It was good while it lasted. The Chicago Cubs swagger I mean.
When Lou Piniella arrived as Cubs’ manager two-and-a-half seasons ago, he made it clear that one of his top priorities was instilling a winning attitude. To hell with this “Lovable Losers” stuff.
He was going to create a new breed of Cubs player - one that bit back, instead of licking its wounds. These new Cubs would have confidence and play like it.
They would have … swagger.
And for about a season-and-a-half, I actually believed Piniella could get it done. Beginning in the second half of the 2007 season and for much of last year, as surprising as it seemed, the Cubs played and acted like a franchise where winning was more of an expectation than an afterthought.
Chicago’s two Central Division titles are testament to it. The Cubs mental approach to this wonderful game of baseball was equal to their on-field abilities.
For the first time in a long time Chicago Cubs baseball not only realized its potential but fulfilled it. Well, at least during the course of the regular season they did.
Then came consecutive three-and-outs in the NLDS playoffs. And perhaps those post-season nosedives can be attributed to contributing to this season’s stagger as much as anything. After two straight years of folding like a cheap tent in the playoffs, it’s not beyond probability that the Cub swagger has been acting like it’s been taking season-long shots to the groin.
Whatever “swagger” cream Piniella had the players apply, this season has shown its clearly worn off. The loss of Aramis Ramirez for the past six weeks certainly was a blow. But winning franchises don’t bemoan setbacks. They go out and perform despite them.
These are the Cubs, however. No matter how much money GM Jim Hendry can throw at continually re-building this team or how many marquee names fill the roster.
If Piniella was looking for a miracle to perform he should have chosen something simpler. Like turning water into wine. Or making Alfonso Soriano an actual lead-off hitter. The degree of difficulty has to be less for both.
Post a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.