pitched in the postseason.

But there are some things that need to be considered:

A) Lackey is 37. Just a few years ago in 2011, he posted a 6.41 ERA in 2011. 2010? 4.40. His career looked over (aside from a 3.52 in 2013) until a mid-season trade to the Cardinals helped him achieve success. But even then, he still only pitched 4.30 in six starts after the trade.

B) Keep in mind the Cardinal effect. Yes, that's a thing.

There are certain teams that have systems that allow players to play better than what they might be. For whatever reason, players perform better in certain locations than others, and it doesn't always make sense.

Take a look at some past Cardinals pitchers, and even position players for that matter.

Jason Marquis: 15-7 with a 3.71 ERA in 2004. After fleeing for free agency in the winter of 2006, Marquis never had another ERA under 4.

Matt Morris: 2x All-Star, left the Cards after 2006 and posted a 4.89 ERA the next year. Was out of baseball by the end of 2008.

Kyle Lohse: went 16-3 with a 2.86 ERA in 2012 before testing the waters of free agency. Had an ERA of 5.85 in 2015 with the Brewers.

For more examples, see Joel Pineiro, Woody Williams, Julian Tavarez, and even Edwin Jackson. The list goes on.

So what am I getting at? I'm not crazy about the Lackey signing. Not only am I not sure how much he has left in the tank, but I don't see how big an upgrade he will be over an ailing Dan Haren. Pitching was the most glaring weak spot of the 2015 Cubs, and if they were willing to spend $180 million on one player this winter, I would have much rather seen them spend that on a big time pitcher.

The best thing about the signing is that it is only a two-year contract. So if it doesn't work out, they won't be stuck (a la Soriano).

But come on. $180 million dollars, and John Lackey is the best you could do?

Here's how I forecast this season's pitching staff:
Arrieta- takes a step back but is still very effective.
Lester- pitches better than he did last year and finds more consistency in his second year.
Hendricks- improves, and shows the same promise he did after his rookie campaign (7-2, 2.46 ERA).
Hammel- stays the same as he did last year.

The bottom is still shaky. Initially, I shook my head at the Price contract. But when I saw Jason Heyward get $22 million/year, I reconsidered.

If signing Greinke was out of the picture, I would have signed Samardzija to the same deal San Francisco gave him (5 years/$90 million). I truly believe that he is going to return to form (2.83 ERA with the Cubs before being shipped to Oakland) in 2016. His ERA inflated last year (4.96) due to a) not getting along or seeing eye-to-eye with his pitching coach b) being left in games longer than he should have been- there were times where he'd pitch a solid 6 innings and one run, but then get shelled in the later innings, and still be left out in to pitch, c) the designated hitter. Samardzija isn't an ace, but he would be a dang good number 3.

It didn't have to be Samardzija, it could have been Jordan Zimmermann, Mike Leake, Cueto, Doug Fister or Scott Kazmir... or Price or Greinke.

I think the Cubs could have done much more to improve their pitching staff, and even if Lester and Hendricks are better this season, the staff could be even weaker than it was last year (factoring in an Arrieta decline).

At the end of the day, Lackey will likely be placed in the number three role, and I will hope that the Cubs can ooze out every ounce of baseball he has left. (1 Arrieta, 2 Lester, 3 Lackey, 4 Hendricks, 5 Hammel).

Q: How good will Ben Zobrist be?
-Laura, Wilmette, IL

JV: For the last two years, I have been pleaing the Cubs to trade Starlin Castro to open up more playing time for Javy Baez and add another pitcher. The Cubs suddenly did this at the beginning of December, but it didn't go the way I had expected.

The Cubs dumped Starlin Castro in exchange for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. No disrespect to Adam Warren, who I think will actually be a good acquisition, but this is a 25 year-old middle infielder that has already made three All-Star appearances and is just nine hits away from 1,000. I thought for sure that Castro would be the type of player that you could package with a solid prospect or two for a really good pitcher. Instead, the move was made just to clear roster and salary space for another middle infielder, this one at the age of 35.

First: Castro might be at his best with the Yankees. He can DH, which would keep him from getting down on himself after making an error or a foolish play in the field. He also has a great manager that has a way of bringing a lot of the pieces he is given. The Yankees had no business playing postseason baseball last year but Girardi somehow got them there. This is a great landing spot for Starlin and I wish him the best.

Second: Although it might not have yielded the kind of return the Cubs could have used, I really like Zobrist as a player. He is a prototypical veteran leader that has been in the playoffs before and probably wants to win more badly than any other guy on the team. He's been with Joe Maddon and it worked out really well before, and most importantly, he can play six or seven different positions.

Zobrist is a great contract hitter, something the Cubs need. The Royals built their championship run on contact-hitting. They hit the Mets, something the Cubs couldn't do. I would like to see Zobrist lead off. Although he doesn't have the speed of the prototypical lead-off guy, that's okay. The Cubs don't have any true burners on the team, and Maddon's approach to stealing bases doesn't put an importance on speed.

What I like best about the signing is that after this year or next, the Cubs can move Zobrist to a bench role, and he can still play 120-140 games just by filling in for other guys to give them days off. It's not a sprint, it's a marathon and his arrival can help the team stay healthy.

While I would have liked to see Baez get to play every day to improve, we will just have to wait a little longer.

Zobrist will be good, but his numbers could drop off some time soon. But even if they do, he'll help the team in much more ways than hitting. Good pickup.

Q: Will Jason Heyward ever live up to his contract? And did the Cubs make the smart decision signing Heyward over pitchers on the market?
-Evan, Lake Villa, IL

JV: Jason Heyward is without a doubt, an elite defensive player. At the age of 26, he already owns three Gold Gloves. And he had the 15th best WAR (a statistic that I don't fully trust yet) last season. But does anyone remember the hype on him when he up in 2010?

Articles like this were being written. Heyward was supposed to be the new Ken Griffey Jr.- a 5-tool player with Hall of Fame potential.

While Heyward has had a very nice WAR and a solid OBP the last few years, prior to joining the Cardinals last year, Heyward was a career .260 hitter. He hit .293 in a contract year with a team that we already talked about being amazing at player development and now he's a lifetime .268. La-di-fricken-da.

I like Heyward as a player, and perhaps he did figure things out last year. He still is just 26 and his best years may have yet to come. But for $22 million/year for 8 years?!

In a city haunted by bad contracts (Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Marmol, Jay Cutler, Derrick Rose, Carlos Boozer, Ben Wallace anyone?) I naturally fear big, long contracts. So much can happen; so much can change. What if the guy you gave all that money to gets hurt? *Cough* *cough* Derrick Rose. How many times have we been able to look and say, "that guy lived up to his big payday." It's rare.

Many are quick to point that Heyward can opt out after year 3 or year 4, but that still scares me. It is completely out of the Cubs' hands. Let's just say that Heyward were to opt out after year 3, at age 29. He would need to find an offer that's better than 5 years/$110 million. If he underperforms or gets hurt, what club would give him more money than that?

If the Cubs are stuck with Heyward on their payroll, it is going to be all the more difficult to bring back fan favorites and tomorrow's stars (KB, Schwarbz, Addy, Baez, Soler). Rizzo and Arrieta are going to need new contracts too. If a .268 hitter can yield the kind of contract that he did, what is going to be the price for a late-20's superstar? If I'm the GM, I want to keep those youngsters around for as long as possible. The longer they are here, the longer the Cubs' championship window is open.

What I dislike most about the signing is that the Cubs have someone that's 21 that can play the outfield like Heyward very soon. Albert Almora can be a star. And the Cubs wouldn't have to shell out the kind of dough they did this past winter.

With that said however, no one in the farm system is ready to be the proven answer in center field this year. So I look at another nice move the Giants made. I would have liked the Cubs to add Denard Span. As mentioned earlier, the thing the Cubs are lacking is a burner on the basepaths that is also a consistent hitter. Span does all that with a flashy glove at a much cheaper price (4 years/$39 million).
By adding Heyward, the Cubs only clog up their outfield, blocking young prospects from seeing consistent playing time at the big league level (which will make them better) in coming years. In my eyes, the Cubs should treat 2016 like they did 2015. No "championship or bust," no pressure; just another growth season. Because if the Cubs can do what they did last year with rookie players, just picture the super team they can be in a few years when those players have flourished and enter their primes.

And before you give me the "I trust Theo" spiel, while Theo has drafted all of the right guys, made some great trades and made the Cubs what they are now, consider his track record with free agency.

He has done a really good job of picking up undervalued players like Chris Coghlan, Scott Feldman and Chris Denorfia. But some of Theo's big signings have made him look like a child foolishly using his dad's credit card.

J.D. Drew- 5 years/$70 million at age 31. Hit .264 over that span, and a dismal .222 in his final season.
Julio Lugo- 4 years/$36 million at age 31. Hit .251.
Mike Cameron- 2 years/$16 million at age 37. Hit .219.
Daisuke Matsuzaka- paid over $100 million to negotiate and sign him from Japan. Although dominate in his sophomore season (18-3), Matsuzaka's ERA with the Sox was 4.52, including an 8.28 (yikes!) in his last year with the team.
David Wells- at age 41, Theo gave Wells a 2 years/$18 million deal in 2005. His ERA was 4.45 and 4.98 over the two years.
Edwin Jackson- 4.98 and 6.33 in two years with the Cubs before being released mid-season in 2015. The Cubs are still giving him paychecks through 2016, the last year of his 4 year/$52 million deal.

Not a great list.

I wouldn't have signed Heyward to the contract that he received. And I would have rather had them put that money towards pitching. Which brings us to...

Q: Is there any player(s) on the Cubs [that] baseball fans should watch during Spring Training?
-Robert, Valparaiso, IN

I am assuming that you are talking about young players.

Albert Almora plays with a grittiness in the outfield that is rarely seen from players. Look him up on YouTube and you'll see what I'm talking about. He started to bust out of a slump last summer and caught fire in his last two months in AA Tennessee. For more on him, check out this article I wrote last fall.

For Cubs fans, Ian Happ and Arismendy Alcantara should be interesting to keep an eye on. Alcantara was supposed to be the Cubs' utility guy last year, but after a lackluster spring he spent the year in AAA batting an even more lackluster .231. Happ struggled (.259) in his first year in the Cubs' farm system after being picked ninth overall in the 2015 MLB Amateur Draft.

Another to watch would be outfielder Billy McKinney, who slapped a .340 in Myrtle Beach prior to his AA promotion last year. He's got good wheels and the tools to be a really good outfielder. And the Cuban Eddie Martinez who was signed in the off-season also is intriguing.

But for baseball fans like yourself, Robert, watch out for Gleyber Torres, Dan Vogelbach and Wilson Contreras. Why? Because they may be coming to a city near you!

Torres is 19 year-old shortstop from Venezuela that slashed .293 in 2015 class A South Bend, earning him the title of #41st best prospect in all of baseball via Baseball Prospectus. He'll need to work on his fielding--he committed 27 errors in 2015--but his bat is worthwhile. New Starlin Castro?

Dan Vogelbach physically looks like Kyle Schwarber. In fact, some fans have already mistook him for Schwarber, asking for Schwarbs' autograph at spring training. Vogelbach is a good hitter, but not a great fielder. He's likely a future DH.

Jeimer Candelario has impressed too. He has some value.

Wilson Contreras is #57 on the same list that Torres appeared on. Considering that the Cubs drafted Kyle Schwarber as a catcher and have talked about getting him more reps at catcher, Contreras may not be in the Cubs' long-term plans... or Schwarber could be the odd man out. But the 23 year-old hit .333 last year in AA. I imagine that he isn't far away from playing at the big league level, but there aren't a lot of openings on the Cubs' 25-man. After I saw him at spring training though, I would like to keep him. He's the best fielding catcher the Cubs have and he calls a good game. Depending on Contreras' performance, Montero's days may be numbered.

So what does that mean?...

Q: What will the Cubs be doing at the trade deadline? Who will they be moving in and out?
-Chris, Winnetka, IL

JV: Last year I predicted a Starlin Castro-for-Tyson Ross trade. Although it didn't happen, I think think Ross is still on the Cubs' radar. This one will be dependent on the Padres' asking price. Will it be as a ridiculous as reported last season?

The Oakland A's are back in rebuilding mode. 26 year-old All-Star Sonny Gray is the team's most prized possession. The Cubs might realize that they need another pitcher. Adding the American League's third best pitcher last year would make all the difference for the Cubs' pitching staff. Imagine a trio of Arrieta-Gray-Lester and then take your pick from Hendricks, Lackey and Hammel in a playoff series.

With that said, if I was in Theo/Jed's shoes there are a handful of position players I would not trade. Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, Schwarber, Baez, Soler and Almora are untradeable RIGHT NOW in my eyes. I think that's the core of the team (who all came up together) that can shape a Chicago Blackhawks-like dynasty on the North Side. That can change. But right now I think it's most wise to keep them all.

The good news is that the Cubs are so loaded, they probably are capable of acquiring a big ticket pitcher without having to part ways with any of the seven named above. Besides, knowing Billy Beane, the A's will be more interested in minor leaguers that are younger and haven't begun their service time yet. So I would trade some kind of combination of Torres, Candelario and Vogelbach. If needed, although I really like McKinney, he could go in this deal and I would be okay with it. McKinney was originally drafted by Beane, so he has to like McKinney. Here's another hypothetical: if (big if) the Cubs outfield deals with injuries, couldn't you see Chris Coghlan being added to this trade to make a return and make another playoff run?

Sonny Gray to the Cubs will be my kind-of-prediction/hope-it-happens trade of the season. But I hope from the bottom of my heart that it doesn't mean letting go of  Soler, Baez or Almora. I think all can be All-Stars with Hall of Fame-like potential. Baez can be Jeff Kent + killer wheels, better baseball instincts and a flashy glove. I've already defended Almora and I think trading Soler is humorous after his killer playoff series against the Cardinals. He brought life to the team, gave them an offensive pick-me-up and threw out a runner at home that killed a rally in game four. I think Soler is going to have a really good 2016, the best of the Cubs' sophomores.

The Cubs were far more aggressive this offseason than they have been in any since Theo/Jed took over. That could hint at a blockbuster trade in July. Only time will tell.

One more trade idea: the Cleveland Indians have been stuck in average-team-mode for quite some time now. If they don't break out, would it make sense for them to trade Corey Kluber? Because I would love to have Corey Kluber on the Cubs! I'd trade the same package for Gray/Kluber but nothing more.

Q: How does the signing of Dexter Fowler and the trade of Chris Coghlan impact the Cubs' outfield situation? Where does that leave Kyle Schwarber? On that note, will Kyle Schwarber ever be a full or most of the time catcher?
-James, Prospect Heights, IL

JV: Fowler's return was about as confusing as the ending of Looper. While it didn't make me as angry at Cubs' management as I was at the filmmakers of Looper, I was upset/disappointed at the result of the decision, because it meant losing Chris Coghlan.

On a team of youngsters that like to have fun, Coghlan was the appropriate adult in the room when needed. He did a lot for the Cubs, and though the team added Zobrist I'm not sure the team needed to part ways with Coghlan.

Let's take a look at four outfielders:

Door 1- 2014: .276 BA, .375 OBP, 8 HR's, 11 SB
2015: .250 BA, .346 OBP, 17 HR's, 20 SB (CS 7 times)
LIFETIME: .267 BA, .363 OBP

Door 2- 2014: .271 BA, .351 OBP, 11 HR's, 20 SB
2015: .293 BA, .359 OBP, 13 HR's, 23 SB'
LIFETIME: .268 BA, .353 OBP

Door 3- 2014: .256 BA, .308 OBP, 4 HR's, 20 SB (CS 6 times)
2015: .267 BA, .311 OBP, 9 HR's, 17 SB
LIFETIME: .273 BA, .333 OBP

Door 4- 2014: .283 BA, .352 OBP, 9 HR's, 7 SB
2015: .250 BA, .341 OBP, 16 HR's, 11 SB
LIFETIME: .268 BA, .340 OBP

Is any door significantly better than the others?

Door 1: Fowler, 2: Heyward, 3: Austin Jackson, 4: Coghlan.

Coghlan actually hit better than Heyward in 2014 and I think he's going to hit well again this year. Coghlan brought the team more versatility than Fowler, and Coghlan graciously accepted his move to a bench role. He knew his role and he made the most of it.

I would rather take Coghlan than Fowler. While Fowler was alright, a fan favorite and a fixture in the clubhouse, he hit poorly in the first half of the year and his defense was bad all year round. He looked lackadaisical. I thought the move of adding Heyward was to upgrade defensively from Fowler (even though Heyward has seldom played center in his career). Now the Cubs intend to have Fowler starting with Schwarber/Soler platooning. I'm still confused. If it means less playing time for young players that are developing in to stars, I'm not in to it. I think Soler and Schwarber are better players than Dex.

I guess my biggest thing is that if the Cubs had planned to bring back Fowler this whole time, then why make the splurge for Heyward? The Cubs only need one of those types of players in their starting lineup, and they could have saved a whole lot of money.

Reports are saying that Cubs intend to use Schwarber behind the plate. If that's the case, I really like that. Schwarber strikes me as the type of guy that would work his rump off until he gets something right. If he needs to be a catcher, he can be a catcher. If he needs to be an outfielder, he can be an outfielder. Besides, Montero is a liability defensively sometimes; how much worse can he be?

It will be tough to find playing time for Schwarber behind the plate with two other catchers on the 25-man and Contreras lurking. But if the Cubs are able to make this work, we could expect Schwarber playing catcher half of the time with days off and days in the outfield in just a year or two. Having someone that can hit the way Schwarber does playing catcher would be great for any team. Perhaps Montero will be traded in a year or two if Schwarber shows significant improvement behind the plate.

So in summary, yes, Schwarber can be a full-time or most-of-the-time catcher, but obviously that won't be happening this year.

On the topic of catchers...

Q: What will be the legacy left by David Ross, as he heads into the final season of a legendary career?
-Daniel, Glen Ellyn, IL

JV: David Ross will be remembered as a great clubhouse guy that will make a great coach/manager one day and called a good game behind the play while making nice, heads-up defensive plays, but the guy couldn't hit for crap and his buddy Jon Lester found jobs for him in his final four seasons.

In the one season Ross appeared in 100 games (2007- he played 112 games), he batted .203. Last year, he hit .176. The Cubs should have made a behind-the-scenes handshake with Ross that would involve a paycheck and Ross taking a job as a bench coach. If it weren't for Lester, Ross would be out of the bigs by now.

Q: Soler? Baez? How will they be utilized?
-Justin, Champaign, IL

JV: So it sounds like there will be some kind of rotation going on between Soler/Schwarber/Fowler in the outfield. A popular statistic that people point to is the dip in numbers Soler experienced in colder games. Don't expect many starts from Soler in home games in April. Soler will do some pinch-hitting, but I don't think Fowler is going to play as much as he did last year. He shouldn't. I think Soler and Schwarber are better players than Dex already, and clearly have higher ceilings.

Soler also has had issues staying healthy, so perhaps some extra rest will help him. My hope is that Soler doesn't transition into a bench role. If the Cubs are playing in a play-in game, he should be starting. I don't expect Soler to be a full-on bench guy.

Maddon's plan for Baez this year is to be a Zobrist-in-training. He should make some spot starts in the outfield, and Maddon plans on using him as the back-up first baseman. He should be able to fill in for any infielders. Also, Zobrist likely won't be playing 140 games this year. Last year he only played 126. At age 35, Zobrist will probably play about the same amount he did last year and he will be moving around too.

My prediction? Baez impresses this season and takes over as the starting or most-of-the-time second baseman next year. I also think Soler will have a really good year.

Q: What will be the impact, if any, of the Matt Murton signing?
-Daniel, Glen Ellyn, IL

JV: None.

Q: Who is your fav player?
-Laura, Wilmette, IL

JV: This is the toughest question I've received in this mailbag. It was hands down, Mike Olt for the last two years. But when the Cubs cut Mike Olt and then traded Chris Coghlan I had to pick a new one. But I will go with Kyle Hendricks. I had a very pleasant conversation with him at spring training last year. Great guy.

But really, a lot of them are great guys. Theo/Jed have built this team up with good character guys.

In terms of entertainment, my favorite players to watch are Soler, Baez and Russell. But if Almora does come up this year and plays like he has in the minors, he might quickly become my new favorite.

Q: What ever happened to Ronnie Woo-Woo?
-Daniel, Glen Ellyn, IL

He's still there.

Q: A fun one: what's the over under on how many unique lineup cards not counting the pitcher Joe Maddon turns in this regular season, my vote: 130. 
-James, Prospect Heights, IL

JV: Whoa! Holy smokes. 130 is a lot. I'm gonna go under that. Let's roll with 83. Is there a person that keeps track of this? Can we make one? Great question!

Q: How far do you think they'll make it this year?
-Laura, Wilmette, IL

While I have pooh-poohed this Cubs team all throughout this blog, the Cubs have a chance to do it this year. They're a lot closer than we expected they would be at this point. I once read a story that in the winter of 2011, when a new front office took over, a brand new front office employee walked in to the room and said, "Well, 2017 is the year." Although it may sound comical, I believe that is the track the Cubs were on from the start, and have been on ever since. I think everybody is surprised that they would win 97 games and a playoff series in 2015. I think the early success accelerated the hopes and expectations of what could be a future dynasty. They've gone all in now and there's no turning back.

But I'm just not sure if they are completely there yet for the reasons I have already listed off. Are the Cubs capable of winning the World Series this season? Absolutely. But here's my prediction:

The Cubs have to deal with the play-in game again. When you have to win the play-in game, all bets are off. Anything can happen on any given day. Let's just say the Cubs win the play-in game again. Depending on who they have to deal with, I say they exit the playoffs in the NLDS or the NLCS. So much can happen, and injuries can occur, so this is subject to change- but I have trouble seeing them getting past the Giants right now. But I think they redeem themselves and reign supreme in 2017.

That's me as an unbiased sportswriter.

This is me as a Cubs fan: the Cubs can win it all in 2016 and put an end to all our suffering. The Cubs can do it. We're on our way. Go Cubs go.

God Wants You to Stop Worrying

In class on Tuesday, I had a panic attack.

I can't pinpoint a time where I had one previous to Wednesday. I can't remember ever feeling like I was out of breath when I hadn't been running or swimming.

What preceded this was the weight what has been perhaps the heaviest semester of my life.

19 credits. 7 classes. Work. Multiple deaths in my life over the past two months, including the deaths of two friends and a childhood friend and teammate. And now most recently, hearing of the health problems of my grandmother.

For two years, I walked my grandma's dog every single day. We have a very close relationship. And over the last three weeks, she has been in the hospital three separate times.

So here I am, losing my breath and feeling the weight of the world on my shoulders. I had to write three stories for the school newspaper and turn in a project that would be worth 10% of my grade the next day. 

My body just gave out for a little bit and shot me a warning that I need to slow myself down a little bit, otherwise I could find myself in worse trouble.

So I thought about it. And I asked myself the question, aside from the grueling work and schoolwork I was doing (which everybody else has to do), what else was I spending my energy on? Why was I so exhausted?

The answer immediately became clear to me. Fear. Worry. 

For years, I have gotten anxiety and depressed at random times. It's just the way my brain is wired. But in that moment, it finally clicked to me. Stop worrying.

Stop worrying. Perhaps the most frequent thing we are told NOT to do in the Bible is to fear. 

Some examples:

Matthew 6:25-34, summed up by verse 34: "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

Isaiah 41, summed up by verse 10: "So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand."

1 John 4:7-21, summed up by verse 18: "Perfect love casts out fear."

And the list goes on. Throughout the scriptures, God is telling us continually not to worry, because he's got us. He's going to take care of us. And if something unfortunate were to happen--for example the death of my friend Patrick--he still is there for us. He is still doing things that we might not see.

I think it's interesting that in that passage from 1 John, he juxtaposes love to fear. Wouldn't you expect it to be something like, love vs. hate? Or hope vs. fear? It's because love and hope are synonymous and fear comes from the enemy.

In 1 Peter, the disciple Peter describes the devil as a "roaring lion" roaming around looking for its prey (us). The negative thoughts that we get come from him. He's looking for a foothold. And I realized that the thoughts of worry I get about my grandma come from him. It's his way of trying to take me down. 

Whatever happens with my grandma is completely out of my control. And I know that she wouldn't want me to get down or to worry about her. Nor would Patrick or Brad, who passed away untimely. They all would want me to keep living my life and giving it my all. They wouldn't want me to slow down for anything.

It's so easy to get worked up about things. Heck, this has been the worst two-month stretch I can remember going through. But God is still doing something. He's still giving me life every single day. God is still good.

So in summary, Satan = depression, anxiety and all the other messed up stuff.

Jesus = hope.

I have decided to try to stop worrying. Will you?

Thanks to You, Brad Jewell

Right around the time that I came home from school in the summer after completing my second year of college, I received an email from a woman that worked in the career services office at Carthage. The email said that there was a sports radio talk show host that was looking for an intern.

As an aspiring sports journalist, I immediately pounced on this opportunity and quickly received a response from the host. The host was Brad Jewell, and the show was "Jewell on Sports," a Thursday night two-hour fun sports show on WLIP in Kenosha that featured interviews with some of the biggest people in the world of sports- Brett Favre, Ahman Green, and Christian Laettner just to name a few.

What I didn't know was just how Brad could touch my life through the experience. Brad devastatingly and unexpectedly passed away on December 28, 2015 and in his honor, I would like to share how he impacted me as a journalist and as a person.

So going back to the story...

Brad had listened to the first podcast I had recorded and posted on this blog, and told me he would be thrilled to have me as an intern. I was ecstatic to have been given such an incredible opportunity, but what he told me next was even harder to believe- he had wanted me to be the cohost of his show.

It would be an hour long commute for me to go up to Kenosha. On the first week I was going to go on the air, a windy thunderstorm was expected to come in. Brad texted me telling me to stay safe and not to come up. This was a great example of how kind and how thoughtful Brad was. He cared more about my safety than his show.

The next week, I showed up and was told that for my first time ever being on a radio show, I would be interviewing Packer greats Ahman Green and Javon Walker, and NFL special team standout Javier Arenas. Very seldom had I ever talked to pro athletes before. I had never interviewed an athlete before, much less two Pro-Bowlers and a college football national champion. Nor had I ever talked on the radio before.

All of these things gave me some nerves as I got ready for my radio debut.

But you know what? Brad talked to me before we went on and told me I would do fine. He told me not to be shy or nervous, but to own the fact that I was in the bigs now. He believed in me. He gave me confidence, something I was lacking. Brad also shared valuable tips and insights on how to conduct interviews and talk sports on the radio, tips that I wouldn't have picked up anywhere else.

Over the coming weeks, obstacles that I will not explain appeared that kept me from going back on the show. Still, Brad and I kept contact, communicating over Facebook and through text messages. He wished me good luck as I prepared to transfer schools and continue my journey to my dream job.

At Valparaiso, I have been given great opportunities on the air. I have my own sports radio talk show and I have even done a few color commentary broadcasts on ESPN 3. Without Brad, I wouldn't have been able to jump in comfortably and confidently in to these new roles. Brad was even going to call in and let me interview him on my show after winter break. Unfortunately, that will no longer be able to happen.

Although I might not have known Brad Jewell as well as the many other people whose lives he touched, he taught me a lot in the short time that I knew him. He gave me my first opportunity as a journalist. I will forever be grateful for that. He taught me some of the ins and outs of the craft. But perhaps most importantly, he extended a hand to an unproven, untested wannabe journalist and put me on the air with little for him to gain from him it and in return, received just the joy of helping someone out. If I ever make it in the journalism industry, I know that I will have to do the same for somebody else.

Outside of work, Brad was a great family man with a good sense of humor. He was a big man with an even bigger heart. My prayers are with his family and friends in this troubling time.

Brad, if you can leave this much of an impact on me in the short time I knew you, imagine how man lives you touched and how much of an impact you had on your friends. Thank you for everything. I miss you. Rest easy.

What Transferring Colleges Has Taught Me About God

If you're new to this blog or you don't know me, college has been a strange experience for me.

I'm sure that college is weird is for everyone in some way, but my path to a degree, and Lord-willing employment, has been rather unorthodox.

After graduating high school, I knew I was not ready for college. I wasn't mentally or emotionally tough enough for it. I had no idea what I wanted to do. So I took the year off, and through starting this blog, I discovered my passion for writing.

The following summer, I knew it was time to move on and to start college. I just had no idea where I wanted to go, or what I wanted in a college. At the last I applied to Carthage College and was accepted, so I enrolled. I spent two years at Carthage and realized there just wasn't enough the school could offer me as an aspiring journalist. Somehow, God led me to Valparaiso University, but that's another story.

In a recent blog I wrote, I talked about how the friendships I formed at Carthage have been essential to shaping who I am today. Last semester was a really important time because of the people I grew close to. I was shown how mighty the Body of Christ is, and how important it is.

This semester has been about as opposite from that as humanly possible. After spending two years building deep friendships with people, I was thrust in to the unknown, with people unknown.

At Carthage, I would spend more time socializing than studying. My grades took a hit as a result. On average I was spending about five or six hours outside of class with people. At Valpo, that hasn't been the case.

For the most part, guys on my floor keep their doors closed. While I have met some cool people on my sports staff, I am not in a social bubble I once was in. It isn't like I am constantly around them. Making friends takes time. And it's a slower process as a transfer student.

When you're a freshman, everyone is in the same boat. Everyone is looking to make friends. But when you're the new kid when you're 21, it's a little different. The people your age have found their groove or their niche, and the freshmen are significantly younger than you are. It's difficult to connect.

There have been people I have grabbed a meal with, or hung out with once, and since then have shown very little interest in doing anything with me again. That's kind of a discouraging feeling.

What comes as a result? Many weekends in the library studying and nights watching Netflix by myself. The funny thing is, at first that felt like torture to me. Now, I enjoy it.

The people that know me will tell you that I am outrageously extroverted. But I realized I have struggled with feeling lonely; loneliness. I felt like I always had to be around people, especially being away at school and not being in the comfort of my hometown. So I was hyper-social, hanging out with people whenever I could.

Being on my own has made me rely on God in so many new ways. If I feel lonely, instead of running to be around people to try to escape, I am forced to confront my feelings on my own. But I don't have to do it on my own. Because I serve the most awesome and amazing God.

My devotional life has grown. I spend more time with God now. I've realized that you are never alone in Christ. He is always with you. Schools may change, but he's always the same.

On top of all of that, I have been able to put a lot of time in to my studies and I am seeing the results: the best grades I have ever gotten in college.

And if I ever am in need of assistance, I have some of the greatest friends in the world. They are only a text, a call or a FaceTime away. In the economy of friendships, I am a blessed and wealthy man.

The friendships are starting to come. Last week I got meals with some great guys and even had one on my radio show.

But no matter how many friends I make, this semester has reminded me of how great God is and how much of a friend he is to us. He loved us so much that he died for us.

Overall, this has been a really good semester. I love where I am. I love my classes and I love writing for the school paper here. I love hosting a radio show. I'm happy where I am and am learning a lot about journalism and Jesus. It's been fantastic and I can't wait to see where God takes me next.

"Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."
-John 15:13

How NCAA Football Should Change Its Playoff System Again

I don't love college sports.

Aside from all the scandals and issues that college sports has, there's one thing that has always bothered me.

The problem I have always had with college football, is that to a certain extent, there is no definitive champion. The 2003 season concluded with a split title, as the LSU Tigers and the USC Trojans each won their BCS bowl games. LSU finished first in the Associated Press (AP) Poll and USC won the Coaches' Poll.

WHAT?!

I'm sorry, WHAT?! In what other sport do two teams share a title? That isn't how sports are supposed to work. No, each season should feature one winner and a field of losers, teams that weren't quite able to measure up with the champ. That's what makes a team the best, and a team that climbs the mountain to the top should be in an exclusive club. That's what makes them the best, and the reason teams play the game is to reach that pinnacle.

This may have been a bizarre occurrence, but it isn't the only time there has been a debate over who the real champion is in college football. It happens every year.

Division I FBS Football is the only NCAA-sponsored sport that does not have an officially organized NCAA Tournament to determine its champion.

For years, there was a multitude of bowl games--some bowls more important than others--and at the end of bowl play, two polls came out that crowned the team that was believed to be the best, thus making them the national champions.

Then the BCS was put in to place, and there finally was a game called "The National Championship Game." But how it is a real National Championship if only two teams get to compete in the post-season, while 66 other teams compete in other bowl games, as mere consolation prizes? More so, how is it a real post-season if the two teams in the National Championship are voted in?

Each year, there is always the question, "what if (_______ team) had gotten to play in the National Championship Game instead?" There is always at least one team that's on the outs, and their seniors always have to leave their collegiate football careers thinking "what if?" Sometimes the team that wins is disrespected, as fans and journalists say "if they had played someone else they would have lost."

In 2014 the NCAA finally introduced "The College Football Playoff," a four-team playoff bracket picked by a committee of 8, that would decide the "champion" of college football. The reason I use quotations is because there still is no definitive champ.

TCU and Baylor played one of the most exciting games in recent history when the Golden Bears topped the Horned Frogs 61-58. The two teams led the nation in points per game, with Baylor's 48.2 and TCU's 46.5. The Big 12 may have been the second-best conference (behind the SEC of course) in college football last season, and some may argue that it was the most exciting, best exemplified by its two best teams putting up monster points in exhilarating shootouts week in and week out.

And yet, both teams were excluded from the College Football Playoff. Once again, questions of "what-if" arose from fans. There shouldn't be what-ifs in sports.

The NCAA's decision to add a playoff was a step in the right direction. But it should keep walking.

The playoff system did not eliminate the sport's biggest problem. Therefore, a bigger playoff system should be implemented.

College football's biggest fans will defend the system until their dying days. Their biggest argument is that "every game matters." I believe the NCAA can maintain the "every game matters" theme, while also enhancing the excitement of their product, and the integrity of the sport.

First things first, shorten the non-conference schedule teams have. Nobody wants to watch Oklahoma State whoop Savannah State 84-0. As exciting as the final weeks of college football are, the first few weeks are often just as boring. And while every one-in-10,000 times you get a result like Appalachian State spoiling Michigan, most of the time you don't.

Alabama, currently the committee's #3 team, played four non-conference games. Three of those games featured Middle Tennessee, Louisiana-Monroe, and Charleston Southern (an FCS school).

Why don't we shorten the non-conference schedule to 2 games. Teams can do what they want with those two games, and if they want to play another, they can pick up another game.

In place of the snoozers, you get either one or two more rounds of playoff football. Look, I think the more the merrier. People love March Madness. It's the most fun three weeks in sports of the year. I would love a 16-team playoff. But for the purists, I will compromise with eight or even six teams.

What troubles me is seeing a team in one of the five power conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, Pac-12) missing the playoffs. In no other sport, does a conference or division winner miss the playoffs. By winning your conference, you do what I believe is your job, and you should be rewarded. Who are we to decide which conference winner is more deserving than another? The best way to do it is to let them all in and slug it out with each other.

As for the other one or three teams, they can be selected by a committee, the press, the coaches', the computers, or however those BCS nerds want to determine it.

This concept doesn't make any regular season game less important, as teams need to pick up as many conference victories as they can to stay alive. The regular season will remain as exciting as it is, and there still will be some kind of debate over who the final spot(s) in the playoffs should go to.

No team should feel left out. If your team doesn't like it? Then win your conference. Control your own fate.

For the schools like Notre Dame, they will still have to show that they are worthy, or they can decide to join a conference.

Each power conference should have a conference championship game, therefore the Big 12 would need to add one.

Also, you could include the Rose Bowl in the tournament, and have the Big Ten champ and the Pac-12 champ play each other in the first round of an 8-team playoff, which would be really fun and would up the stakes of an already great tradition.

From a marketing perspective, it makes sense. Each region should have a team representing them. If Michigan is in, all of Michigan is going to watch. If Ohio State is in, all of Michigan is going watch to root against Ohio State. All parts of the country should be represented fairly, and each region should have a reason to watch.

With this system, "the debate" that the NCAA loves, that generates many conversations about their product and in turn, provides free publicity will stay alive. The fans that enjoy the debate should be able to stay happy with this. And we all get more playoff football as a result.

Everyone wins. Except, for the first time in college football, there will only be one winner.

Why Christians Should Enjoy Singleness in College

College is a weird time.

Being a Christian in college is an even weirder time. At the age of 21, I know a dozen different couples that are either engaged or about to get engaged. When I was in high school, almost all of my youth group leaders were college students, and almost all of them were either married or engaged.

Growing up, I thought that was how my life would shape out. I believed that I would find my wife while I was in college, and then get married not long after college. I thought that anything different from the blueprint that was laid out for me would be a disappointment.

This created a great deal of pressure. Going in to college, this was near the top of my priorities. It was always on mind. I wanted to find a great Christian girl. I wanted to find my wife. Meanwhile, I was watching many of my friends enter in to God-glorifying relationships that were making them happy. There were Friday nights where I would just sit in my room by myself, while all my friends would go on dates. I wanted what they had.

I began to become impatient. I felt a lot of pressure from my parents who still bother me about this. Maybe it's because I have never dated. I don't know. It doesn't matter.

But I started getting down on myself because of this. I wondered if there was something wrong with me. But then I reminded myself that I have had opportunities to date some girls that I have declined because they weren't right for me, so that couldn't be the case.

Around this time, I had a meaningful conversation with a past youth group leader of mine. I told him about my struggles and he told me that there was nothing wrong that I was doing. I was desiring a good thing, but I was making it an idol in my life, something that was getting in the way of me seeing God.

Something he told me was, if you're expecting someone else to satisfy you, you're going to be disappointed. Among the dozen or so couples that are my age that are engaged, I feel like half of them are expecting their marriage to fulfill them. This is a recipe for disaster.

He also told me that before I can ever date someone, I need to be able to be content in my singleness. Joy comes from God, not other people. As I said, I feel like some people are setting themselves up for disappointment and marital struggles. Some aren't. That's none of my business, so I shouldn't speculate.

For some, getting married at a very young age is the right move. For others, it isn't. There isn't one blueprint of how to do it.

But I do know that I wasn't content with being single at the time. And I knew that I needed to just relax and stop stressing over it.

Last semester was a really important semester in my life. I developed a really close brotherhood with a few other Christian guys. Among the four of us, only one was in a relationship, and his girlfriend went to another school. So what came as a result? Guy time.

I never realized how important, special and great friendships can be, especially at the college age. This is a time in our lives where we are learning more about ourselves than we ever have before, and making choices that are going to play a part in forming the people that we are 30 years from now.

With these awesome guys, we were just able to relax and enjoy life together. Every day we were doing stuff together. Whether it was watching sports, playing video games, throwing each other batting practice, free-style rapping, or whatever, we were brothers. That brotherhood helped carry me through a difficult semester otherwise. These guys helped me make memories that I will never forget, and have brotherhood to a level that I have never seen before.

For the first time in college, I felt like I was content in my singleness. And I was having a lot of fun doing stuff, that if I was in a relationship, I may not have had time for.

And as I prepare to head in to the real world in a year and a half, an early, right out-of-college marriage may not be a good thing. I want to work in the field of journalism, and I don't know what kind of job I am going to have. But some jobs, like beat-writers, require nonstop traveling.I could get a job covering a baseball team, and be traveling all around the country from February to November.

Furthermore, I have discovered that I have received a temporary gift of singleness. A blessing in disguise. When I find my wife, it won't be on my timing. For a while, that deeply distraught me. Now? It's a very comforting feeling, as I know it will come on God's timing.

People have got to stop stressing so much about finding the right girl or the guy when they're in college. You came to college to learn! To learn about yourself. To learn about the field you want to go in to, and to best prepare yourself for a professional career. By entering a serious relationship you may be limiting your growth in other areas. At least I know that it would have for me.

When it's all said and done, maybe you will meet the love or your life in college. Or maybe you won't. But don't let that define your college experience. Let it be a piece of it. Don't waste your time searching for it and longing for it. Enjoy a unique time in your life where there are lots of other young people around you that are also learning.

If you are like me, and you still haven't dated, that's okay. There's nothing wrong with you.

I have some friends that I can just tell can't handle being single. They bounce from one relationship to the next because they don't want to be alone, meanwhile wasting their time in relationships that aren't going anywhere.

Don't do that. Focus on being content in your singleness. Just because you are single now doesn't mean that you won't ever find love. God has a weird way of making sure everything works out in the end.

"Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus"
-1 Thessalonians 5:16-18

Comparing the 2003 Cubs and the 2015 Cubs

With Tuesday night's win, my favorite team in the world is headed back to the NLCS, for the first time since 2003- when we all had our hearts broken. It is worth noting that Cubs shortstop Addison Russell was 9 years-old when 5 outs away happened. There is no rehash all of the pain that we had to endure for years after the collapse that allowed the Marlins (back when they were still the "Florida Marlins") to get to, and ultimately win the World Series. The Cubs are back, and have the best chance to win it all since then. But you cannot ignore the question: if you could take the 2015 through a time machine to show up at Wrigley in 2003, to play a best of 7 series against the 2003 team, who would win? How do the teams compare by position, and who has the edge? Let's break it down by position.

Catcher: 2003 Damian Miller vs. 2015 Miguel Montero
It is remarkable how similar these two players are to each other. Take a look at the pictures below:

That's right, both caught for one of the greatest pitchers of all-time, Randy Johnson. Both are known to "call a good game" behind the plate. Both played with the Diamondbacks before coming over to the Cubs, and both were named to the National League All-Star Team in their final seasons in Arizona (2002 and 2014, respectively). In both's first seasons with the team, the Cubs played in the NLCS. But that isn't where the similarities end.

Even their statistics are similar; they both have the same career batting average of .262, with a knack for getting on-base (Miller: .329 OBP; Montero: .343). I wonder if they were both inspired to bat .262 after both wore the number 26 in Arizona.

But if you just look at 2003 Miller vs. 2015 Montero, while Miller may have a slight defensive edge, Montero has contributed more offensively to the Cubs than Miller did in 2003.

'03 Miller: .233 BA, .310 OBP, 9 HR, 36 RBI's (114 games played)
'15 Montero: .245 BA, .345 OBP, 15 HR, 53 RBI's (113 games played)

As you can see, '03 Miller posted a career low batting average in his lone season in Chicago, while Montero gave the Cubs more offense and even hit a walk-off home run in a game I will always remember as "the Miguel Montero game." With Hector Rondon in a save situation, and a runner on third, Montero allowed a ball to get past him, which let the Brewers tie and extend the game at 2-2. In the bottom of the tenth, Miggy recovered and smacked a game-winner in to the left field bleachers.

Montero stole the show in a game that featured one of the best catches and smartest plays in baseball history by Anthony Rizzo. Can anyone pinpoint a "Damian Miller game"? Didn't think so. While Miller was a solid catcher and while he and Montero have many similarities, I gotta give the edge to Montero at catcher.
EDGE: 2015 Miguel Montero

First base: 2003 Eric Karros vs. 2015 Anthony Rizzo
'03 Karros: .286 BA, .340 OBP, 12 HR, 40 RBI's, 1 SB
'15 Rizzo: .278 BA, .387 OBP, 31 HR, 101 RBI's, 17 SB

In December 2002, the Cubs made one of the most underrated trades of the millennium, in which they acquired two very underrated players. That winter, the Cubs questionably shipped away 2-time all-star catcher Todd Hundley for infielders Eric Karros and Mark Grudzielanek. A past-his-prime Hundley went on to hit a pathetic .182 for the Dodgers before hanging up the cleats, while Karros and Grudzielanek provided important, consistent bats and in many ways were the glue that held the team together.

While Karros stepped up as an important veteran leader, he was not a top-10 or top-15 player in the National League in the 2003 season. Anthony Rizzo was in 2015. Rizzo is the heart and soul of the Cubs. He is the team's identity. As a leader, he's helped the Cubs' believe that they can get to where they are now. And those stats aren't close either. Rizzo will likely receive MVP votes, and with all due respect to Karros, this isn't even a discussion. We'll stop here.
EDGE: 2015 Anthony Rizzo

Second base: 2003 Mark Grudzielanek vs. 2015 Starlin Castro
'03 Grudzielanek: .314 BA, .365 OBP, 3 HR, 38 RBI's, 1 SB, 8 errors
'15 Castro: .265 BA, .296, 11 HR, 69 RBI's, 5 SB, 24 errors

Going back to what we talked about in the first baseman section, in addition to Karros, the Cubs snagged a gritty second baseman from Los Angeles for next-to-nothing. Mark Grudzielanek wasn't the flashiest player. Heck, a bunch of the people reading this probably forgot about him until now. But he was consistent.

I like having a consistent second baseman. Grudzielanek was easy to trust. While Castro swings a mighty bat, I cannot say the same thing about him defensively. He makes me nervous. And while Castro has heated up at the end of the season, he is too much of a wild card. Does he have mad ability to get hot and be a beast? Absolutely. But where was that beast hiding for 2/3 of the season when Joe Maddon put him on the bench?

It's no secret that I have been very critical of Castro. But in this hypothetical 7-game series for Chicago supremacy, I would take the guy that batted .314 on the season and won a Gold Glove in his career, over the inconsistent one with high upside that is more prone to make mistakes. Sorry, Starlin.

EDGE: 2003 Mark Grudzielanek

Third Base: 2003 Aramis Ramirez vs. 2015 Kris Bryant
'03 Ramirez: .272 AB, 27 HR, 106 RBI's (with Cubs and Pirates)
'15 Bryant: .275 AB, 26 HR, 99 RBI's

After raiding from the Dodgers, general manager Jim Hendry found the location of his next heist: Pittsburgh. Through two separate trades, the Cubs were able to turn Jose Hernandez, Bobby Hill, Matt Bruback and Ray Sadler (who?) in to Kenny Lofton, Aramis Ramirez, and Randall Simon. After Corey Patterson tore his ACL, the Cubs were in need of a center fielder. Veteran Kenny Lofton was the obvious pickup, but the greatest surprise was Aramis Ramirez, who was seen at the time as more of a bonus in the trade. Ramirez turned in to a cornerstone franchise player for the Cubs, making two all-star games, winning a silver slugger, and stringing together eight 25+ home run seasons.

While Ramirez was a very good player, Kris Bryant has potential to be a great player. His ceiling is way higher.

In both of their first seasons with the Cubs, their statistics mirrored each other's, And both players fulfilled the same role for their teams. This is by far the biggest toss-up that we've had so far.

I would argue that Bryant has been more valuable to the '15 Cubs than Aramis was to the '03 team.

I would also give Bryant the edge because he is significantly faster. He has excellent wheels and is a threat to steal a base at any time, or murder a baseball.

EDGE: 2015 Kris Bryant

Shortstop: 2003 Alex S. Gonzalez vs. 2015 Addison Russell/Javier Baez
'03 Gonzalez: .228 BA, .295 OBP, 20 HR, 59 RBI's, 10 errors
'15 Russell: .242 BA, .307 OBP, 13 HR, 54 RBI's, 13 errors
'15: Baez: .289 BA, .325 OBP, 1 HR, 4 RBI's (only 76 at bats)

Up until game 3 of the NLDS, Javy Baez would not have been brought up in this category. Now, with the news of Addison Russell having to miss the entirety of the NLCS, Baez is going to be a key player moving forward in the Cubs' playoff push.

While I am one of Baez's biggest supporters and he has superstar upside, I have to give the edge to Gonzo here. While he made a bad error that proved to be costly, he came alive in the playoffs, mashing 4 homers and 8 RBI's. Baez is too much of an unknown to be given the edge.
EDGE: 2003 Alex Gonzalez

Right Field: 2003 Sammy Sosa vs. 2015 Jorge Soler

'03 Sosa: .279 BA, .358 OBP, 40 HR, 103 RBI's
'15 Soler: .262 BA, .324 OBP, 10 HR, 47 RBI's

While Sosa was on the decline in 2003, he still hit 40 bombs. Soler is a good player with a bright future and he has been great this postseason. But again, 40 homers speaks for itself. That, and steroids and corked bats are helpful too.
EDGE: 2003 Sammy Sosa












Center Field: 2003 Kenny Lofton vs. 2015 Dexter Fowler

'03 Lofton: .296 BA (.327 with Cubs), .352 OBP (.381 with Cubs), 12 HR, 46 RBI's, 30 SB, 97 R
'15 Fowler: .250 BA, .346 OBP, 17 HR, 46 RBI's, 20 SB, 102 R

In addition to being better statistically (for the most part), Lofton was a better traditional lead-off hitter/center fielder-type. Even out of his prime, he had better wheels and could cover more ground in the outfield.
EDGE: 2003 Kenny Lofton

Left Field: 2003 Moises Alou vs. 2015 Kyle Schwarber


'03 Alou: .280 BA, .357 OBP, 22 HR, 91 RBI's (151 games)
'15 Schwarber: .246 BA, .355 OBP, 16 HR, 43 RBI's (69 games)

The argument here: would you rather have a 22 year-old in his rookie season with incredible pop, or a 37 year-old past his prime that is hanging on and giving all that he has left?

Moises Alou showed up to play better than any of his teammates in the '03 playoffs. The dude led national league hitters in the playoffs with a .388 batting average. He got on base like it was his job (.423)... which it was. Alou was the key, consistent, veteran presence the team needed and he might have been the team's best player.

In contrast, the sky is the limit for Schwarber. He best epitomizes what the 2015 Cubs are: a bunch of kids having fun, with nothing to lose. Just a year ago he was playing at Indiana University and had critics clamoring that the Cubs reached too high for him with the fourth overall pick of the draft.

I was undecided on this for days, ever since I first had the idea for this piece. I texted my buddy Setzke and asked him what he thought and he responded:
Tough call. I'll go Schwarbs for the fear factor.

Yes. Just yes. While Alou had a great postseason performance, Schwarber has clocked three homers in just five games. Even though he could very easily slump and go 0-13 in his first three NLCS games, I like that fear factor. I like the fact that he is more likely to change the game with hi thunderous swing of the bat. And after an overexcited White Sox fan chucked a beer in the direction of Schwarber this season, I have reason to believe that he will not blow-up if Bartman made an appearance in this hypothetical series and robbed him of an out. I can't believe I'm doing this.
EDGE: 2015 Kyle Schwarber 

Pitching Rotation: 2003 Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, Carlos Zambrano & Matt Clement vs. 2015 Jake Arrieta, Jon Lester, Kyle Hendricks & Jason Hammel

Here's how I would rank these pitchers:
1) '15 Jake Arrieta (22-6, 1.77 ERA, 0.86 WHIP, 236 K's)
2) '03 Mark Prior (18-6, 2.43 ERA, 1.10 WHIP, 245 K's)
3) '03 Kerry Wood (14-11, 3.20 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, 266 K's)
4) '15 Jon Lester (11-12, 3.34 ERA, 1.12 WHIP, 207 K's)

Everyone else:
'03 Carlos Zambrano (13-11, 3.11 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 168 K's)
'03 Matt Clement (14-12, 4.11 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, 171 K's)
'15 Kyle Hendricks (8-7, 3.95 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 167 K's)
'15 Jason Hammel (10-7, 3.74 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 172 K's)

It is tough to rank the pitchers after the top 4, mainly because what constitutes as a "good" ERA in 2015 is different from what a "good" ERA was twelve years ago. The game has changed, and nowadays pitching is dominating.

Arrieta has gotta be the best pitcher out of this pool after his historic '15 season. Prior and Wood were an excellent dynamic duo, followed by Lester and his stellar big-game-pitching.

Aside from those four though, the rest are a bunch of wild cards. You have no idea what you are going to get from Jason Hammel. While Carlos Zambrano had a very nice regular season, he was disastrous in the playoffs, posting a 5.40 ERA in 16.2 innings. Kyle Hendricks, who I think has a very bright career ahead of him, has been inconsistent. Clement was pretty solid for the Cubs and pitched well in his second of two playoff outings, but struggled in his first. So let's imagine these fictional seven game series' matchups:
Game 1: Arrieta vs. Prior
Game 2: Lester vs. Wood
Game 3: Zambrano vs. Hendricks
Game 4: Arrieta vs. Prior
Game 5: Clement vs. Hammel
Game 6: Lester vs. Wood
Game 7: Arrieta vs. Prior

I'm favoring Arrieta to blank the '03's three times. But let's say he has a bad outing one of those. I like Lester to split with Wood, and Hendricks to beat Zambrano. I would favor Clement against the '15's over Hammel against the '03's. Either way, that's four wins right there. That's how important Jake Arrieta is and it goes to show why having the best pitcher among the two teams can trump a deeper stuff.
EDGE: 2015 Cubs

Bullpen: 2003 Cubs vs. 2015 Cubs

The 2015 Cubs bullpen has totaled 32 losses on the season altogether, compared to the '03 Cubs' 22. That's a third less losses! Then consider that the '15 team won 9 more games than the '03's. The '15's bullpen accounted for a far bigger percentage of the team's losses than the '03's.
EDGE: 2003 Cubs








Manager: 2003 Dusty Baker vs. 2015 Joe Maddon

The last three times that a manager came to the Cubs with previous managerial experience, the Cubs have made the playoffs. While Dusty Baker was a great players' manager, and a good clubhouse leader, he wasn't a great X's and O's guy. Not the best strategist. If you go back to game 6 and want to relive the pain, notice that he doesn't have anyone up in the pen. It takes a lifetime for someone to start warming up. But Joe Maddon on the other hand, has proved himself to be one of the best baseball minds in the game. This one isn't even close.
EDGE: 2015 Joe Maddon









So for those of you keeping score at home: that is '03's 5, '15's 7. But I actually think the 2003 team might have been better.

But I also think that the 2003 Florida Marlins team was way better than the 2015 New York Mets. The Marlins were loaded. Did the Cubs choke? Yeah. They did. But I feel like people don't remember just how good that team was. Every time Pudge Rodriguez came up with runners in scoring position, he killed the Cubs. And with the pitching rotation that team had (Josh Beckett, Dontrelle Willis, AJ Burnett, Brad Penny, and Carl Pavano) coupled with their lineup of studs (Mike Lowell, Luis Castillo, Derrek Lee, Juan Pierre, Miguel Cabrera, Jeff Conine, Pudge) I don't see why they aren't one of the best teams of the millennium.

In the year 2015, I don't think there are any great teams. Which may make room for the Cubs to be the season's great team. This team hasn't scratched the surface of its potential, but I am picking them to win the NLCS this time. No Bartman. No botched double play. No missed cut-off man. No eight-run 8th. No five outs away.

2015 will be different. This is the year that the Cubs are real.