What?  We have no tags for Jeff Baker&Andres Blanco?  We need to rectify that, because they are here for the long haul.

A very popular topic of conversation amongst Cub bloggers is the Mark DeRosa trade.  Over the months of this abortion of a season, two camps have sprung up - the "Mark DeRosa is not God" camp espoused by Desipio Andy, and, um, everyone else who tends to track the entire spiralsuck of 2009 on the New Years Eve trade.  Naturally, I tend to think the truth falls somewhere in the middle.

Mark DeRosa can be counted on to hit close to 20 homers, drive in close to 70 runs, hit around .260 and get on base 34% of the time.  He is not a great fielder, but not a liability, either.  His two main talents in life are that he is friendly, and that he leaves his ego in check well enough to allow himself to go play a corner outfield spot, third base, second base or first base.

The latter talent is vitally important to Lou Piniella, who if he had his way would expect every member of his 25-main to be able to play more than one position.  Except Z, he would pull his lazy fat core muscles playing in the field.  Lou loves DeRosa.  Which begs the question: where is all the Lou love for Jeff Baker?  Baker is essentially DeRosa, only younger, covers a tad more ground, hits for a better average (albeit less power), and can and will play all the positions Mark does?  Of course, I don't recall seeing Baker in a cute YouTube skit, or in the paper much commenting on the cartoon-watching proclivities of a Bobby Scales, or something cutesy like that.

My take on Mark DeRosa, on this 25th day of September, 2009?  I do not blame the entire fall of the 2009 Cubs on the loss of Mark.  I do think losing him took away one of Lou Piniella's safety blankets, and it would have been better having him around than giving 400 at bats to Mike Fontenot.  If you believe that DeRosa was traded, so that his salary could be leveraged to pay Milton Bradley, then you have every right in the world to be pissed off.  On the other hand, he was traded at the peak of his value (for once in Hendry's tenure), and although a popular meme in the papers these days is for Hendry to right the wrongs of 2009 by re-signing DeRosa this winter, it seems pointless to have a roster with DeRosa AND Baker AND Andres Blanco AND Ryan Theriot AND Mike Fontenot AND Aaron Miles.

Unless, of course, you do the following:

• install Andres Blanco as the starting shortstop
• sign DeRosa, and let him and Baker rotate between second base, spelling Ramirez at third, spelling Alfonso Soriano in left, and spelling whomever in right.
• this leaves very little room for Fontenot.  Get rid of him.
• But!  But!  What about The Riot?  He's our shortstop!  He's our starter!  He hits .300.  If you don't like his fielding at short, can't he play second?  Won't he be mad if we got rid of Fontenot?

Yeah, probably.  In my humble opinion, I am through with Ryan Theriot at shortstop.  I like his .300 batting average, but I don't like his baserunning and I don't like his lack of playmaking ability.  I forgot what a real shortstop looked like until Blanco came up from the minors.  Compared to him, The Riot looks really bad.  So could Theriot play second?  Sure. 

And here's where it gets complicated.  Who starts then?  Theriot or Baker?  And then, if you re-sign DeRosa, things really get jammed up at second.  Therefore, it makes no sense to me to bring back Marky Mark unless you get rid of Theriot, because then you have three starter-caliber guys wanting to play one position, and occassionally spell guys in a couple other positions.

Besides, if you got rid of Theriot, then who backs up Blanco at short?  We'd be forced to keep Aaron Miles.  Ew.  I just threw up a tad.

So, in my world, I start Blanco at short, with Theriot at second primarily, and against lefties, Theriot plays short, and Baker plays second, spelling Theriot once a week.  Baker also plays third for Ramirez once a week, plays left for Soriano once a week, plays right once a week, and second 2-3 times a week.  Theriot gets about 550 PA, Baker about 500.  Soriano and Ramirez get more rest in 2010.  The defense improves dramatically.  If you sign DeRosa, it would have to be based on the terms I just outlined for Baker.  Then you trade Baker, while HIS value his high.

Aaron Miles is allowed to start selling insurance, and Mike Fontenot can go back to Baton Rouge to run a combination batting cage/bar/laundromat.

Jim Hendry has deservedly received a lot of flack for his off season moves this year.  He rolled the dice on Bradley -- so far coming up a loser, although time may tell a different story -- he took a risk on Fontenot -- also a loser move -- and he dealt for Kevin Gregg after declaring that Wood had no home in Chicago.

The loss of Wood and Mark DeRosa in particular upset a lot of Cub fans.  How many times have we heard or read this year that "da Cubs would be doin' betta with Da-Rosa!"  How many of us lamented that Kerry Wood -- a certifiable "big game pitcher" -- was to be replaced by Kevin Gregg and his hipster-doofus glasses? 

While the fan in me still misses Wood considerably, at this point Hendry's decisions look less decisively poor and more ambiguously positive than they did back in May. 

Wood presently has 14 saves and 4 blown, while posting an ERA of 4.93 through 34.2 innings of work.  Not exactly elite.  Compare that with Gregg, who has 21 saves to 3 blown with an ERA of 3.42 in 47.1 innings of work.

DeRosa, meanwhile, is still hitting the crap out of the ball -- he's batting .266 with 18 homeruns so far this year.  Although, since coming to St. Louis, DeRo is hitting a Fontenesque .244.

Speaking of Fontenot, at this point he has me longing for the days of Mickey Morandini.  Font is batting .229 and should never, ever face another left handed pitcher in a game that matters.

As for Milton Bradley, he is doing better but not great.  He's certainly not earning his contract this season.  He was chosen by the Cubs over guys like Bobby Abreu, Adam Dunn, and Raul Ibanez, all of whom are either lacking power, defense, or a legitimate "I'm doing it clean" argument. 

Nevertheless, the Cubs are now leading the NL Central.  They'd undoubtably be better off with a guy like DeRosa on the team, but Gregg at least is looking very good.  And Bradley?  Meh.  Let's talk about him again in a year.

To keep the 'pen fresh as we approach the All-Star Break, the Cubs have sent Kevin Hart back to Iowa, and will put Jeff Stevens on the major league roster in his place.

Jeff Stevens is one of the three pitchers the Cubs received in the DeRosa deal, and by the looks of how he's been pitching lately, it seems like he should see at least moderate success in the majors. In his last 14.1 innings pitched in Triple A, he's struck out 21 batters, and allowed just four walks. Cool!

From what I can gather from across the interwebs, he primarily uses his low-to-mid nineties fastball, a decent change-up, and a curveball with a lot of break. As a complete sucker for K/9 rates and K/BB ratios, I'm interested in seeing what this kid has to offer for the major league club.

Apparently, Mark DeRosa has been traded to the Cardinals.

This past offseason, many Cub fans were disappointed to hear that Mark would not be a part of the Cubs' roster in 2009. Perhaps you were one of those fans.

Of course, not everyone was all that upset. Several "DeRosa skeptics" (myself included) tried to argue that Mike Fontenot's overwhelming success in limited at-bats in 2007 and 2008 would carry over into this season. Our younger, cheaper, defensively superior, left-handed option (those advantages remain true) would hit (that hasn't happened), and the Cubs would be fine.

Fast forward to the end of June 2009, and Mark is now the enemy. Let's take a look at what might have been had the Cubs retained Mark DeRosa for 2009, in comparison to the rest of the team:

DeRosa's Current Batting Average: .270

That would rank 3rd among Cub starters that have played in more than 20 games.

DeRosa's Home Run Count: 13

Mark would be 2nd on the team in home runs.

DeRosa's On Base Percentage: .342
DeRosa's Slugging: .457

Mark would be 5th in OBP (Fuk, Lee, Theriot and MB are 1-4), and 2nd in slugging (behind Lee, assuming you don't count Fox, Hoff, or Scales as a regular).

Given those ranks, I could easily see DeRosa making the Cub offense significantly better had he been retained for this season. Of course, it's nearly impossible to suggest that DeRosa would have precisely the same numbers if he played for an entirely different team, in an entirely different league.

But those of us that thought last year was a fluke? Not only were we wrong; now, we have to be reminded of our mistake every time the Cardinals come to town.

This should be fun.

The wonderful thing about blogging -- all your words are as immortal as your domain registration and hosting contract.  That means that in the years GROTA has been around, we've said plenty of really stupid things that time proved us to be totally wrong about.

For example - I was wrong about Mark DeRosa.

When the Cubs let DeRosa go for some young pitching that very well prove me right in the end about the DeRo deal, I said it was no big thang.  After all, the Cubs had a tremendous hitter in Mike Fontenot who could bat lefty and would probably put up numbers equal-to or better-than the '09 DeRosa.

I said DeRo would revert.  He'd had a career year in 2008 and, at his age, career years don't get duplicated. 

I said that Fontenot was a better defensive second baseman.  (Actually, this one still might be true, he hasn't gotten to play there a whole lot.)  And with the addition of the versatile backup Aaron Miles, DeRosa's ability to play multiple positions would not be missed.

Hell, it's June 22nd.  We're well on our way through the 2009 season.  And the evidence to the contrary about my bold opinions is staggering.

Mike Fontenot is not cutting it as a starter.  Actually, the amount of doubles and homers he's on pace to hit are fine and dandy.  The problem is his .230 AVG.  Strike that, the problem is his .121 AVG against lefties. At the very least, Fontenot needs somebody to spell him against south-paws.  Even Aaron Miles would be acceptable -- BAM! is batting .259 against lefty pitching, which is better than the next-to-nothing that Lil' Mike is delivering.

Then again, DeRosa is a near-.280 hitter so far this year, on pace to hit 31 homers, drive in 118 RBI, and post an OPS of .819.  And he is killing lefties. 

On a team starving for offense there is no denying that the Cubs would've been better off with DeRosa on the roster.  So, big-time screw-up for Hendry, and admission of being wrong from me.  But before you get on my case too much about it, be honest about how fast you gave up on Derrek Lee -- many were sticking forks in him back in October 2008.

Now, lately one of our writers has taken a significant amount of flack -- even from some of our other writers -- for being harsh on the players on this team.  He said Lee was toast about a month ago, he's called Soto fat and lacking ambition, he's declared to be embarrassed for ever having advocated Fukudome, and so-on.  Well, Rob, I'm callin' you out.

At one point this season, Lee was batting .194 with 3 homeruns and 15 RBI.  (That was on May 13th, by the way).  In just over a month since then, Lee has been batting .374 with 8 homeruns and 20 RBI.  The point being that, in baseball, nobody's done until after they've taken their last at bat.

As for Soto, this has been a strong point of disagreement between Rob and the rest of us.  He thinks Geo grew fat on his laurels.  I don't know for sure that he gained weight over the winter, but I do know that he started the year with a sore shoulder and a screwed-up swing.  At his low point, April 30th, Soto was batting .109 with 0 homers and only 2 RBI.  Since then, he's hitting .264 but more importantly with 5 homers and 17 RBI.  Geo's not out of the woods but he is definitely, undeniably hitting the ball better.

Fukudome, on the other hand ... eh, it's hard to say.  After starting the year with a .338 AVG in April, Kosuke batted .277 in May with only 1 homer and 5 RBI and is batting .180 in June, even after Saturday's 4-hit assault.  I'm prepared to give this one to Rob, but not until we see where Fukudome is by mid July.

Oh -- and Milton Bradley.  I don't recall that Rob has given Bradley too much flack for his crappy 2009 season, but I just wanted to note to everybody that Don't Wake was batting .097 on April 29th.  Since then, he batted .268 with 3 homers and 12 RBI in May and is batting .286 but with only 2 extra base hits in all of June.  Still -- he's improving. 

The point is that nobody really knows.  We can guess, we can trust our gut, we can follow projections and detailed statistics, but until the games are played we're just rolling dice and making bold declarations that we hope nobody will bother to remember.

What I will say is that the difference between a good team and a bad one appears to occur in inches.  The Cubs team we've followed through the start of June was indescribably awful.  They failed to get big hits, they couldn't win close games, they surrendered late leads, and on a whole they were just painful to watch. 

Probably they are still that team, at least a little.  But with the Questionable Quartet coming around, we suddenly have a team getting huge hits late in games, often coming from behind to win on their last at bat, with a bullpen that still appears to be shaking off the cobwebs but has been able to hold down small leads.  It's the same team, the same personnel, and suddenly they don't look like they're going to lose 90 -- instead they appear as if they just might win that many games.

All I can say then, to Rob and many others, is that this to me is proof that nothing can be assumed or taken for granted.  We live in a Cubbie Bubble where we see the worst and assume it doesn't happen to any other team -- or maybe we assume it means more because these are the Cubs, for gawd's sake.  But I wrote a while back about the Superlative Season in which if we aren't rewarded with a perfect year of baseball we think the team has no chance at all of winning imperfectly. 

On the contrary, I still think the Cubs are playoff bound.  I still think it will happen in spite of the managing.  I still think this team is immensely talented.  And I absolutely believe that in October, this team -- already so beset by adversity -- will be prepared to shrug off at least some of the pressure they will feel to win it all.  At this point their talent will almost certainly be bigger than their wins total, and in October talent wins out.

Of that I am certainly not wrong.

With the return of Colin (can I call it a return?) comes the return of Mark DeRosa talk in Chicago.

As is was poined out in our Shout Box, the Brewers might be one of the teams interested in Mr. DeRosa's services. I'm not sure where Xblack_jeepX heard it from, but I first read this rumor on today's Sun-Times Web site in a Chris De Luca column.

In said column, De Luca stirs the shat pot (again) by suggesting that DeRosa would be the perfect replacement for the recently injured Rickie Weeks, who had his season ended with a wrist boo boo.

Well I say let the Brewers (or anyone else) have him.

Don't get me wrong, I like DeRosa and would welcome him back to Chicago with open arms assuming the Cubs wouldn't have to give up more than a few baseball bats for him (Hey, it's happened before), but I think we're starting to see why Mark was given a one-way ticket to Cleveland in the offseason.

While DeRosa has a respectable 25 RBI and 6 homers, the rest of his stat line is telling a different story (and I'm not talking about that .242 batting average). Currently DeRosa is hitting with a .312 OBP, .412 SLG and thus a .724 OPS. All of these numbers are below his personal average.

I think we can agree that his stats last season were inflated due to the level of talent and production around him in the high-powered Cubs offense, so maybe the fault isn't with DeRosa, but his crappy Cleveland teammates. Alas, this is not the case.

The Indians offense has been surprisingly strong. The are second in the AL in team OBP (.354), sixth in walks (161) and third in hits (375). They are putting men on base, and as such, DeRosa has responded with his 25 RBI. But his strongest statisical category is more complimentary to his teammates than himself. Being able to collect a large number of RBI is, in essence, based on luck. There needs to be people on base in order to drive them in. DeRosa has no control over the ability of teammates to reach base. So again, his RBI total in comparison to his weak offensive statistics everywhere else just shows you how good of a job the Indians are doing at giving him several opportunities to produce despite his repeated failures at the plate so far.

Outs and the ability to not make them is the most important thing in baseball...and DeRosa is making a lot of them.

Granted the season is still young and DeRosa could turn it around any day now, but I think we're starting to see that last season for D-Hero was an exception to the rule.

So I say let the Brewers have DeRosa. They have the fourth-ranked team OBP in the NL right now, so DeRosa on the Crew might actually help the Cubs.

Hey look, everybody! We could get DeRosa back! Isn't that exciting?

Guest: How big does it look right now to not have DeRosa on the roster?

This was a question asked by somebody wishing to remain anonymous.  Well, GROTA is nothing if not fair, and we are going to take a look at two things ... the first is How DeRosa is Doing, the second is How DeRosa Would Do.  It will all be self-explanatory.  Read on.

How DeRosa is Doing
Between trips to the capital to help successfully manage the bailout Mark DeRosa is a man pulled between two loves - baseball and science.  Miraculously, he's found time to both.

You see, a recent brain study - done by known PhD holder Mark DeRosa - confirmed something many had suspected for years: Mark DeRosa is a superman genius.  His brain functions are so dramatically excelerated that he has the ability to perceive the world so quickly that he effectively has lightning fast reflexes.  Consequently, he enjoys inventing new, revolutionary scientific devices between the moments of when the pitcher releases the ball and it connects with his bat.  DeRo is that awesome.

However, he has been suffering from distractions of late as he has struggled to find an answer to the riddle of the African drought that has plagued Niger for the past 4 years.  Consequently, he is only batting .997 while leading the undefeated Indians to what some pundits believe to be a likely perfect season.

So to answer Guest's question, how big does it look right now to not have DeRosa on the roster?  It's huge.  It's horrible.  After all, while DeRo is busy redefining "leadership" for the 6-11 Indians, the Cubs are learning how to live without his .208 AVG.

How DeRosa Would Do
But imagine if DeRo were here?  Wouldn't it be great!?  The Cubs!  They'd be rock stars!  Like tonight - the Cubs were losing already to St. Louis when David Patton came in.  Problem was that he turned it into a route by allowing 5 earned runs and probably cementing the end to his experimental status on the Cubs roster.  If DeRosa was here, he could have stepped in for Patton and struck out Albert Pujols.  Then, he could have led off the next inning with a homerun. 

BAM!  Just like that.  Game changed, Cubs win.

Or, he could just be another Cub batting 100 points below his career average producing insufficiently, driving us nuts.

Anyway, I've got a rule I try to stick by.  That rule is to never make it personal.  So Guest, when I say that your comment about DeRosa is perhaps the most idiotic thing said by anybody so far this year, please understand it's your opinion that I think is ridiculously stupid, not you. 

For a point of reference, I have long held the opinion that I should be able to wear my baseball jerseys into my place of work, a government office here in Toronto.  But my opinion about the dress code at work is stupid and it's wrong.  I just need to learn how to live with it.

It's opening day and there are still Cub fans longing for our old hero, known as DeRo, who will probably spend his off-days this summer trying to extinguish lake fires in Cleveland. 

First, they're right to miss the guy.  He was extremely versatile, he hit the ball well, and he was on a short list of team MVPs last season.  Now he's gone.  But people continue to state that losing DeRosa was a mistake.  It was a salary dump that didn't dump salary.  It allowed for a positional upgrade for a player who isn't likely to be better.  It was, in short, a terrible mistake.  (According to those people.)

I don't think it was a mistake at all, though.  I understand the reasons the trade happened, and although I've blue-faced myself in explaining them on this blog, I will do it again. 

• Mark DeRosa is in his mid 30's coming off of a career year.  Those guys don't have multiple career years unless they're injecting things.
• Mike Fontenot is in the prime of his career and has demonstrated tremendous ability to hit at the Major League Level.  Furthermore, he bats left handed.
• The Cubs needed another guy who bats left handed.
• Based on a variety of factors, Fontenot projects to be better defensively at second than DeRosa and they should have very similar offensive seasons.

The funny thing is that while people will point out that Fontenot is "no sure thing" as a starter, nobody has stopped to consider that maybe DeRosa isn't a sure thing, either.  He's especially not a sure thing to duplicate his '08 season, and if we really look closely we'd realize that he's a career sub who's had 3 decent years in a row.  That's a trend, and a nice one, but it's hardly a certainty of future output.

Therefore, I say again ... are we still caught up on the departure of DeRosa?  Is there really anything he can do that Fontenot can't do, besides play three or four positions and juggle while riding a unicycle? 

The Cubs are an absurdly potent-looking team with a ridiculously high-projected offensive output.  I don't really think they'd even look better with DeRosa there.  So I say to you, Cub fan reading this blog, forget DeRosa and Fonteyes!

On a day when the city was still in euphoria over one of the biggest trades in Chicago sports history, another trade made months ago was made to look even worse than it was at the time because of the release of another player.  I am talking about the release of Chad Gaudin. This was obviously the right move and many of us saw this coming from a mile away.  Gaudin was pretty bad this spring and really since he came to the Cubs in July.  The only reason I was kind of hoping he would stick around would be so that the DeRosa trade would still make sense.  Now that Gaudin was released, it makes the DeRo' trade look even worse than it did in January.  At the time, people justified the trade by saying that they sold high on DeRosa because of the season he had last year and that they needed to cut salary to get Bradley.  Honestly, DeRosa was pretty damn good in the WBC and probably will have a similar season this year as he did last year so selling high is something I can say they did not.  He is just good.  The other reason, $$$, just took a hit.  They traded DeRosa's $5.5 million dollar salary for three players whose contracts totaled $1.2 million.  Then they signed Miles for $2.5 million.  This led to a net gain of $1.8 million, plus 3 players who many scouts say will never see the majors. Today, though, the Cubs released Gaudin and his $2 million dollar salary for...NOTHING! Great job Cubbies management.  You could have released Gaudin at the end of last season and it would have cost you what? 400K?  We knew that Lou didn't really like Gaudin so why give him a chance at $2 million? There is no good reason.  We knew he didn't stand a chance. So in the end, the Cubs gained roughly 200K and three players who probably won't amount to anything by trading DeRosa.  A lot of people have criticized the Bears this week for giving up a lot for Cutler, but at least they aren't the Cubs who gave up a lot for, well, nothing.