With the Cubs loss yesterday to the Phillies to complete the three game sweep, I suddenly had a revelation of sorts.  The loss made me angry, and my first reaction was to make excuses for the Cubs.  Sure they lost, but Aramis Ramirez is hurt.  Injuries have been the downfall of this team.  Then I realized, I was just making excuses.  I’m a Cubs apologist.

You see, my relationship with the Cubs evolved over the years.  It started out innocently enough.  I was just a kid and they were my hometown team.  I learned the players names, memorized their numbers, and studied the statistics on the back of their baseball cards.  I was a fan and all I wanted was for the team to win.

As I grew older, my wish for a winning team became a little bit of an embarrassment.  It didn’t matter how many games I watched or how hard I wished for the victories, the Cubs just didn’t win.  They were pathetic and that seemed to reflect negatively on me.  I had become too personally involved and my happiness had become tied in to how well the Cubs were doing.  Unfortunately, they weren’t doing very well.

In college, I fell in with a group of guys, many of whom were Cardinals fans.  They were good guys, just horribly misguided.  Of course, when the Cardinals won the World Series in 1982, I had to ask myself, “who is the one that is really misguided?”  (My girlfriend at the time was also a Cardinals fan, so that didn’t help.) The 80′s were a difficult time for the Cubs (except 1984), just as the 70′s and 60′s had been.

Today, I am a full-fledged adult, complete with a wife, kids, and all of the assorted goodies that come along with growing up and getting older.  Unfortunately, I still have the personality glitch that I developed as a kid.  I’m still a Cubs fan and my personal happiness is still far too dependent on the trials and tribulations of the Cubs.  That’s why I’m an apologist.

You see, the Cubs have been a part of my life for a long time.  They’re almost like a member of the family who you stay in contact with, but who’s lifestyle you don’t like.  You love them, but you really wish they’d change.  And no matter what type of stupid, inappropriate thing they do, you just can’t seem to turn your back on them.  You give them the benefit of the doubt.  You’re sure that the next job or the next relationship is going to turn them around.  But when that doesn’t happen, your first inclination is to defend them, to justify their actions, to make excuses.  Such is the current state of my relationship with the Cubs.

But if I take a hard look, a really hard look, at the 2009 version of the Cubs and I allow myself to be objective, I know deep down that it isn’t injuries that have derailed their season.   Sure, the loss of Aramis Ramirez has hurt the team, but injuries happen to every team.  And the Cubs have the players that should be able to pick up the slack.  Alfonso Soriano, Milton Bradley and Derrek Lee should be able to carry a Ramirez-less team.  But they didn’t.  Instead, they folded at the very time the team needed them to step up.  Derrek Lee eventually came around, but it was too little too late.

You know, as long as I’m being objective, let me turn my attention to Jim Hendry.  Because if I’m going to be honest, I have to admit that this team is not well constructed.  For instance:

• Ryan Theriot is not an every day shortstop for a large market team.  Relying on him to be something other than what he is – a solid, if unspectacular player – was a mistake. 
• Mike Fontenot is not an everyday second baseman.  Thinking that he could replace the production, if not the leadership qualities, of Mark DeRosa was delusional.
• Signing Milton Bradley to a $10 million/year contract based strictly on his 2008 production, and turning a blind eye to his previous performance and behavioral issues was nothing short of wishful thinking.
• Abandoning center field to a platoon consisting of a) a guy who had a horrible 2008, and b) a guy that was released by the Toronto Blue Jays, simply because both guys were already on the team was completely wrongheaded.  You had a bunch of money to spend.  Couldn’t you get two good players for right and center field instead of just handing all of the money over to Milton Bradley?
• Shouldn’t a large market team that spends $140 million a year have some depth?  Of course they should.  Then how do you explain Aaron Miles?  Joey Gathright?  Ryan Freel?  Has there ever been a GM who spent so much money on such a shallow team?

I envy fair weather fans.  They don’t throw tirades about a team’s farm system.  They don’t spend their time going over box scores.  They don’t feel the need to purge their tortured soul because their team, the team that has disappointed them over and over again, just got swept.  They enjoy a normal life.  That must be nice. 

**********

I normally don’t pay a lot of attention when and for how much teams sign their draft picks.  But I have to admit to being a bit intrigued by the Stephen Strasburg saga.  From publish reports, it sounds like the Nationals have offered him $9.5 million and Strasburg and his agent, Scott Boras, are asking for $50 million.  The two sides have until Monday evening to get this worked out.

Strasburg is said to be the best pitcher to ever come out of college baseball.  By some accounts, he could be the ace of many MLB staffs right now, today.  But $50 million?  The most any team has ever paid a college player is $10.5 million.  The team?  The Cubs.  The player?  Mark Prior.  Ouch!

As Jayson Stark points out, Strasburg’s value will never be higher than it is right now.  Sure, he has the option of going back to college, or play independent ball, or going to Japan.  But what would he have to do at any of those stops to increase his value.  There really is nothing that can happen to make him worth more than he is right now.

Of course, the Nationals really could use someone like Strasborg, not just on the mound, but as a PR gesture to their embattled (or perhaps the better word is “ambivalent”) fans.  They lost out on #1 pick Aaron Crow last year.  a repeat of that scenario would just drive Nationals fans further underground.  The Nationals need Stephen Strasburg.

So will a deal get done?  Yeah, I think so.  Of course, I have nothing but my gut to back that up.  So as long as I’m just guessing, how much will Strasburg sign for?  I’m glad you asked.  It’s got to be for more than Prior signed for, right?  I’m guessing somewhere around $20 million.  To me, that seems like a figure the Nationals can live with, and it seems like a figure that Strasburg can’t turn down.  Of course, with Scott Boras involved, thinking about this logically is probably a waste of time.