Welcome to the north side, Mr. DeJesus (and goodbye Soriano?)

The following is my latest article for The Hardball Times.

Today, the Cubs signed David DeJesus to a two-year, $8.5 million deal with a third-year option worth $6.5 million with a $1.5 million buyout. In other words, the Cubs signed a defensively adept outfielder/health risk with an average/slightly above average bat to a two-year, $10 million deal with a third-year marginal option cost of $5 million.

Using last year's market win value, they are essentially paying for a +1.0 WAR player each of the next two years (three, if they exercise his option). As identified in our 2012 Cubs offseason article, this is an excellent buy-low move.

Given DeJesus' age and health risks (he is 32 and only played a combined 222 games between 2010 and 2011, only once playing 150 games in a single season and only twice playing 140 over his eight-year major league career), $5 million a year might seem like merely fair compensation, while a two-year deal with a mandatory buyout might seem slightly generous.

However, contrary to that gut reaction, it is an extremely team-friendly deal in more ways than one. It not only is an expected surplus-value-providing contract, but, as will be explained below, it is also one that empowers the Cubs with extra payroll/positional flexibility to move Alfonso Soriano.

Let's begin by looking at DeJesus and his contract. First off, he is coming off his second-worst year in the majors since his rookie season. He only batted .240/.323/.376 (.309 wOBA), which is what enabled the Cubs to sign him so cheap in the first place.

However, even with such a poor batting line, DeJesus was still worth +2.2 WAR last season. Thanks to strong outfield defense (career +6 UZR/150 defender in the corners) and above-average base running (as measured by UBR) abilities (this despite being a career 51-for-97 base stealer), DeJesus is still an above-average major league player when his bat disappoints and he only plays 130 of his team's 162 games.

Accord to the world according to xBABIP, DeJesus was pretty unlucky with his balls in play in 2011. His .274 BABIP last year was a career low (by .015 points), and despite an uptick in strikeouts (17.0 percent compared to a career rate of 13.4 percent), DeJesus continued to drive the ball with authority (20.2 percent line drive rate). The result was an expected BABIP of .309, which was a full .035 points ahead of his actual results.

If we adjust DeJesus' batting line to reflect his xBABIP-based "true talent" line, then we should have expected him to hit .268/.347/.388 (.735 OPS) last season. Using his career BABIP rate (.316) in lieu of xBABIP, we could have expected a marginally better batting line of .273/.352/.393 (.745 OPS).

Oliver projects DeJesus for a .326 wOBA in Oakland for 2012 (.741 OPS). Such an improvement would mean the addition of 7-8 batting runs to DeJesus' 2011 batting value, bringing his expected 2011 WAR production to right about +3.0. And that's before you consider the move from spacious Oakland to Wrigley.

Those numbers might be off his career batting line of .284/.356/.421 (.776 OPS), but when you consider that the Oakland Colluseim played as a far worse hitters park than Kaufman Stadium last year, as it has for the past few seasons, especially for left handed batters—Kansas City has a slightly inflating wOBA index of 103 for lefties, while Oakland has a deflating index of 95—then the numbers really are not that far apart. And remember that offense around the league as a whole was down last year relative to the past few years.

So let's say DeJesus' talent line is not far off his career rate, maybe slightly below it. What can we expect from Wrigley's effects on DeJesus? For starters, it should help boost his very average power. Wrigley Field has a 120 index for left-handed home run power. That means DeJesus should be capable of 15 or more dingers if he can play 150 games (a big if, of course).

Wrigley also means that DeJesus should see a jump in his overall wOBA production. The Friendly Confines is one of the more notorious hitters parks in the National League, and as hinted above, the park tends to help left-handed hitters more than right-handed hitters.

Given that DeJesus was worth +2.2 WAR in only 131 games last season in one of baseball's most offense-zapping parks, I full expect him to be worth at least +3.0 WAR at Wrigley next season—keeping all else constant—with +4.0 WAR upside if he can stay healthy. At the very least, he should be able to turn in a pair of +2.0-2.5 WAR seasons for the Cubs.

If we pessimistically assume the DeJesus will only be worth between +4.0 and +5.0 cumulative WAR over the next two years, that makes his contract worth between $10 and $15 million dollars in "surplus" value to the team. If he is capable of something more, say +7.0 WAR over the next two years, that surplus value conceivably jumps to $25 million.

Let's take the pessimistic median of these projected ranges, for simplicity's sake, and assume for a moment that DeJesus' contract is worth a surplus value of $16 million over the next two years. What does this mean for the Cubs?

It means they are able to move Soriano without being prematurely forced to lean on Brett Jackson, for two reasons. First, DeJesus can simply take over Soriano's spot in the lineup. DeJesus has mostly played right the past few seasons, but he is no stranger to left (let alone center) field.

More importantly, however, it allows the Cubs to "eat" more of Soriano's salary without any real effect on the team's relative payroll and production. For every surplus production dollar that DeJesus is worth to the team, that is one dollar that can give away, for nothing, without changing the pre-signing status quo.

Soriano's remaining contract is essentially a three-year, $54 million deal. That's an $18 million annual expenditure, or $4 million more per year than Adam Dunn is making. If the Cubs were willing to eat half of Soriano's salary ($27 million) to move him before the DeJesus signing, this deal could potentially mean the team could eat up to an additional $16 million without being in any worse of a financial situation in terms of dollars spent and expected wins.

In other words, they potentially could be offering teams a three-year, $11 million-dollar commitment to obtain Soriano. That's roughly the fair market value of a single season of a player like Carlos Pena, which would make Soriano incredible attractive to even small-market teams.

More likely, however, it means the Cubs can now eat half of Soriano's salary without handcuffing their productive future (they go from "eating" $26 million to effective "eating" $10 million). While the money will still be sunk into Soriano's contract regardless, the value gained from the DeJesus deal will recoup much of that sunk cost.

Of course this all assumes a relatively flat aging curve and no adverse changes in health, which are bold assumptions. Nonetheless, I think this will prove to be a fantastic deal for the Cubs and a great sign of the shrewd, positive things to come during the Epstein/Hoyer era.

Beer Review: Miller Lite

Reviewing the infamous Miller Lite from Miller Brewing Company.
Score: 62

Drinking a 2011 can because there were left overs from cooking brats.

Appearance: Golden, see-through. Very fizzy, tons of carbonation. Pours a foamy white head. 2.5/5

Aroma: Smells like old captain crunch and college. Lots of grain/corn in the nose. There is a faint hop bitterness (from their "patented triple-hops brewing process" no doubt!). 2/5

Taste: College. Lots of corn flavor that probably goes great with chips at a party. There's some metallic can flavor in there too, but if you chug the beer you don't care or notice. At least it's refreshing. 2/5

Mouthfeel: Extraordinarily light bodied, with lots of crisp carbonation. It is quite watery; perhaps just as much so as water. 1/5

Overall: Unless you are cooking brats, playing beer pong, or "at the club," there is no reason to drink this stuff. Even then, you should try a Marzen and Keystone (respectively).

Recommendation: Please, America, stop drinking this stuff!

Pairings: Tailgate brats and burgers.

Cost: $4.99 for a six pack.

Beer Review: Hopivore

Reviewing the Hopivore from New Holland Brewing Company.
Score: 68

2011 vintage bottle served in a pint glass.

Appearance: Dark brown amber that pours almost no head, and settles with even less. 3/5

Aroma: Malty brown sugar with a subtle piney hops and grapefruit aroma. 3/5

Taste: Very malty with a slightly bitter bubbly finish from the carbonation. The flavor does not linger very well or long. Some earthy/caramel flavors detected too, though it is hard to tell because the flavor is "quick and gone" because the beer is so watery. 2.5/5

Mouthfeel: Very thin bodied and watery texture. 2/5

Overall: Very disappointed by my second venture into New Holland's beer following my trying Dragon's Milk this past weekend. This is a very weak IPA, and it's misleading in flavor given the name. If you are looking for a more malty than bitter IPA just seek out Sierra Nevada Celebration.

Recommendation: Casual beer drinkers may enjoy this one, but I cannot in good faith recommend this beer to people who like good beer.

Pairings: The kind of steak you buy at a restaurant and put A-1 sauce on.

Cost: $14.99 for a six pack.

Beer Review: Zombie Dust

Reviewing the Zombie Dust from Three Floyds Brewing Company.
Score: 97

Appearance: Golden amber color that is between transparent and translucent. Pours one and a half fingers of soapy white head that sticks around quite some time. Average lacing. 4.5/5

Smell: Very piney, floral-citrus hop bitterness. Grapefruits and lemons. Very fresh aroma, like a spring day. A little honey sweetness in the nose as well. Smells like an excellent single IPA. 5/5

Taste: Aggressive citrus hops bitterness. The main flavor that comes to mind is grapefruit. A little lemony as well. Some earthy pine and floral flavors. An underlying honey sweetness. A little tart and malty-sweet on the midpalate, but a very dry, bitter finish. 5/5

Mouthfeel: Medium bodied, medium-high carbonation. The carbonation really makes the bitterness of the beer pop on the tongue. 5/5

Recommendation: Hard as it is to believe that there might be a better pale ale than Alpha King on the market, let alone one from the same brewery, Zombie Dust delivers against all the hype. Casual beer drinkers may find the citrus hops of this beer a little too aggressive for their "first" pale ale, but seasoned beer drinkers will be blown away by the flavor and aroma of this brew.

Pairings: Hamburgers or falafel and hummus.

Cost: $10.99 for a six pack.

Beer Review: Louisville

Reviewing the Louisville from Goose Island Brewing Company. No picture is available for this beer and I forgot to snap a pic with my camera.
Score: 82

Generous-sized draft pour served in an over-sized goblet (because they ran out of snifters) at Goose Island's Black Friday release of King Henry.

Appearance: Pours a dark hazy red-orange sunset color. Served without any head. Very similar in appearance to the Lucky Leiah, but a little darker red in color. 3/5

Smell: Very similar aroma to the Lucky Leiah, but heavier in flavor with more pronounced vanilla aromas. Has a sweet brown sugary whiskey aroma, but little, if any, booziness in the nose. Some faint floral notes, and hints of hop bitterness. 3.5/5

Taste: Oaky vanilla. Sweet whiskey and grapes. Some raspberries. A little caramel. Light, mapley bourbon and butterscotch finish. A little more complex and heavy than the Lucky Leiah, but the Louisville lacks all characteristics you would expect in an IPA. No bitterness. 3.5/5

Mouthfeel: Medium bodied, minimal carbonation. Surprisingly sweet. 3/5

Overall: I was expecting a more IPA-styled beer, given the beer's labeling on the menu, and thus was kind of disappointed. The pricing is even more disappointing. Decently balanced for how bourbon-flavored this one was. Can't say I would order this one again.

Recommendation: Nothing worth seeking out. This one is more forward with the vanilla/bourbon flavors than the Lucky Leiah.

Pairings: Grilled chicken sandwich.

Cost: $10 for a "10 oz snifter" (actually served in a larger-sized goblet) at the bar.

Beer Review: Lucky Leiah

Reviewing the Lucky Leiah from Goose Island Brewing Company. No picture is available for this one, sorry.
Score: 82

Generous-sized draft pour served in an oversized goblet (because they ran out of snifters) at Goose Island's Black Friday release of King Henry.

Appearance: Pours a hazy red-orange sunset color. Served without any head. 3/5

Smell: Light oaky vanilla up front. Sweet brown sugar bourbon/whiskey aroma. 3.5/5

Taste: Mellow whiskey flavors upfront. Red grape sweetness. A little butterscotch. Some caramel. Light, sweetened bourbon dominates the finish, which lingers awhile. 3.5/5

Mouthfeel: Medium bodied, minimal carbonation. Surprisingly sweet. 3/5

Overall: A balanced bourbon-flavored brew that lacks complexity. This is a solid oak-aged beer for people who do not like overpowering oak/vanilla/bourbon/whiskey flavors in their beer.

Recommendation: Not worth seeking out.

Pairings: Grilled chicken sandwich.

Cost: $10 for a "10 oz snifter" (actually served in a larger-sized goblet) at the bar.

Beer Review: Darkness (2011 vintage)

Reviewing Darkness from Surly Brewing Company. I have been looking to try this one for quite some time.
Score: 97

Fresh and on tap at Kuma's Corner in Chicago, home of the best burgers in the universe, in 16 oz pint glass servings! Thank you Oddball Ilana for acting as my notetaker on this one.

Appearance: Pours pitch black. Completely opaque, like a vacuum for light. Thin brown head that mostly settles after pour. Excellent lacing. 4.5/5

Aroma: Molasses sweetness. Raisins and caramel. Creamy malts. Sweet figs, raw coffee beans, and maple. A little dark rum. 4.5/5

Taste: Incredibly complex. Sweet caramel and raisins. Dark fruit and maple syrupy sweetness. A little coffee and dark fruits on the mid-palate. Roasted malty sweetness. A little citrus becomes apparent as the beer layers on the mid-palate, as does some faint cocoa. Burnt chocolate flavors come through a few sips into the beer. A little cherry halfway through the glass too. Finishes with sweet raisin, very dark unsweetened chocolate and a little charcoal. Absolutely delicious! 4.75/5

Mouthfeel:Full-bodied and viscous. A little oily and chewy. Has a very sweet and slightly sticky finish. Despite all the sugary-sweet descriptors, the beer does not overwhelm the palate with sweetness. 10.3% ABV is absolutely hidden. 4.75/5

Overall: An instant classic! Delicious, well rounded and delivering on the hype. It's a little sweet, but nowhere near Dark Lord sweet.

Recommendation: An absolutely great beer that must be tried by everyone.

Pairings: My Neurosis burger at Kuma's Corner went GREAT with this one. Hamburgers, steak and caramelized onions are the food pairing to beat.

Cost: $10 for a pint, $20 for a 22 oz (bomber) bottle.

Beer Review: Satin Solstice Imperial Stout

Reviewing the Satin Solstice Imperial Stout from Central Waters Brewing Company.
Score: 88

2011 vintage bottle from a make your own six pack at Steve's Wine. Poured in a snifter glass.

Appearance: Pours dark as night with a thin tan head that quickly disappears. When you swirl, a thin tan head with interesting shapes and patterns reforms. Very inviting. 3.5/5

Smell: The aroma on the beer is not very pronounced until swirled, and then you're in flavor country. Prominently features roasted malts, dark chocolate, and toffee along with hints of figs/raisin and dark fruit/cherry. Post-swirl there are still faint, but inviting, alcohol notes in the nose along with some sweet milk chocolate aromas. Smells a lot like a smooth porter would. 4/5

Taste: A dark roasted burnt cocoa bean flavor leads the charge, while a delicious coffee bean flavor dominates a long-lingering finish. Very little flavor on the mid-palate, however, save for some dark fruit/raisin. The finish sticks around for quite some time. The front and finish are excellent, despite the lack of mid-palate flavor. 4/5

Mouthfeel: Smooth and bubbly. The mild carbonation complements the lighter-than-most stout body, without leaving the beer too "crisp." Warming alcohol grows as the beer gets warmer. Finish is not very sweet, slightly sticky. I was expecting something much heavier, but the mouthfeel is not bad. 3/5

Overall: Central Waters is my favorite Wisconsin Brewery, and this beer certainly impresses. The lighter body makes Satin Solstice more drinkable than most other imperial stouts (one beer will not fill you up), and the relatively moderate 7% ABV ensures that you will be able to enjoy more than just one. I would certainly try this one again, and in fact I purchased a full six pack of this stuff.

Recommendation: A great imperial stout for people who generally do not like "heavier" beers and the casual beer drinker. Beer lovers should sufficiently enjoy this one as well, though the lack of mid-palate flavor does not render the Satin Solstice a "first-choice" stout. Still, the front and finish of the beer are more than flavorful enough to make up for the lack of a brief "middle" to this beer.

Pairings: Chocolate cake.

Cost: $8.99 for a six pack.

Beer Review: Dragon's Milk Ale

Reviewing the Dragon's Milk Ale from New Holland Brewing Company. This is one of the few year-round, always available, easy-to-get-a-hold-of beers that is aged in oak barrels.
Score: 88

2011 vintage 12 oz bottle served in a snifter glass.

Appearance: Dark brown color, a faint hint of light slices through the beer to reveal small patches of translucent dark red/brown. Pours a thin tan lacing that dissipates into nothing. 4/5

Smell: Very bourbon-forward. An oak/vanilla-mocha aroma dominates the nose, with faint cherry/maple and black licorice notes. Lots of sweet bourbon and chocolate too. 4/5

Taste: Very sweet dark fruit and maple front that subsides into vanilla and chocolate flavors. Lingering finish of dark chocolate, sweet vanilla, maple and bourbon. Some fusel/alcohol flavor. When chilled, this beer is decently balanced for a beer that has such a pronounced bourbon and vanilla flavor, but it gets real hot when it warms. 3.5/5

Mouthfeel: Medium body, light carbonation. Interestingly oily, slightly sticky finish. A little alcohol warmth. 4/5

Overall: This beer is surprisingly delicious. I tend to stray from most heavier oak aged beers because I do not love the "brown liquor" flavors of oak and vanilla, but this beer is very balanced. For a 10% ABV beer, this one is surprisingly drinkable. Definitely a sipper, though.

Recommendation: If you are looking to try your first oak aged beers, this is a great starting point. Dragon's Milk is very accessible and not too costly for what it is. More seasoned beer drinkers should enjoy this one's complex flavors as well.

Pairings: BBQ meats. Would go well with dinner at the Brickhouse or Famous Daves.

Cost: $15.99 for a four pack, $8.99 for a 22 oz (bomber) bottle.

Beer Review: Old Clybourn Porter (Cask Conditioned)

Reviewing a cask-conditioned Old Clybourn Porter from Goose Island Brewing Company.
Score: 79

Fresh pint served in an imperial nonic tumbler glass (the British version of the tall pint glass).

Appearance: A thin quarter finger of creamy cream-colored head. Dark black colored body that is mostly opaque with ruby highlights around the perimeter of the beer. 3/5

Smell: Subtly creamy coffee aromas. Unsweetened cocoa powder. 3/5

Taste: Very creamy, subdued-flavor beer (most British-style porters are). Faint coffee with a roasted malts. Hints of smokiness. 3.5/5

Mouthfeel: Light bodied, medium carbonation. Creamy-smooth mouthfeel. Finishes very dry. 3/5

Overall: A very average, disappointing Guinness-like brew.

Recommendation: If you like Guinness, then you will probably like this beer. I personally would not recommend it, however, and I would not order it again. It is not a bad beer, but it is not very good either.

Pairings: Oreo cookies.

Cost: $6.50 for a pint.

2011 Cubs Outlook Article Is Out

Check out my latest article for The Hardball Times -- a several thousand word manifesto about the state of the Chicago Cubs. Enjoy!

Beer Review: Juliet

Reviewing an aged Juliet (2010) from Goose Island Brewing Company.
Score: 86

Shared a 22 oz bomber from the Goose Island brew pub in a goblet-wine flute hybrid on Black Friday.

Appearance: Pours a red velvet cake color. Fizzy-apparent, no head on pour. 3.5/5

Smell: Sweet cherry/raspberry sour candy. Fruity. A little sugary and sour. 3.5/5

Taste: Very sweet-and-tart cherry/raspberry candy. Almost like a warhead candy (if you remember those). Dry white wine and some berries too. 4/5

Mouthfeel: Very fizzy and sweet. Light bodied, high carbonation. Sweet, crisp finish. 3.5/5

Overall: A decent brew, but my not style of beer. Too sweet for my liking. Reminds me a lot of the Ephemere by Unibroue and Raspberry Tart by New Glarus. Was certainly worth trying, but I will not seek this one out again (especially at its price tag).

Recommendation: I would absolutely recommend this one to casual beer drinkers and people who "do not like to drink beer," but this beer is a bit too sweet-and-sugary for my liking. It certainly has a fizzy-candy appeal to it.

Pairings: A salad served with balsamic and/or sharp cheddar. Earthy cheeses would work well with this one, as would pretzels.

Cost: $25 for a 22 oz (bomber) bottle at the bar (which, in my opinion, is way overpriced).

Beer Review: Nosferatu

Reviewing the Nosferatu from Great Lakes Brewing Company.
Score: 89

Tap pour in a tulip glass.

Appearance: Pours two fingers of frothy foam head out of the tap. Deep amber color. Body falls between opaque and translucent. Average lacing. 4/5

Smell: Grains and spices. Toasted bread -- Ilana (my girlfriend) claims it smells like Irish soda bread. A little cologne alcohol as well. Sweet maltiness, slightly floral and earthy too. 4/5

Taste: Floral, earthy bitterness. Some grain, caramel-malt sweetness. Finishes very dry and hoppy. 4/5

Mouthfeel: Full bodied, medium carbonation. Finishes surprisingly dry given the malty-sweetness of the beer on the mid-palate. 3.5/5

Overall: A little aggressive on the hoppy flavors (something I always personally enjoy), but an overall delicious brew. 8.0% ABV entirely hidden. This is not one a beer you can drink a whole lot of in one sitting. A great sipper, however!

Recommendation: Hop-lovers will certainly enjoy this one, but casual beer drinkers may want to explore other options first.

Pairings: Bread and earthy cheeses.

Cost: $7 for a tulip glass, $10.99 for a four pack.

Beer Review: Alpha King (Cask Conditioned)

Reviewing a cask-conditioned Alpha King from Three Floyds Brewing Company.
Score: 95

Drinking a fresh, cask-conditioned pint of one of my absolute favorite brews of all time.

Appearance: Pours a hazy, dark reddish-brown amber with three fingers of foamy cream-colored head that sticks around quite some time. Falls somewhere between opaque and translucent, but closer to opaque. Excellent lacing. 5/5

Smell: Roses. Floral, grapefruit and citrus hops. A little honey. Lots of malty, hoppy sweetness in the aroma. 4.5/5

Taste: Huge grapefruit citrus bitterness. Malty-sweet backbone. Hints of berry flavors too. Absolutely refreshing. Finishes with sweet oranges and hops bitterness. Yum! 4.5/5

Mouthfeel: Light-medium bodied, medium-plus carbonation. Finish is surprisingly dry for such a malty mid-palate beverage. 4.5/5

Overall: Alpha King is one of my favorite beers of all time. The cask-conditioned version of this brew is much maltier and less hops-aggressive than the bottled version that I have had a thousand times over. How do I know? I had a side-by-side taste test at the bar. This is one to seek out!

Recommendation: If you have not had a six pack of this stuff, go buy one already. For those who have had Alpha King before, I absolutely recommend seeking out the cask-conditioned version. I am about as big of a hop-head as they come -- I have a well-known soft spot for IIPA's -- but cask-conditioned Alpha King's creamy malt-for-hops tradeoff is absolutely divine. Alpha King is the best year-round American Pale Ale (sorry Sierra Nevada!).

Pairings: Medium-cooked hamburgers. Particularly the ones they serve at Kuma's Corner in Chicago. Also probably pairs well with an earthy salad with feta and walnuts. Could really add some kick to spicy foods.

Cost: $9.99 for a six pack, or $7 for a cask-conditioned 16 oz pour.

Beer Review: King Henry

Reviewing the King Henry from Goose Island Brewing Company. Pleasant surprise: I got to drink this one with the current head brewer of Goose Island (who I made certain to complement) on the day of the release. I have had it every two months since.
Score: 99

Sampled a generous glass from a 22 oz bottle at Goose Island's Black Friday bonanza. Later shared a 22 oz bomber in an oversized snifter glass (image to the right). Most recent review notes are from June 06, 2012.

Appearance: Pours a thin cream colored head that quickly disappears, leaving a pencil-thin ring around the glass. Deep walnut brown molasses color. Largely opaque with ruby-brown highlights around the perimeter. 4.5/5

Smell: Red grapes, oak and vanilla. Sweet molasses and brown sugar. Caramel, some bourbon sweetness. Some major booziness if you take a big, direct whiff. Editor's Note: I had this beer again in June 2012, and the booziness to the nose (and palate) is almost completely gone. What's left is a sublime medley of rich, barrel aged flavors. 5/5

Taste: Very complex and sweet. Vanilla and oaky bourbon. Syrupy brown sugar and molasses. Some caramel. Touch of honey. Red grapes and plenty of dark fruit flavor. Surprisingly balanced. Finishes with a little warming alcohol kick and sweet vanilla-bourbon. 5/5

Mouthfeel: Creamy and sweet. Full bodied, minimal carbonation. Syrupy and smooth. Alcohol warmth in the finish. 5/5

Overall: An absolutely delicious, complex and balanced brew. I am not the biggest fan of barleywines, but this one blew me away. I can't wait to nab a bottle of this stuff and age it. Editor's Note: I had this beer again in June 2012, and the booziness has almost completely smoothed out and the beer is drinking near perfect.

Recommendation: Of the many barleywines I have had to date, this one was the smoothest and most balanced. I can confidently recommend this one all around.

Pairings: An earthy, organic hamburger with a generous heap of goat cheese on it? At least that's what I had this one with. A pumpkin pie would go great with this too.

Cost: $25 for a 22 oz (bomber) bottle.

Beer Review: Old Stock Ale (fresh)

Reviewing the Old Stock Ale from North Coast Brewing Co.
Score: 90

2011 vintage bottle served in a brandy glass. I bought a four pack with the intent of aging this beer for a few years, but I need a baseline to judge the aged results. Provided this blog last a few years from now, I plan to revisit this review with an aged update.

Appearance: Pours a deep caramel/rose brandy color. Pours a very thin head that totally disappears when it settles. Falls somewhere between translucent and transparent, though much much closer to translucent. No lacing, but not surprising given 11.7% ABV. 3.5/5

Smell: Sweet caramel/toffee and slight vanilla nose. Some fruit and rum aromas. Molasses-sugary sweetness too. An odor of rubbing alcohol is definitely apparent in the nose. 4.5/5

Taste: Very complex and sweet. Molasses, caramel and brown sugar sweetness. Some vanilla/peaty flavors. Reminds me of butterscotch candy on the mid-palate. A little bitter. Definitely detecting some dark fruits. Finishes with a warming alcohol sweetness that does not linger very long. 4/5

Mouthfeel: Full bodied, minimum carbonation. Very warming alcohol sensation on the palate. Finishes sweet. 4/5

Overall: A very complex beer with bold, aggressive flavors. Alcohol is not very balanced, but not overly singeing either. Can't wait to revisit this one if a few years.

Recommendation: Casual beer drinkers should avoid this one. Like a fresh barleywine, the flavors are very in-your-face and not particularly balanced. More experience beer drinkers will likely appreciate the beer's complexity. This is a beer that has a lot of potential to be great with some aging that mellows out the alcohol.

Pairings: Sharp and stinky cheeses.

Cost: $15.99 for a four pack.

Beer Review: Torpedo Extra IPA

Reviewing the Torpedo Extra IPA by Sierra Nevada Brewing Company.
Score: 84

2011 bottle served in a tulip glass.

Appearance: Pours two fingers of foamy head that pretty much dissipates upon settle. Color is a translucent honey-amber. Excellent lacing. 4.5/5

Smell: Strong floral, earthy hop aromas. Lots of grapefruit citrus. Some piney herb aromas too. The perfect IPA aroma. 5/5

Taste: Flavors are quite watered down. Some grapefruit and pine citrus. Crisp hop bitterness. A little sweetness on the mid-palate. Hop bitterness is pretty balanced, not aggressive at all. 3/5

Mouthfeel: Light-bodied, surprisingly watery. Pretty carbonated. Finish is very dry. 3/5

Overall: I was extremely disappointed by the taste of this beer given the extremely pleasant aroma and delightful appearance. This one definitely did not live up to its hype for me. A decent beer overall, but nothing that stands out. Sierra Nevada's Pale Ale is a much superior brew.

Recommendation: Given its very average nature, I can't exactly recommend buying this beer, especially in a six pack. Casual beer lovers will most likely enjoy this brew, which is more balanced and less hop-aggressive than most IPA's. IPA lovers should avoid this one. Certainly worth trying, however, and definitely worth smelling.

Pairings: Falafel.

Cost: $8.99 for a six pack.

Beer Review: Black Chocolate Stout

Reviewing the Black Chocolate Stout by Brooklyn Brewery.
Score: 93

2010 bottle poured in a snifter glass.

Appearance: Black used motor oil color, pours with a finger of brown frothy head that settles into a thin lacing on the surface of the beer. Looks very oily, dense, completely opaque. Slightly below average lacing, which is to be expected from a 10% ABV beer. 4.5/5

Smell: Bitter chocolate and earthy hop aromas. Some raisins, light cherries, a little vanilla. Some booziness. 3.5/5

Taste: A little alcohol burn at the front, but super creamy bittersweet chocolate on the mid-palate. Some coffee beans, hints of dark fruit and oaky vanilla. This one is pretty complex. Finishes with super bitter chocolate that lingers quite some time. 4.5/5

Mouthfeel: Full bodied, oily, with minimal carbonation. Finish is very dry. 4.5/5

Overall: A little less balanced than some Russian Imperial Stouts, but overall very flavorful and complex. I love beers than linger, and this one sticks around awhile. The beer is brewed by the guy who wrote one of my favorite books (The Brewmaster's Table). This one is a heavy meal in and of itself.

Recommendation: I would highly recommend this beer to more seasoned drinkers, but casual drinkers looking to get into good beer might not want to start with this one

Pairings: Seedless red grapes and the dark meat of turkey. Smoked meat would work wonders with this one.

Cost: $7.99 for a four pack.

Beer Review: Big Eddy Russian Imperial Stout

Reviewing the Big Eddy Russian Imperial Stout from Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing Company.
Score: 90

2011 vintage bottle poured in a snifter glass.

Appearance: Dark chocolate color, pours one and a half fingers of creamy tan head that settles to about a half finger. Entirely opaque. Excellent lacing. 4.5/5

Smell: Sweet and creamy bitter chocolate. A little bit of toffee, some dark fruits. Hop bitterness and alcohol aromas at the back end. 4/5

Taste: Creamy, malty milk chocolate with light tones of sweet honey. Very malty-sweet, raisin and dark fruit, flavor on the mid-palate. Finishes with smoky dark chocolate that lingers a long time. 4/5

Mouthfeel: Medium bodied, light-medium carbonation (which is a bit much for a Russian Imperial Stout, but it's not over-carbonated). Finishes very dry. 3.5/5

Overall: A surprisingly good offering and attempt at the style by Leinenkugel, who makes some of the worst beer that often gets labeled as "craft" at bars. Nonetheless, Big Eddy does not stack up to most craft breweries' Russian Imperial Stout recipes. Certainly worth buying, and I would certainly try this beer again, but I would rather spend the extra couple of dollars for Ten Fidy if I am at a liquor store with a good selection.

Recommendation: This is a very good Russian Imperial Stout as a "gateway beer" for casual drinkers curious in the style (or just higher ABV beverages). For the more seasoned beer drinker, this one is also worth the moderate price.

Pairings: Hamburgers, maybe pumpkin pie.

Cost: $10.99 for a four pack.

Beer Review: St. Bernardus Abt 12

Reviewing a St. Bernardus Abt 12 from Brouwerij St. Bernardus NV (a Belgium brewery).
Score: 92

2011 vintage bomber shared and served in a pint glass.

Appearance: Three fingers of foamy head. Beer is a hazy nut-brown/amber color mix and falls somewhere between opaque and translucent (but closer to opaque). 4.5/5

Smell: Banana and cloves. Definitely smelling toasted bread and some yeast aromas and well. Some spices, perhaps cinnamon and nutmeg. 4/5

Taste: Toasted banana bread. A little earthy and very malty-sweet. Some cherry flavor as well. Very complex. Finishes with a sweet banana and yeast, almost hefeweizen-like, flavor. 4.5/5

Mouthfeel: Medium bodied, medium carbonation. Finish is very sweet on the palate. 4/5

Overall: A delicious brew; one of the best true Belgium beers that is widely available and moderately reasonable in price.

Recommendation: This is a beer everyone can enjoy, and one I would certainly recommend everyone to try.

Pairings: Italian food, hummus and curry. Pretzel might work really well off the beer's sweetness too.

Cost: $10.99 for a 750 ml bottle or $15.99 for a four pack.

Beer Review: Ten Fidy

Reviewing the Ten Fidy from Oskar Blues Grill Brewery.
Score: 94

Aged (2010 vintage) can pored in a pint glass.

Appearance: Pours a sludgy black color that looks exactly like used motor oil. Completely opaque. Pours a half finger of brown head that disappears when it settles. Below average lacing, but that is to be expected with such a high gravity beer. 4/5

Smell: Huge aromas of unrefined cocoa and bittersweet chocolate. Hints of cream, some marshmallow. Subtle hop bitterness as well. Booziness is definitely apparent. 4/5

Taste: Creamy dark chocolate. Roasted malts. A little sweet and smoky wood on the mid-palate. Warming alcohol is apparent, but it's very balanced and thus more cuddling that distracting. Finishes with unsweetened chocolate, some coffee beans, and warming alcohol. 4.5/5

Mouthfeel: Medium-full bodied, very low carbonation. Very oily on the tongue. Finishes dry. 4.5/5

Overall: One of the best Russian Imperial Stouts on the market. I've had this fresh and enjoyed it, but aging this beer makes it incredibly smooth. Certainly worth buying and sticking in your fridge for a while.

Recommendation: As one of the more flavorful, smoother high-alcohol beers on the market, I can safely recommend this one all around. The alcohol is not hidden, but it balances well in the brew as a warm hug rather than shiver-inducing flavor component.

Pairings: Smoked BBQ meats, and steak.

Cost: $17.99 for a four pack of 12 oz cans.

Beer Review: Miles Davis Bitches Brew

Reviewing the Miles Davis Bitches Brew from Dogfish Head Craft Brewery.
Score: 94

I was extremely excited to try this one. Dogfish Head stopped distributing to Wisconsin, and this is a beer that is only sold once a year and sold out within two hours of being put on the shelf at most stores. A hearty thank you to my Chicago friends for picking me up a couple of bottles!

2011 bottle (3rd batch) served in a snifter glass.

Appearance: Black as midnight and opaque. Pours two fingers of brown, bubbly head that takes a long time to settle. As you drink it, the beer leaves a nice brown lacing on the side of the glass. 5/5

Smell: Sweet honey and molasses with toasted malt aromas. Silky milk chocolate as well. Slightly minty, berry-like and subtle hop aromas. Creamy milk chocolate becomes more apparent as the beer warms. 4.5/5

Taste: Very sweet, silky and complex. There are some flavors I cannot put my finger on because they all work so well together and are more subtle than pronounced. Honey, silky chocolate and slightly piney hops are most apparent. The finish is smooth, roasted coffee. None of the flavors are individually too aggressive or strong, and they all mix with a good synergy that keeps the beer incredibly balanced. 9.0% ABV completely hidden. My only criticism of this beer is that I wish the finish would linger longer, though I hardly consider that much of a criticism at all. 4.5/5

Mouthfeel: Thick and viscous; about as full bodied as a stout gets. Minimal carbonation. I wonder if I could chew this beer. This one's a filling dessert. 4.5/5

Overall: I never thought I would ever find a Russian Imperial Stout that I enjoyed as much as Barrel Aged Old Rasputin, but this brew gives North Coast a run for its money! The alcohol in this beer is completely hidden behind a wall of berry-mint, honey and roasted malt sweetness. I was fortunate enough to get a couple of bottles of this, so I can't wait to revisit this one after some aging. This will be my reward for passing the bar exam.

Recommendation: This is one of the best beers that I have ever tasted. Miles Davis Bitches Brew is incredibly complex, flavorful, and balanced. I would absolutely recommend this beer to anyone who can get their hands on it.

Pairings: Dogfish Head recommends chili or curry, but I could see this going great with chocolate ganache/mousse or warm chocolate cake. I drank this while eating some milk chocolate, and that paired wonderfully. Graham crackers might make an interesting pairing as well. Then again, Bitches Brew could be enjoyed as a dessert in its own right. Should certainly be enjoyed with the eponymous album playing in the background!

Cost: $10.99 for a 750 ml wine bottle.

Beer Review: Mudpuppy Porter

Reviewing the Mudpuppy Porter by Central Waters Brewing Company.
Score: 86

Drinking a six month old bottle in a Sam Adams glass.

Appearance: The beer is a deep, deep brown and blood red color that is mostly opaque, though some highlights of light permeate through the body when held up to light. Pouts two fizzy fingers of head that settle into a frothy half-finger of foam. 3/5

Smell: Sweet caramel, and a little bit of cocoa powder. Slight coffee grounds smell. A little toasted bread aroma as well. 3.5/5

Taste: Burnt dark chocolate and burnt grain flavor with some hints of coffee and very slight hoppiness. The beer skips the mid-palate and goes straight from flavor to finish. It's almost as though all the flavor is stuck on the back of the roof of my mouth, which was an interesting sensation. A bit malty, but not too sweet. 4/5

Mouthfeel: Medium bodied, surprisingly light carbonation given the fizzy head from the pour. Very dry finish. 3.5/5

Overall: A very good porter overall. Flavors are very traditional, and it is well-brewed. Does not stand out, but does not disappoint either. Certainly worth trying, though there are many more tantalizing porters worth buying out there.

Recommendation: I would recommend this one to try as a single bottle, and it's certainly a porter that the casual beer drinker can enjoy, but Mudpuppy Porter is not worth purchasing a six pack of unless there's no better options at your disposal. A solid offering by Central Waters, Wisconsin's best brewery in my opinion, nonetheless.

Pairings: Considering that I am currently drinking this in combination with a cold-cut pastrami sandwich with spicy brown mustard on oatmeal bread, I'd have to recommend that. The slight saltiness of the meat and spiciness of the mustard are blending well with the slight maltiness and darker flavors of the beer.

Cost: $8.99 for a six pack.

Beer Review: Smuttynose Imperial Stout

Reviewing the Smuttynose Imperial Stout by Smuttynose Brewing Company.
Score: 84

2011 vintage bottle served in a snifter glass slightly chilled.

Appearance: Pours about 3/4 fingers of tan head, settles down into a thin lace across the top of the beer. About as dark as they come. Excellent lacing. A dark brown-black used motor oil color that is completely opaque. Quite inviting. 4/5

Smell: Unsweetened chocolate and raisin. Some dark fruit and faint cherry aroma as well. Hint of smoky vanilla? Noticeable booziness in the nose. 3/5

Taste: Charred chocolate mixed with a little vanilla. Roasted barley as well, but not very sweet. A little raisin or fig flavor too. Some hop bitterness. Noticeable alcohol string on both the mid-palate and finish. Finishes with long lasting, unsweetened, bitter chocolate. 3.5/5

Mouthfeel: Full bodied, minimal carbonation. Very dry finish. 4/5

Overall: Though some of the flavors in this one really work, the alcohol was very unbalanced and detracted from the enjoyable aspects of the beer. As the beer warmed, the alcohol's distraction only increased. This one certainly has potential, perhaps with a lower ABV, but overall a disappointment based on my expectations. I certainly would not go out of my way to try this one again.

Recommendation: This is one that I would not recommend for casual beer drinkers. Beer geeks may find this one interesting, as the flavor-potential of this beer certainly makes it worth trying, but the alcohol level is very unbalanced. Sometimes, as in the case of a hop-heavy beer like Founders Devil Dancer, the imbalance can works well with the beer's flavor. Here, however, it was a distraction.

Pairings: Smoked dark meats and rye bread? The alcohol in this beer requires something heavy to counterbalance it.

Cost: $6.99 for a 22 oz (bomber) bottle.

2011 Outlook: Chicago Cubs

The following is my upcoming article for The Hardball Times about the current state of the Chicago Cubs.

One of a series on dilemmas facing major league teams this winter.

Hiring Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer was a great step forward for the Cubs organization, whose last World Series appearance was 1945.

For the past 30 years, since the team passed from the Wrigley family, Cubs' ownership has rarely seen the team as anything more than a cash cow. Cubs games are a unique social experience that blend booze and brotherhood with more than 100 years of bad luck. Wrigleyville is a one-of-a-kind sports neighborhood that surrounds the field with good eats and plenty of bars. The atmosphere is safe and always welcoming. This is why the Cubs are the lovable losers who live at what has been dubbed "The Friendly Confines. Heck, they're world famous for their "bleacher bums."

Even though the Cubs are only sporadically good due to a history of poor management, unfortunate drafting and bad trades, their games have historically sold. People come for the environment more than the product on the field, to experience and take part in the fun. Over the past 30 years, the social aspect of Cubs games has grown from the bleacher bums, who are being phased out for overpriced corporate outings—the "white collar social." Wrigley Field has become the epitome of the casual—not to be confused with fair-weather—fan. It has evolved into more of a place to go than a place to truly care about the result.

Now, with more than a hundred years since the Cubs' last World Series win and with the losing teams of the past two seasons, fans are proving they are finally fed up with the way the organization has been run. This year, tickets to Cubs games could be purchased on StubHub for as low as $1. Even the "guaranteed to sell out" games, such as those against the Cardinals, did not sell out toward the end of the season. And even when the tickets sold—many purchased on speculation with the intent to resell—seats remained empty, poking holes in vending sales.

Firing general manager Jim Hendry in favor of guy who "embraces the numbers" was a big step forward for an organization that has not played "smart baseball." By all accounts, Hendry is one of the nicest guys in the business, and a real class act. Alas, Hendry's tenure as the Cubs' GM was marred by bad drafting, albatross contracts that featured no-trade clauses and player options, and disappointing failure despite three playoff runs. Hendry went all-in from 2007-2009. Had it paid off with a World Series berth, Cubs fans could probably stomach the team's current state of affairs as the cost of glorious success. But that success did not occur. Some great trades early in his role as the Cubs' GM (e.g., stealing Aramis Ramirez and Derek Lee), were countered by equally bad losses (the Juan Pierre deal and the Alfonso Soriano contract).

Even though the Cubs are one of the top five organizations in terms of revenue and payroll, throwing money around on players rarely solves one's problems unless you are New York. Even Boston, in a great position at the moment, has its issues due to a few big, bad salaries. If you are going to spend big, you need to hit. A big organization like the Cubs can afford to miss every now and then, but not consistently, and with the magnitude of commitment they did from 2007-2009.

New owner Tom Ricketts, in dropping Hendry in favor of Hoyer, and hiring Epstein as the president of baseball operations, indicated to Cubs fans that he cares about, and is committed to, winning. With Hoyer and Epstein aboard, and with the Cubs' payroll demons slowly but steadily shedding over the next two or three seasons (Soriano is signed through 2014), an era of sustainable success akin to Boston's past decade could be upon us. Drafting and prospect loading will be key over the next couple of years, as will be finding good low-risk, high-reward contracts that could return dividends.

The Cubs have a long way to go toward competing, but putting the right people in charge is a major first step. The Cubs have lacked a philosophy and direction, and this is one of the (many) things that has kept the Cubs from sustainable success. Since the mid-'90s, Cubs management has always talked about a youth movement when things got their roughest, only to catch lightning in a bottle a few years later and try to capitalize on that flash by sacrificing the future for the now. Toggling between rebuilding and going all-in over the past 15 years is just one reason the Cubs are in the position they are today, but it is a big one.

With the foundation laid, there is much work left ahead. Let's look at the state of the team, starting with the Cubs' strengths.

Up the middle

The Cubs' clearest strengths come at the hardest-to-fill positions. Between the young shortstop/second baseman Starlin Castro (depending on how his defense continues to develop) and the underrated power and patience of catcher Geovany Soto (new manager, less Koyie Hill?), the Cubs have mainstays at two of the most important spots on the field.

Provided new Cubs manager Dale Sveum gives Soto the playing time he deserves (despite being healthy over the past two seasons, he was in only a combined 230 games), they should see a modest offensive boost from 2011. Soto took a step back in terms of his walk rate and strikeout rate, which had progressed over the past few seasons, but still managed a respectable +2.1 WAR despite a .280 BABIP and limited playing time. The power that people were worried had disappeared stuck around, more or less. Power was down across the major leagues this year, and I expect Soto's ISO to be back over the .200 plateau in 2012. His defense, to the extent you trust the plus/minus system for catchers, has progressed from horrible to bad to average over the years, which is encouraging.

At second base, the Cubs have rookie Darwin Barney. Despite a hot-then-cold first/second half split, Barney was worth +2.2 WAR over 143 games. In other words, he is a slightly above average player making the league minimum for another two seasons. The Cubs could do worse, and keeping Barney frees up resources for the Cubs to spend elsewhere. If the Cubs want to take a low-risk, high-reward approach to the shallow free agent pool, however, Kelly Johnson could be a fit. That would slide Barney over to third base, where the Cubs have no one to play at the moment.

Johnson is a very attractive free agent because he possesses +4 WAR potential, as evidenced by 2007-08 and 2010, though 2010 was bookmarked by by two pretty disappointing seasons. If the Cubs do not sign a second baseman like Johnson and slide Barney over, they will need to bring in some outside help at third base, potentially in the form of Michael Cuddyer, but more on that below.

Meanwhile, in the upper minors, Brett Jackson continues to develop as the Cubs' center fielder of the future. Jackson does not have an MVP or superstar ceiling, but he should be a consistent All-Star in his prime. Jackson has issues with strikeouts, but has a modest (20+ home run) power upside, speed and athleticism. Those should combine for a handful of 3-4+ WAR seasons if he can cut down the whiff rate. That may be a big if, but Jackson is the most exciting Cubs hitting prospect to reach the upper minors in the past 10 years. He should arrive around the All-Star break.

Though the Cubs have strong enough starters, they lack depth up the middle. Their utility guy this year was a combination of Blake DeWitt, DJ LeMahieu and Jeff Baker, none of whom are anything but replacement level. LeMahieu probably has the most value of that group, given his age (23), but he is a light-hitting, no-walking, no-running middle infielder who is just a DL stopgap with a decent glove. If anyone up the middle for the Cubs gets injured for an extended time, there's not an even "average" replacement.

Corner infield

The Cubs are not just weak at the corners. They do not even have players reasonably scheduled to play third base, right field or first base.

With Aramis Ramirez declining his player option (saving the Cubs $2 million in the process), the closest thing the Cubs have to a third baseman at the moment is Barney, who is playing second. Josh Vitters is the team's only prospect at the position, and he's been a massive disappointment to date, with neither walks nor power over the past three years. Vitters is only 22, so perhaps he has time, but it is hard to teach players with no patience at the plate how to walk. Vitters played pretty decently in the hitter-friendly Arizona Fall League, but those stats have to be taken with a grain of salt. A realistic outcome of the third base situation would be Johnson or Cuddyer. He's 32, but third base is a vacuum for the Cubs and the third base free agency pool is shallower than the girls of the Jersey Shore. A three-year, $30-35 million deal may be in the cards for Cuddyer. Ramirez, to the extent he wants a four-year deal, is going to end up as an Oriole — where Cubs go to retire.

Right field is just as open as third base. Bryan LaHair could get first dibs on the gig in spring training, but, like many a Cubs hitting prospect over the past five years, he's approaching 30 with minimal major league experience. If the Cubs are going to give LaHair a chance at a full time gig, they might as well let him play first base. They would be better off letting the younger Jackson try out for right to get some major league experience for when he slides over to center field in 2013. That is not to say that LaHair isn't a promising power bat, but he is a first baseman in outfielder's clothing in right.

If the Cubs want to go outside the organization, Grady Sizemore on a one-year incentive-laden deal could make a lot of sense, as could a low-cost one- or two-year deal for David DeJesus as a stopgap until Jackson arrives. Either could get full-time outfield duties in 2012, and likely 2013, assuming Marlon Byrd gets traded to a contender in need of an outfielder upon Jackson's arrival. Josh Willingham could also fit as an interesting power bat if he is willing to take a two-, rather than three-, year deal.

In left field, Soriano is going nowhere. The Cubs could bring back Reed Johnson on another one-year deal as a fourth outfielder, but they also have Tony Campana and former first-round pick Luis Montanez trolling around as outfield defensive replacements at the league minimum.

The Cubs also need a first baseman, and lucky for them, not only is a lot of money coming off the books, but two of the four best guys are currently on the market. The Cubs, along with the Mariners and Nationals, are probably among the favorites to sign Prince Fielder. With the Cardinals having won the 2011 World Series in Disney-magic fashion, Albert Pujols leaving St. Louis seems a longshot at this point, but the Cubs are one of two teams, the other being Toronto, that could feasibly offer the slugger $300 million if they really wanted to.

Though both Fielder and Pujols are great players who would make great additions, the Cubs should save their money. Pujols, to the extent he would sign with someone other than the Cardinals, is more of a "win now" player. He will be 32 next season, and though his career-low WAR total is 5.1, that low figure came this year. Pujols should keep being great over the next few years, but aging curves are never gracious to athletes in their mid-30s who aren't on the juice. Pujols has been relatively healthy over the past few years, which is encouraging, but can he maintain health and production four, five, and even six years into a multi-year contract? Cubs fans know what happened to Soriano by 2009, and though Pujols is an infinitely better player than Soriano, there is no reason to expect him to maintain a +6-9 WAR pace into his age 35 season, which is what he would have to do to be worth his contract. Just ask the Yankees how that monstrous Alex Rodriguez deal is working out for them.

That said, Pujols has the type of plate discipline skills that age well, even with a power decline. But the Cubs are not in a position to win now. They are not even in a position to likely win in 2013. They need to rebuild. By the time the Cubs realistically can compete again, Pujols will be into his mid-30s, and by then, he will be eating up resources relative to his production that the Cubs could better allocate elsewhere.

Then what of Fielder, who is four years Pujols' junior? Fielder is probably the better player to sign for several reasons. The first is that he will cost less money than Pujols. Of course Fielder is also a lesser player than Pujols, but a lot of Pujols' superior present value would be lost on a non-contending team like the Cubs. Fielder is also younger, by four years, and he would still be in his prime, albeit the tail end of his prime, by the time the Cubs are competing again. Age and cost would make more sense as a long-term contract for a team that is not trying to "win now."

However, Fielder is not much of an "athlete" in the traditional sense of the word. We all know the real reason that the Brewers couldn't resign CC Sabathia after 2008 was that there was not enough food in Milwaukee to feed the two of them. Fangraphs had an excellent article about Fielder's expected aging curve a few weeks ago, noting that fat baseball players tend to age substantially less gracefully than other players:



Do you remember what happened to Dmitri Young after he turned 31? Or Pat Burrell at 32? Or what happened to Adam Dunn this season? Nonathletic power hitters seem to fall rapidly when they hit their 30s, and even if their offense rebounds some, their defense remains atrocious. Fielder should be a fine player the next three or four seasons, but no better than Soriano by the time he is 33, and the Cubs would be paying him more than Soriano money for several years after that point.

So what should the Cubs do? In the short run, they'll certainly need a stopgap. This is where LaHair comes in. He has flashed really good power and patience for the Cubs (and before them, the Mariners) in the upper minors over the past few seasons. He also held his own for 20 games in the majors last season. Oliver projects LaHair as a .350-wOBA capable major league hitter (.800+ OPS) with a respectable on-base percentage and .200+ ISO power over the next two-plus years. His 2010 and 2009 major league equivalencies (MLEs) essentially agree. If nothing more, then, LaHair should be your very average first baseman, with some upside.

LaHair won't be a long term option, but he can certainly hold the place until 2014, when Joey Votto is a 30-year-old free agent. Votto is substantially more athletic than Fielder, and he'll be a couple of years younger than Pujols, and he is one of the most talented hitters in baseball. The Cubs would save money over the next two seasons, which could be allocated to Votto in the future, while being a better position to know what they'll need when they're in a position to compete, rather than guessing now and tossing around a lot of money to players who may or may not be worth it by 2014/2015.

Or the Cubs could turn back to Carlos Pena on another one-year deal, though the Pirates may offer two or three years out of desperation.

That is at least what I would do. However, the Cubs are probably going to sign Fielder for Carl Crawford money, in which case I hope I am dead wrong about how he'll age.

Pitching

A major strength of the Cubs over the past decade, the rotation is currently in shambles and lacks an ace (a top 30 overall major league pitcher).

Matt Garza is the closest thing to an ace the Cubs have, but he's more an elite No. 2 type. Garza saw a huge jump in his strikeout rate when he moved to the National League this past season, though much of his whiff gain seemed to fizzle away in the second half. Garza's peripherals indicate he's capable of much better than his 2011 results in 2012. However, the Cubs gave up more in prospects to get Garza than the Brewers gave up to get Zack Greinke, and the value of a cost-controlled pitcher of Garza's talent is essentially lost on a team like the Cubs.

Ryan Dempster exercised his player option, and will return in 2012. Dempster was never an ace, but he's been a solid No. 2 starter for the past four years. Though 2011 was a disappointment by ERA/WHIP standards, Dempster's peripherals were essentially in line with his 2007-2009 performance heading into September, when he seemed to wear out down the stretch.

Beyond Dempster and Garza, the Cubs rotation has a lot of question marks. Will Carlos Zambrano be back? He most certainly will not return after 2012. Can Randy Wells and Andrew Cashner stay healthy for the Cubs? If each can, which Randy Wells—the one from the first or second half—will show up? Will Cashner's third pitch ever develop so that he can take the leap from questionable mid-rotation starter to a solid No. 2 type? Trey McNutt is the Cubs' top pitching prospect, but he took a major step back in Double-A last year—his strikeout rate fell and his walk rate spiked. McNutt looks to repeat Double-A next year, and could arrive in mid-2013 if all goes well, but he is no sure thing and is no ace even if he does pan out.

The Cubs gave a lot of starts to terrible pitchers in 2011. Among Casey Coleman, Doug Davis, Ramon Ortiz, Rodrigo Lopez and James Russell, the Cubs gave 49 starts to substantially below-average pitchers. Of that group, only Lopez's 4.40 xFIP was within even 15 percent of league average. For 2012, the Cubs are going to need to bring in someone to shore up the back of the rotation. Joel Pineirois the most attractive and reasonably attainable free agent pitcher on the market for cheap. What he lacks in strikeouts he makes up for in ground balls and a very limited walk rate. Pineiro was kind of a disaster last year, so he should not cost too much on an incentive-laden one-year deal.

Javier Vazquez is another attractive name, worthy of a multi-year deal now that his velocity is back, but all signs currently point to him either retiring or returning to the Marlins. Likewise, Mark Buehrle would be a great innings eater, but would likely cost too much for what he does, and is more likely to stick with the White Sox or go to the Marlins, who probably will make a more attractive offer to fill out their team before the opening of their new stadium. The Cubs aren't likely to go after any of the "big" free agent pitchers, though a run at Yu Darvish could prove fruitful. Perhaps the Cubs can convince Roy Oswalt to come aboard at the right price, or woo Chris Capuano with a one-year deal.

A creative move for the Cubs, one I do not envision happening, is trading away Castro the Rays to reclaim Hai Juk Lee and get Matt Moore in the process. Lee is still a year or two away, and the Rays need a legitimate major league shortstop at the moment. Given the Rays' pitching depth, this move could make sense for both sides. Castro is likely one of the few Cubs "untouchables," as he should be, but swapping out a cost-controlled +4 WAR shortstop who may have to move to second for a top shelf pitcher (plus a capable future shortstop replacement) could help fix the Cubs' rotation depth issues. Such a move would also give the Cubs the luxury of moving Garza to Texas or Toronto (or maybe even New York) for a nice package of useful prospects for the future.

In the bullpen, Carlos Marmol is still the Cubs closer, and Sean Marshall, who was a decent lefty starter a few years back, will remain an elite setup man. Kerry Wood could return on another one-year deal.

Jeff Samardzija will almost certainly be back; he has a $3 million option for 2012, which the Cubs probably will decline and work out a more team-friendly deal in light of how he's performed the past few years. Samardzija was serviceable in 2011, but he has to slash the walk rate. People not named Carlos Marmol have no excuse for walking 13.2 percent of the batters they face.

Chris Carpenter should be an interesting bullpen addition, assuming he is not converted back into a starter. Carpenter has control issues, but he also routinely hits triple digits on the radar gun and punches out a respectable number of batters with a strong groundball rate. As a starter, he has a very limited ceiling because he really has only two pitches (and no control). Marco Mateo could also be good reliever, but like many before him, he is a high-strikeout, high-walk guy who cannot be relied upon in high-leverage situations. And if If Mateo is questionable, the rest of the bullpen is a double question mark. Between Chris Archer (in the Garza deal) and Jose Ceda (in the Kevin Gregg deal), the Cubs have traded away most of their electric relief arms in recent years. Jay Jackson has plateaued in talent as he reached the upper minors as a starter; perhaps he could develop into a reliable reliever for the Cubs given his good control and respectable strikeout rates as a starter. Rafael Dolis, a converted position player, could develop into a Sergio Santos type given his 96 mph fastball and supposedly electric slider/changeup combo, but his control needs a lot of work before he becomes a high-leverage reliever.

These question marks mean that the Cubs bullpen, outside its top three names (four, if Wood returns), is going to be a mess of young, rough, and still-developing pitchers unless Hoyer and Epstein find someone better (and relatively cheap) on the free agent market. On the bright side, the bullpen is entirely cost-controlled, so at least it won't be an expensive disaster when a starter gets knocked out early.

Payroll

Tim Dierkes did a great job covering the Cubs' projected 2012 payroll situation last month.

Though the Cubs have had one of the highest payrolls in baseball in recent years, most of those contracts are finally starting to come off the books. Between Ramirez and Kosuke Fukudome, the Cubs are going to save $30 million in payroll. Another $5 million, half of Pena's salary, will be gone as well, though all of that and then some will go toward salary boosts for Soto, Garza and Byrd. John Grabow is off the books as well, which saves the Cubs roughly $5 million. If the Cubs can get some team to eat $5 million or so of Zambrano's salary (the Marlins?), they could free up between $30 and $40 million for 2012 when other players who will not be returning are considered.

In addition to that money, the Cubs will have Zambrano's $18 million, Dempster's $14 million, $6.5 million from Byrd, and another $5 million from Pena coming off the books for 2013, giving the Cubs between $50 and $60 million to work with over the next two seasons. Unfortunately, Soriano's $18 million per year will be around another three seasons, though the Cubs could move him to an AL team in need of a DH if they are willing to eat a lot of the salary. Even with Soriano on the books, Epstein and Hoyer should be able to afford the necessary pieces, though one hopes a lot of the money is spent on the 2012 and 2013 drafts.

Pipeline

The Cubs' farm system is a disaster. Though they lacked a true star heading into 2011, the Cubs had enough depth to make them a borderline top 10 farm system. The Garza deal eliminated almost all that depth, and what the Cubs are left with is a questionable No. 2 starter in McNutt, a flawed but promising center field prospect in Jackson, and a prototypical Cubs prospect in Matt Szczur: a speedy "tools" guy who does not walk and has almost no power, like Montanez. The Cubs' top draft pick in 2012, Javier Baez, is a promising third base prospect (his shortstop defense is probably not good enough to stick), who could leapfrog Vitters with a good 2012 season in the minors. Hayden Simpson was a questionable pick in 2011, and his first year in the minors was not good.

Other than Jackson, LaHair is probably the Cubs' most impact "prospect" at the moment, if a 30 year old can really be called a prospect. LaHair is much better than Micah Hoffpauir was when the Cubs brought him up as a geriatric prospect, and he's been much better than Hoffpauir was for much longer.

Needless to say, the farm system is going to have to be a focal point for the Epstein and Hoyer.

Management

Mike Quade is out, and it looked like Mike Maddux was the favorite to replace him for awhile. That could have created an interesting dynamic because there was rumor that he might have brought his brother Greg to join the coaching staff. The Maddux brothers know quite a lot about pitching, and they could have taught the Cubs' young pitchers a lot of valuable game theory in addition to polishing their pitching mechanics.

The Cubs did not get Maddux, however—they chose Dave Sveum, the Brewers' (former) third base coach. I am not sure what I can say about Sveum's potential managerial impact. The manager's job is lineup optimization, motivating the team (unquantifiable) and getting thrown out of games instead of the players. A good manager can potentially add a few wins to a team's bottom line, while a bad one has the potential to subtract much more. Sveum should at least be an average manager for the Cubs.

The real impact of the Sveum signing might be that Greg Maddux, who worked as a special consultant to Jim Hendry in 2011, will probably not return in 2012 due to family issues.

Conclusion

The Cubs are a disaster at the moment, but Ricketts is laying the foundation necessary to rebuild not only the team, but the franchise. Epstein and Hoyer have a long, uphill battle, but they are the right guys for the challenge. The Cubs have a foundation to build on with good up-the-middle starters. Corner positions are much easier to fill and the Cubs will have the payroll to make the necessary moves. The future of the Cubs rotation looks to be somewhat of a mess, with lots of question marks surrounding their prospects. They will need to bring in some outside help or make some very good draft picks and-or trades in the next couple of years.

What do you think about the Cubs' 2012 and future outlook? What moves would you like to see the Cubs make and why? Who is excited for the Epstein-Hoyer era to begin?