Off-Season Update

Here's to the righteously deserving Bruce Sutter, the lone Hall of Fame inductee for 2006.

I remember Sutter most vividly from his days as a Cardinal, after the Cubs traded him for Leon Durham and two guys no one remembers. (I looked them up: Ken Reitz and player-to-be-named Ty Waller.) Some of my earliest baseball memories are of fear and loathing for Sutter, Ozzie Smith, Willie McGee, Terry Pendleton, and the rest of the mid-'80s Cardinals. Those guys helped me to understand the meaning of the phrase "rivalry for life."

The Cubs probably couldn't have won the East in '84 without Durham, but how did they trade Sutter? The answer came to me quite quickly: Remember back in the '80s, how teams had their starters, then they had a bunch of guys who you weren't really sure of. Bullpens weren't outs factories like they are today; they were cauldrons of confusion. The reliever label was more or less a mark of shame. Sutter, however, never expected to throw a complete game. They didn't know what to call it then, but he was the first pure specialist.

My dad, my sister, one of my uncles (I can't remember which one), and I left The Sandberg Game right before Sutter came in. We heard Ryno's first homer in the ninth on the radio in the car, and ran to the closest t.v. we could find--my grandparents' house in Sauganash--just in time to see his second homer in the tenth. The most remarkable thing about The Sandberg Game was that Bruce Sutter never, ever blew games--especially not on two homers to the same guy. He was so good, so often that had he not made the Hall, he would have been best remembered for the worst game of his career.

If you haven't watched it yet, I highly recommend you click around MLB.com to find Sutter's post-news conference interview from yesterday afternoon. It runs about 20 minutes and is very enjoyable. Contrary to my long-engrained notion that he must be a scary guy because he was such a scary pitcher, Sutter appears to be really very mellow and funny. You can sense his joy and sense of wonder at finally being elected, which makes it really easy to accept that he is now an idol. Three cheers for Bruce Sutter.



I am confused by others' analyses of the Chicago baseball balance sheet for the 2006 season.

The Cubs added two everyday, impact leaders in Juan Pierre (annual averages of .305 batting, 2 homers, 47 RBI, 43 steals) and Jacque Jones (.279-22-79-11); signed a reliable right-left set up combo of Scott Eyre and Bob Howry (combined 2005 ERA: 2.55), and extended the contract of Ryan Dempster who completed 33 of his first-ever 35 save attempts.

The White Sox added an aging Jim Thome who had fewer at-bats and a lower average than Corey Patterson in 2005 (not to mention his nagging "back" problem, i.e., he stopped taking the juice); signed sub-par (.258-14-60-11) and position-less Rob Mackowiak who couldn't even secure a starting job with the hapless Pittsburgh Pirates; traded for the usually terrible Javier Vasquez (career sub-.500 record, 4.28 ERA, and .311 opponent batting average); and gave up a guy who epitomized White Sox baseball over the last few years, Aaron Rowand.

By my accounting, the Cubs upgraded their weak outfield and bullpen, both of which crippled them last year. Meanwhile, the Sox gathered leftovers and shed a cornerstone. Yet, the national and local media seem intent on blowing Kenny Williams for his great off-season. Am I the only one who thinks that the Cubs are going to be better than the Sox next year, and that Williams is definitely not the world's greatest g.m.?



I'll be at the 2006 Cubs Convention this Friday night and all day Saturday, a Buddy Guy show at Buddy Guy's on Friday night, and the Bears-Panthers playoff game Sunday night. Needless to say, it should be the greatest weekend of this new year. The convergence of these three events means that the bulk of my weekend will be spent south of Madison Avenue, and, although I have 24 hours until I have to head down there, I'm already beginning to feel like an abrasive South Side prick.

Needless to say, I'll be sure to write loads and loads about the events of this weekend. In a new development, I'll be posting my baseball related stories on both What I See as well as a new website for which I'll be covering the Cubs. I'll post the address when everything is up and running.

Bears 20, Panthers 13. C'mon 'Skins! Detroit Rock City, here we come!



We enjoyed an extremely rare 50-degree day today, a temperature that would be more than welcome on Opening Day, let alone mid-January. I took a ride past Wrigley this afternoon, windows all rolled down, and gawked at the bleacher renovation project. The steel beams which will overhang the sidewalks on Sheffield and Waveland are in place, and the concrete stands should be poured in the next few weeks. There's going to be a large platform above the entrance across from Murphy's, below the back of the scoreboard, which will surely be a great spot for having a 5th-inning smoke and beer and for checking out intoxicated hotties.

Many people are already moaning that the Cubs have ruined the bleachers, but this is totally absurd. Let's be honest: The bleachers sucked. They're 400 or 500 feet from 98% of the action. They were packed with groups of lame tourists who occupied two spaces per person thanks to their backpacks full of crap and unassigned seating. And, there weren't nearly enough bathrooms or vending areas to satisfy thousands of people. You can't do anything about the proximity factor, but the renovations will certainly address those last two issues. The Cubs have poured anticipated revenues on the additional 1,800-odd seats into player salaries; you cannot claim that their payroll is weak. Plus, reconfiguring the bleachers should extend the practical life of Wrigley for an additional 30 or 40 years, and how would anyone have a problem with that?

I won't pass final judgement until the project is complete; I intend on keeping a very open mind about these new bleachers--and, for that matter, about the 2006 Cubs.