Blogs – Page 231 – Keefe To The City

Apr 21, 2014

The Joe Girardi Show: Season 5, Episode 1

The Yankees avoided leaving Tampa Bay on a three-game losing streak, but Joe Girardi couldn’t avoid me starting up a fifth season of The Joe Girardi Show to question his decisions.

I wanted the Yankees to go 4-2 in their six games against the Cubs and Rays this past week. After winning the four-game series against the Red Sox at the Stadium the weekend before, I thought 4-2 was very doable between a two-game series and four-game series and I didn’t care how the Yankees won their four games, I just wanted them to win them.

The Yankees did end up going 4-2 in the six games, so I shouldn’t have anything to question. But I do. And I do because Joe Girardi made some very questionable decisions over the weekend in Tampa Bay that nearly cost the Yankees my 4-2 goal and could have sent them to Boston this week reeling from a three-game losing streak. The Yankees prevented the losing streak to happen and Girardi’s decision making worked out, but that doesn’t mean over the course of the season his choices won’t cost the Yankees.

I was hoping to make it through April without having to do this, but after this weekend, I thought it was necessary to fill in for Michael Kay on my version of The Joe Girardi Show. After only 19 games, it’s time for the fifth season premiere.

Why don’t you trust Dellin Betances?
Right now the bullpen pecking order (with David Robertson), according to Joe Girardi is:

1. David Robertson
2. Shawn Kelley
3. Adam Warren
4. David Phelps/Matt Thornton
5. Dellin Betances

The problem here is that after Robertson, Betances is the best reliever the Yankees have and actually has the best stuff and velocity of the entire bullpen. In eight innings, he has has allowed ONE hit, that’s ONE hit, while walking six and striking out 14.

The bullpen pecking order should be:

1. David Robertson
2. Dellin Betances
3. Shawn Kelley
4. Matt Thornton
5. David Phelps
6. Adam Warren

Over the weekend, Betances entered a game the Yankees were winning 8-2 in the eight inning and pitched the last two innings of the eventual 10-2 win. Then two days later, Betances entered a game the Yankees were losing 12-1 and was asked to get five outs. Is it possible the best non-closer reliever on the Yankees is viewed by his manager as an innings eater?

According to the way he was used this weekend, it is, but in reality, Betances has been used inconsistently because Joe Girardi likely doesn’t “trust” him yet. And the only reason he doesn’t “trust” him yet is because Betances has pitched enough under Girardi for him to. He hasn’t blow enough games the way Kelley and Warren and Phelps have last season and this season to gain the trust of Girardi and earn a spot in high leverage situations.

So for now, Betances will be asked to throw 41 pitches in a game the Yankees lose by 15 runs and will be unavailable to pitch in a 12-inning game, leaving Girardi to ask just-called-up Preston Claiborne for two scoreless innings, the same Preston Claiborne, who wasn’t good enough in spring training to make the Yankees three weeks ago, because his only other option to close out the game was just-called-up Bryan Mitchell from Double-A, who has a 5.14 ERA and 1.571 WHIP for the Trenton Thunder this year.

Who is going to take Ivan Nova’s rotation spot?
The answer should be Vidal Nuno. Here is what Nuno has done in four career starts:

5/13/13 at CLE: 5 IP, 3 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 3 BB, 3 K

5/25/13 at TB: 6 IP, 5 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 1 BB, 2 K

5/30/13 vs. NYM: 6 IP, 3 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 2 BB, 2 K

4/20/14 @ TB: 5 IP, 3 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 2 BB, 6 K

It’s devastating that Ivan Nova isn’t going to get a full season to either build on what he had become last year or at least show the Yankees what they would be getting for the future, whether it’s a potential front-end starter or the new poster boy for inconsistency now that Phil Hughes is with the Twins.

Now that Nova won’t be back until next year, Nuno should be the one to fill the rotation spot. He has earned the right to and has proven he can win as a starting pitcher in the league. I trust Nuno more than I trust David Phelps and more than I trust Alfredo Aceves or Shane Greene if the Yankees decide to dip into the minors to make a move.

The job should be Nuno’s until he proves he can’t and so far he hasn’t.

Do you know what year it is when it comes to Mark Teixeira?
Mark Teixeira hit fifth on Sunday because his name is Mark Teixeira and because Joe Girardi apparently thinks it’s 2009 still. Because five years ago, the name “Mark Teixeira” held enough stock to get someone in the heart of the order on name alone, but in 2014 it should take a little more than that. But it’s not surprising when you realize that Girardi used to hit Teixeira third and Alex Rodriguez fourth and Robinson Cano fifth long after Cano had proved himself as the best hitter on the team. I’m not shocked that Teixeira hit fifth on Sunday because part of me thought Girardi would hit him fourth as if it were April 20, 2009.

All along the if Teixeira can hit his home runs and drive in his runs and be Jason Giambi 2.0 and play his Gold Glove defense that I wouldn’t matter if he hits .240 or still can’t hit a changeup or pops up to short with runners on third and less than two outs and is the last person you would want up on a big spot despite making $23 million per yaer. But not only is Teixeira not even Giambi 2.0 at the plate, he apparently can’t even play defense anymore as shown by his three errors in not even five full games this year.I ranked Teixeira fourth in The 2014 Yankees’ Order of Importance before the season and said the Yankees couldn’t handle losing him for a significant amount of time, but the Yankees went 8-6 in 14 games without him using Kelly Johnson, Francisco Cervelli, Carlos Beltran and Scott Sizemore at first base, none of which have any real experience at the position. Teixeira is never going to be the player the Yankees signed five years ago again and he has made that clear, but please Teixeira, at least be average.

Can you please stop being overly cautious with the lineup since it hasn’t gotten you anywhere in the past?
Joe Girardi has been out of control since becoming Yankees manager with the way he handles lineup decisions and the amount of rest he gives players. It might be unrealistic to think Derek Jeter can play all 162 games at shortstop in the season in which he will turn 40 after missing essentially a year and a half. But Jeter is still the Yankees’ everyday shortstop and not a catcher who needs day games after night games off or a day off every four games for necessary rest. And he should already be well rested after missing that year and a half I mentioned. There is a countdown clock on Jeter’s baseball life and for a guy who has spent a lot of time avoiding days off since 1996 despite injury, I’m sure he doesn’t want to watch games he won’t get back after 2014 pass him by because Girardi doesn’t believe in a Farewell Tour. But does Girardi know that sacrificing games in April could be the difference between the Farewell Tour ending in September or October or the difference in playing in a one-game playoff or getting into the ALDS without having to play in Bud Selig’s gimmick? Injuries can happen at any time and they are going to happen or not happen whether or not Girardi believes he can control.

And Jeter hasn’t been the only guy with unnecessary rest early in the season, he has just been the one with the most. Girardi gave Jacoby Ellsbury a day of in the third game of the season in Houston and gave Carlos Beltran a day off in Tampa after falling over the outfield wall (though that might say more about Beltran’s toughness after he sat out a World Series game last year after spending his whole career trying to reach the World Series). I don’t expect this kind of managing to end from Girardi, I only wish it would.

Apr 21, 2014

Rangers-Flyers Game 2 Thoughts: Best-of-5

The Rangers lost a two-goal lead, Game 2, a chance to take command of the series and home-ice advantage against the Flyers and now it’s a best-of-5 series.

Did I think Game 2 was over? Of course I did. When Benoit Pouliot scored 4:18 after Martin St. Louis completed the rare perfect 3-on-2, not only did I think Game 2 was over, I thought the series was over.

The Rangers were coming off a 4-1 Game 1 win and had the Flyers in an early two-goal deficit with Ray Emery proving why Flyers fans were hoping Steve Mason would play Game 2, even an injured Steve Mason. And then everything changed. The Rangers gave away a two-goal lead, Game 2 and home-ice advantage in the series, and now they head to Philadelphia in what has become a best-of-5 series with the Flyers having home-ice, as if those two additional regular-season wins and regulation wins never happened.

– Game 2 changed when Ryan McDonagh and Dan Girardi decided that playing defense wasn’t something that interested them in a Stanley Cup Playoff game. I’m willing to give McDonagh a pass for how he played (or didn’t really care to play) Jakub Voracek on his goal because without McDonagh, the Rangers aren’t even in the playoffs. But I’m not willing to give Dan Girardi a free pass, especially after how he single-handedly handed the Bruins the series a year ago. I will let this picture do all the work in showing Girardi’s “effort” to complement McDonagh’s gliding half-assed poke check.

What was Dan Girardi doing here? Maybe for a moment he thought he was at the Keefe household drinking wine and eating lasagna and porchetta and watching Rangers playoff hockey. He didn’t have the wine or lasagna or porchetta, but he did watch the play and goal develop just like I did from a couch, he just happened to have a better seat.

This goal not only cut the two-goal lead in half before going on to prove, but it showed the Flyers after a 15-shot effort in Game 1 that the Rangers’ defense could be beat and that Henrik Lundqvist could be beat without needing a deflection or lucky bounce. The goal shifted the momentum and feel of the game and the Rangers became another statistic in the “worst lead in hockey” theory, proving that if they weren’t going to score the third goal to take a 3-0 lead, they were were better off only having one.

– Before the series I talked with Sam Carchidi of The Philadelphia Inquirer about the Flyers’ strategy coming into the series and if they would look to draw the Rangers into a physical game and get them off their finesse game. He thought that could be the case and that the Flyers would want to play physical, but be smart about it.

In Game 1, the Flyers were dumb about being physical, especially as the game got out of hand. And in Game 2, they opened the game the same way, getting two penalties within the first 6:55 of the game, one of which the Rangers scored a power-play goal on. But once Carl Hagelin got called for holding at 9:56 of the first period, the Rangers became the undisciplined team. The Flyers got what they came into the series wanting and just in time before Game 2 and the series got out of hand.

– Two diving calls against one team in the same game in the playoffs? Yes, this is real life.

– At times, Rick Nash can be one of the best pure goal scorers in the world. These times happen when he is riding one of his patented hot steaks that I talked about here. This postseason, Nash has two assists in two playoff games and has played well. But with the Rangers in now two postseasons, Nash has one playoff goal in 14 games. That’s not going to cut it.

I have refrained from saying anything negative about Nash because I have always been a fan of his since his 2002-03 rookie season and because I campaigned so hard for the Rangers to trade for him at the 2011-12 Trade Deadline, blamed the Eastern Conference finals loss on the lack of trading for him and then campaigned hard again fora trade for him in the summer before it eventually happened. I always said it would take a lot for me to start “Ladies and gentlemen”-ing Rick Nash, but we are nearing that point if he doesn’t start producing the way he can and has for long stretches of time.

– Here is what I said about Henrik Lundqvist after Game 1:

It was as if the Rangers stole a win without having to use their ace and when you figure that Lundqvist will steal AT LEAST one game in this series, getting by without needing to rely on him in one game, especially Game 1, could be the difference in the series.

Well, now we have played two games in which Lundqvist hasn’t stolen a game for the Rangers or even really looked like the Henrik Lundqvist we saw during the regular season. I guess he could have looked as good as possible in Game 1, but he was never really tested, so it’s hard to say other than that he had allowed one goal and had a .933 save percentage. It’s time for Lundqvist to steal that game or games now.

– What the eff happened when Henrik Lundqvist was supposed to be pulled for an extra attacker? I blame Lundqvist for what happened because he came nearly all the way to the blue and then stopped either after not getting a signal to come to the bench or being unsure if he was given the signal to go to the bench. But when Lundqvist started skating toward the bench, Brad Richards, who was going to go for Lundqvist, must have seen Lundqvist headed toward the bench and hopped the bench in order to time Lundqvist’s arrival to give him the most amount of time to join the play. So when Lundqvist decided to stop, Richards had likely assumed he was arriving as he was joining the forecheck. Chances are the Rangers lose the game 3-2 or even 4-2, like they did, had they not been called for too many men. But they never even gave themselves a chance for a last-minute, empty-net miracle. It was the perfect ending for a perfect Game 2 collapse.

Apr 18, 2014

Rangers-Flyers Game 1 Thoughts: The Tortorella Era Nerves Are Gone

After the Rangers’ Game 1 win over the Flyers, I might have underestimated this Rangers team by predicting them to win the series in five games.

The moment Andrew MacDonald’s shot went past Henrik Lundqvist at 7:28 of the first period, my emotions that had been filled of positive anticipation were deflated and left me feeling like the Camp Hope campers watching Lars destroy “The Blob” in Heavyweights. “Here we go again” is the G-rated version of what I thought with the Flyers celebrating in front of a quickly quieted Garden. Another playoff game the Rangers were trailing in and trailing early in and another game where it looked like even if Henrik Lundqvist stood on his head, it wouldn’t be enough.

My thoughts and feelings after the game were an overreaction to just 7:28 of a seven-game series, but they were thoughts and feelings that I had been trained to experience since the 2008-09 season when John Tortorella became the head coach. I had learned to except the fact that one goal might be all the Rangers would get in postseason games during Tortorella’s tenure and under Tortorella’s system. In the 44 playoff games Tortorella coached the Rangers for from 2008-09 to 2012-13, the Rangers scored 78 goals or 1.77 goals per game. So I was within reason to be worried about the opening minutes of Game 1.

But then at 10:53 of the first period, Mats Zuccarello scored to tie the game and after a sloppy start to the game, the Rangers went on to dominate play for the rest of the game and my early feelings about not being able to score crept back in as I started to envision a game in which the Rangers would control the play and possession and hold a ridiculous margin in shots, but still find a way to lose the game 2-1 either in the third period or in overtime. And then Brad Richards turned back the clock to the pre-2011-12 season offseason or even to the 2003-04 playoffs and led the Rangers to a win.

I predicted the Rangers would win the series in five games, but after Thursday night’s game it feels like I might have underestimated the Rangers with that prediction.

– The last playoff game Brad Richards played in was the Rangers’ 2-1 Game 3 loss to the Bruins last May 21. At the time, we didn’t know that Tortorella would decide to scratch his supposed good friend, who won the Conn Smythe and the Cup for the coach, who would likely be out of the league as a head coach without the 2003-04 playoffs on his resume. But when Tortorella decided to start teaching lessons and make examples of former playoff MVPs and a Ranger who wears an “A” with the Rangers’ season on the line it felt like that 2-1 Game 3 loss would be the last time we would see Richards in a Rangers jersey. Thankfully, it wasn’t.

Richards’ power-play goal gave the Rangers a 2-1 lead at 8:22 of the third period (and turned out to be the game-winner) and his assists at 9:09 and 15:52 sealed the deal. For what seemed like the first time in a long time and the first of just a few times, he looked comfortable on the point on the power play, taking charge of the unit and controlling the play during the double minor.

Glen Sather decided not to buy out Richards contract before this season and gave him a chance to play under Alain Vigneault and play in an offensive system that could return him to his pre-Rangers form and bring out the best in what was once a point-per-game (or better) player. And on Thursday night, after a 20-31-51 regular season, Richards repaid Sather for not buying him out, even if he will never be able to repay him for his nine-year, $60 million contract.

– With the Rangers leading 4-1 in the final minutes and the game in the bag, I started to think about the job Sather had done in turning the team into a strictly blue-collar, rely-on-Lundqvist team into a finesse team and one that can beat you offensively, defensively (at times) and in goal. The Ryan Callahan trade played a big part in erasing the way the Rangers played to how they play now and completed the transition of the Tortorella Rangers to the Vigneault Rangers, (even if Callahan was came up with Tom Renney as head coach, he was textbook Tortorella system player). While I don’t usually credit Sather for the job he has (and rightfully so) he did a good job in building the 2013-14 Rangers. Though I realize I might be a little too high on them after just one playoff game and this could all change by Easter afternoon.

– When Martin St. Louis was traded to the Rangers, I thought he would play with Rick Nash, mainly because I wanted him to. Pair your best scorer with your best playmaker. Sure, it might create a bit of a balance issue, but you could finally create a line that other teams have to prepare for and defend against and a line that makes the opposition and their fans think “Oh eff, THAT line is out there.” It’s been a while since the Rangers had a line like that ever since Jaromir Jagr left the team.

I thought a line of St. Louis, Nash and Brad Richards would make the most sense given the history and chemistry and positions, even if it would create even more unbalance. But having Derek Stepan as the center for St. Louis and Nash was good enough. And after the second time of trying St. Louis with Nash since the March 5 date, it looks like Vigneault is going to keep them together and it’s the right move.

– If the Rangers don’t win the Stanley Cup, Henrik Lundqvist will take the brunt of the blame. He always does. Despite the 1.77 goals per playoff game during the Tortorella era, it’s still on Lundqvist when the Rangers are eliminated. The Rangers went 19-25 in the playoffs under Tortorella and in those 25 playoff losses, the Rangers scored 36 goals or 1.44 goals per game. Here is the breakdown by goals scored in the losses and how many times they scored each amount of goals:

0 goals: 5
1 goal: 9
2 goals: 8
3 goals: 3
4 or more goals: 0

That’s 14 playoff losses when the Rangers couldn’t score more than one goal and 22 when they couldn’t score more than two, so if Henrik Lundqvist wasn’t going to be perfect in every postseason game, he had to be pretty close to it for the Rangers to win. And even then, it wasn’t enough.

But in Game 1 of the 2013-14 playoffs with the 2013-14 Rangers under a different head coach, Lundqvist didn’t need to be perfect or even close to it. The Flyers only had 15 shots and Lundqvist stopped 14 of them and was basically given the night off after having a week off. It was as if the Rangers stole a win without having to use their ace and when you figure that Lundqvist will steal AT LEAST one game in this series, getting by without needing to rely on him in one game, especially Game 1, could be the difference in the series.

One down, 15 to go.

Blogs • Rangers • Rangers Playoffs

Apr 16, 2014

Rangers-Flyers Has ‘The Feel’

I got my wish and the Rangers will play the Flyers in the playoffs for the first time since the 1996-97 conference finals, but this time things will end differently for the Blueshirts.

I can’t believe it’s been 28 weeks since I was turning on MSG for the first time in months to watch the Rangers open the season in Phoenix on Oct. 3. And I can’t believe it’s been nearly just as long since I was turning off MSG and thinking about not turning it on again this season after the Rangers were embarrassed 9-2 by the Sharks on Oct. 8.

The Rangers started the season with their third and final season-opening extended road trip and went 3-6-0, getting outscored 33-15 in the process with Alain Vigneault’s offensive system heavily criticized. They returned to New York for their home opener on Oct. 29 and were shut out 2-0 by the Canadiens and after almost a month of hockey found themselves in last place. But they quickly turned it around, going 6-1-0 between Oct. 29 and Nov. 10 and looked like the Real Rangers and the team we expected to see in 2013-14 (and the team we expected to see in 2012-13 for that matter).

Following Henrik Lundqvist’s extension in the first week of December, the Rangers went into another slump, going 0-3-1 from Dec. 7 to Dec. 12, before beating the Flames in a shootout at the Garden on Dec. 15 for their first two-point game in 10 days. After that win, they went on a 16-7-2 tear until the Olympic break, winning in Chicago against the defending champions and sweeping the Stadium Series along the way.

They returned from their 20-day break with heavy rumors of a potential Ryan Callahan trade surrounding the team and after three post-break games, Callahan was gone and Martin St. Louis was a Ranger after what evolved into a mandatory move for Glen Sather. The Rangers became a better team with St. Louis, but still entered the final 10 games of the season not knowing if they would play an 83rd game this season.

Following the 1-0 loss to the Sharks, on March 16, which was part of a 1-3-0 stretch from March 11-16, I wasn’t sure if we would be here. I wasn’t sure if I would be watching Rangers playoff hockey this year or hate-watching the playoffs and simply watching because it’s playoff hockey and not because I cared who won or lost during the best time of the year. But here we are. After 82 games and highs and lows and winning streaks that not even Mike McDermott could have handled or losing streaks that not even Joey Knish could have helped dig Rangers fans out of, here we are on the eve of the postseason and the eve of the first Rangers-Flyers playoff series since the 1996-97 Eastern Conference finals.

I didn’t want the Rangers to play the Flyers in the first round, I needed the Rangers to play the Flyers in the first round. After seeing the Capitals in the first round in 2012-13, 2010-11 and 2008-09 (and the conference semis in 2011-12), I didn’t need something different in the postseason just for the sake of watching something different, I needed something different because it’s the Flyers and because Rangers-Flyers still has “the feel” of something special in an age where “the feel” is hard to find. It’s hard to describe what “the feel” is when it comes to a rivalry, whether or old of new, but you know it when you have it the way Rangers-Devils has had it and Rangers-Islanders use to have it and Bruins-Canadiens has always had it and Bruins-Canucks built it. And if Rangers-Flyers can continually give you “the feel” in the regular season after 17 years without a playoff series, imagine what it could do in a playoff series after such a drought. That’s why I needed this series to happen.

I thought after the 2007 ALDS when I wanted nothing more than the Yankees to face the Indians, I would have finally learned the “be careful what you wish for” lesson, but I apparently haven’t in asking for the Rangers to face the Flyers. I wanted no part of the Blue Jackets or the Columbus Rangers because of their 2011-12 Rangers feel (not because of their roster, but because of the way they win) and Sergei Bobrovsky. They have changed the image of what the Blue Jackets have represented since entering the league in 2000 and making just their second playoff appearance, they would have been a tough out for anyone and that includes the Penguins, who they will face. I got my wish. I got Rangers-Flyers and I can only hope it turns into Rangers-Penguins or Rangers-Blue Jackets a couple weeks from now and the hockey season continues for more than just a week or two.

I didn’t feel this good about the Rangers entering the playoffs two years ago when they were the No. 1 seed coming off a 51-win and 109-point season and with Henrik Lundqvist posting fake life numbers. But two years ago, the Rangers’ path to the Stanley Cup Final was paved like the New York Football Giants’ path to Super Bowl XLVI once the Saints were eliminated because the Bruins and Penguins were eliminated in the first round and the Flyers were gone in the second. I thought the stars had aligned with the Rangers facing the Devils in the conference finals, but the Rangers’ scoring inconsistencies (and lack of trading for Rick Nash at the deadline) were finally too much to overcome once the ridiculous bounces stopped going their way (and they still got a lot of ridiculous bounces to go their way in the six games).

On this Stanley Cup Playoffs Eve, I feel as good as I could possibly feel about the Rangers and that’s not necessarily a good thing. But like the Giants, the Rangers don’t perform well with expectations or with hype or with a bandwagon that’s gaining steam. They were embarrassed by the Bruins in the conference semis last May after everyone picked the Rangers to win the series, they couldn’t get past what seemed to be an inferior 6-seeded Devils team the year before despite being a 1-seed, the year before that they clinched the 8-seed in Game 82, the year before that they missed out on the playoffs with a Game 82 shootout loss and the year before that were an 8-seed and blew a 3-1 series lead in the first round. Nothing has ever come easy with the Rangers and I don’t expect this spring to be any different, but maybe it’s better that way.

I was 10 years old and in fifth grade for the 1996-97 conference finals when the Rangers were easily handled by the Flyers in five games. This time, 17 years later, I think it will go five games once again.

Rangers in five.

Blogs • Email Exchanges • Yankees

Apr 15, 2014

Theo Epstein Back in the Bronx with Rebuilding Cubs

The Yankees and Cubs meet for the first of two short two-games series this year and that calls for an email exchange with Al Yellon of Bleed Cubbie Blue.

The last time the Yankees and Cubs met was August 2011, but that was at Wrigley Field. On Tuesday, the Yankees and Cubs meet for the first time ever in new Yankee Stadium (since their Stadium opening exhibition games didn’t count) for a two-game series, which will be the first of a pair of two-game series this season between the teams.

With the Yankees and Cubs playing for the first time in three years and the first time this year, I did an email exchange with Al Yellon of Bleed Cubbie Blue to talk about what has happened to the Cubs since their last postseason appearance in 2008, the job Theo Epstein has done since taking over before the 2012 season and how long Cubs fans expect the rebuilding process in Chicago to take.

Keefe: I have never been to Wrigley Field though I expect that to change this summer. I went by it for the first time in January when I was in Chicago for Rangers-Blackhawks and tried to envision what it would be like to watch a game inside there and soon enough I will have that chance. It’s hard not to think of the heartache and the devastation that has taken place there and for the teams that have played there and the fans that have watched games there. And the most recent of that heartache and devastating came five-plus years ago.

The last time the Cubs were in the playoffs in 2008, many people predicted them to go to the World Series and even win it all after winning 97 games in the regular season. But then they ran into the wild-card Dodgers and three games later, the Cubs’ season was over. A year after getting swept by the Diamondbacks, they were swept by the Dodgers and they haven’t been back to the playoffs since.

I know it’s not exactly the most positive note to start his email exchange by bringing up the Cubs’ postseason failures of 2007 and 2008 or their playoff drought since, but I thought it was a good place to start to set the tone of where your Cubs have been recently and where they are doing.

Going into the 2008 postseason, how confident were you as a Cubs fan (I’m guessing as confident as a Cubs fan can be) coming off that regular season? Did you think the team was built to make annual October appearances or was there a sense of what would eventually come?

Yellon: This is a question few Cubs fans care to revisit. More than five years gone, it feels as if 2008 was another lifetime. Ownership and management have completely changed since then, and it’s almost as if we’re now rooting for an expansion team.

Oh, 2008. Best regular season I’ve seen in my lifetime, probably the best Cubs regular season since the 1930s. No Cubs fan anticipated a three-game sweep. 20/20 hindsight says that team was built to “win now,” in the vernacular, because it made the playoffs mostly on the strength of veteran hitting.

Cubs fans didn’t look toward “annual October appearances” at that time. We took what came and felt grateful for it — in some ways, always anticipating something going wrong. There’s an old joke: Optimists think the glass is half full. Pessimists think the glass is half empty. Cubs fans ask, “When’s the glass going to get knocked over and spill?”

Keefe: I have always felt that Theo Epstein got too much credit in Boston. Yes, he pulled off a miracle during Thanksgiving dinner in 2003 at Curt Schilling’s house to get the right-hander to sign with the Red Sox and he had the balls to trade the face of the franchise in Nomar Garciaparra in the middle of the 2004 season. But he also won the 2004 World Series thanks to a team whose key players were from prior management. And then when the Red Sox won again in 2007, it was because Josh Beckett saved them in the ALCS and because of Mike Lowell in the World Series, as he won MVP against the Rockies. Those two players were traded to the Red Sox from the Marlins during Epstein’s time away from the team, and he admitted then he wouldn’t have made that deal. No deal, no World Series that year.

I loved what Theo did by signing bad deal after bad deal to put the Red Sox in a bind through the 2012 season before he left Boston for Chicago and before Ben Cherington cleaned up his mess. But I couldn’t believe how ecstatic Cubs fans seemed to be with the news he was headed for Wrigley as if they had just landed A-Rod in a pre-2004 trade.

What were your feelings about the decisions to bring Theo to Chicago?

Yellon At the time Theo was hired, I was all for it. It was clear the team’s direction wasn’t working and they needed a change.

In the two-plus years (three offseasons, now) that Theo & Co. have been in charge, they have produced what is seen by many analysts as the top farm system in the major leagues, stockpiling draft picks and acquiring prospects by trade.

Many think this is great, and that the Cubs will magically burst into contention starting in 2015 with prospects such as Javier Baez, Kris Bryant, Albert Almora and Jorge Soler (known as the “Core Four”). In general, it doesn’t work that way; those four might become All-Stars, but it could take time. It could be 2018 or later before the Cubs return to contention; they are hamstrung by poor TV deals and some other financial constraints put on the team as a condition of the sale to the Ricketts family, that might not get them the big money they need to compete with the likes of the Dodgers and Yankees until after 2019.

Some Cubs fans are OK with this, thinking that the “waves of talent” Theo is supposedly producing will provide perennial contention. Others are starting to get a bit impatient with the 95-plus loss seasons that are piling up; 2014 is likely going to be another such season.

Keefe: There aren’t many non-Yankees I like, but I like Starlin Castro. Now I don’t watch him every day like you, and I haven’t followed his career as closely as you, but his first few seasons are puzzling when you look just at the stats.

The last time the Yankees and Cubs played (and the only time Castro has played against the Yankees) was June 17-19, 2011. In those three games, Castro went 5-for-13 with two doubles and three runs, but it felt like he couldn’t be stopped. He went on to hit .307/.341/.432 and led the league in hits that year in what was his second season. But since then, his average, on-base percentage and slugging percentage have declined each season. However, early on this year, Castro looks to be back on track and he just turned 24 on March 24.

I know he’s still very young, but what has kept Castro from building off his 2010 and 2011 seasons over the last two years?

Yellon: To be quite blunt, Castro’s struggles can almost completely be attributed to the manager and coaching staff that was dismissed at the end of 2013. Dale Sveum (a former hitting coach) and his staff had Castro change his approach. Castro came to the big leagues as (mostly) a hacker — note the .341 OBP with the .307 BA, not many walks in there — and Castro got all messed up, trying to please the coaches, taking too many pitches and not getting good swings at the pitches he did offer at.

There were also some personal issues in his life (a sexual assault charge that proved baseless, among other things) that could have affected his play on the field.

New manager Rick Renteria and batting coach Bill Mueller have let Castro be Castro, to go back to the style that got him to the big leagues and have two All-Star seasons. He’s done quite well so far in 2014 despite missing almost all of spring training with a hamstring injury. He looks more confident at the plate and has also played better in the field (it’s always been noted that Castro has had some issues with concentration in the field, but this appears to no longer be a problem).

As you note, he’s just 24. He’s had very good years in the past and now it looks like he could be in line for a real breakout year.

Keefe: It was always rough to watch Carlos Marmol try to get through games as the Cubs closer (especially if you had a wager on them), but when he was on and could locate, his pitches were electrifying and unhittable. Now it seems like the Cubs have Carlos Marmol 2.0 in Jose Veras.

I couldn’t wait for the Yankees to part ways with Jose Veras, which they did in June 2009, and had they not, the Yankees probably would be in their 14th year of a World Series drought if he had gotten into playoff games that year. Veras defined inconsistent during his time with the Yankees and when I knew he would be an important part of the Tigers’ bullpen in the ALCS last October, I feared that the Red Sox would reach the World Series and eventually win it.

The numbers haven’t been pretty for Veras through four appearances this season, so I’m not sure if the right thing to ask is what are your feelings on him, so I’ll go with how long will the Jose Veras experiment work with the Cubs?

Yellon: I think the Veras experiment might be over already; he’s been replaced as closer (for now), and if his replacement (whoever it is; the dreaded “committee” is now closing) does well, what’s the point of giving him the closing job back?

Well, here’s the point. Veras was signed as a flip candidate; he has very little “proven closer” experience (half of 2013 is about it), and there isn’t much point to having a 33-year-old closer on a bad team unless he can bring a prospect or two in return. So I’d expect the Cubs to try it again.

Keefe: The year before Theo arrived the Cubs were 71-91. In his first year running the team, they finished 61-101 and then went 66-96 last season. This year they are off to a 4-8 start.

They are still considered to be in rebuilding mode, but when you look around the league at other teams who were also rebuilding, they have seemed to do it much quicker than it’s taken the Cubs, who haven’t reached the playoffs since 2008 and haven’t won a playoff game since Game 4 of the 2003 NLCS.

What are your expectations for this season and how long will the rebuilding plan take?

Yellon: Personally, I have no expectations for this season. This Cubs team was clearly not built to contend, especially in the NL Central where it appears we now have four contending teams. The Cubs’ two “big” offseason signings — Veras and Jason Hammel — were clearly made to flip them for prospects, not to provide any victories. The Cubs will likely lose 95 games again, even if they play well through July 31; trades after that (which could include Jeff Samardzija) could produce another 18-42 or 17-40 August and September (those are the actual records from those months in 2012 and 2013, respectively).

I don’t expect the Cubs to have any real serious contending year until 2018… at least.

But hey, we’re celebrating the 100th anniversary of Wrigley Field this year. There will be some cool giveaways. As Cubs fans, we better enjoy that, because it’s about all we’ve got.