Cubs face a must-win in Game 2 against Mets

Talk about a wake-up call.

That's what the Chicago Cubs and outlandishly expensive pitcher Jon Lester got last night in New York against the Mets --- a team many of you thought would be a pushover, leading to a Chi-Town sweep, or even a five-game cakewalk series win.

Tonight, it's Cy-Young worthy righty Jake Arrieta's turn, fresh off a historic August and September that bolstered talk of this team's first possible World Series crown in over a century.

But a few things have me concerned. The first was the Party-Like-A-Rockstar attitude from the boys in blue after eliminating their arch rivals, the St. Louis Cardinals, in the NLDS.

The excitement, while understandable given the Cubs' past, was excessive. I know manager Joe Maddon is on-record saying his team should celebrate every win.

Just not to the degree it was taken to.

When I see photos splattered all over Twitter and Facebook of slugger Anthony Rizzo and Kyle Schwarber posing for selfies with scantily-clad blondes and brunettes for days after eliminating the Cards, it raises a red flag.

Now is not the time for such distractions, young men. Now is the time for making history, for curse-busting. And it's time for this team to realize there's no time like the present to mature.

I'm not trying to be a buzzkill. I'm just being a realist.



The Mets are no slouches, and are probably the most underrated team to make the postseason. They are the epitome of a team with solid pitching, timely hitting and fundamentals galore. You don't luck your way into beating a team like that by riding the coattails of your previous series wins. You do so by working your ass off and playing smart, fundamental baseball.

The Cubs looked like a team that was a deer in headlights last night. Even Joe Maddon looked flat, almost dejected and freezing cold in the visitors' dugout.

I noticed a number of key things:

1. Lester was not Lester-like. On the two homers he allowed, AND the RBI single on 0-2 to Granderson, he left pitches right over the heart of the plate. On the second homer, his pitch speed was a mere 87 MPH and a fastball. Is his arm hurting? He should be in the low 90s. Too many two-strike mistakes, and location mistakes.

2. Sending Starlin Castro...on the best outfield arm in baseball in Cespedes. Bad, bad, bad.

3. Kyle Schwarber's inability to throw out a runner at home on a 260-foot fly ball. Montero should get a little bit of blame for lining up behind home plate instead of in front of it, but that play NEVER would've been so close if Schwarber hadn't taken his sweet time catching, winding up and getting rid of the ball. His strong arm made the play close, but that guy would've been out by a mile with some basic fundamentals.

4. Poor hitting approaches and a lack of adjustments by Cubs hitters. Harvey was dealing fastballs on the outer half of the plate all night. Yet were the Cubs trying to go to right field? Not often. I saw a lot of big home-run swings and an unwillingness to modify approaches toward what Harvey was throwing. Veteran, experienced teams make these adjustments. The Cubs need to grow up fast and realize this.

5. Small mistakes. Bryant's dropped double play ball late cost the Cubs a run. And while no one play makes an entire game, those mistakes add up.

The good news is, Arrieta is on the hill tonight, but it still won't be easy. If the Cubs can win this evening then go to Wrigley for three, I like their chances. If they lose, I think they are in big...check that --- huge, trouble. They might be already, because their next two starters after Arrieta aren't nearly as skilled.

The bottom line is, if the Cubs want to make history, they're going to have to battle harder than this to do so. And remain lazer focused. Being aware of things going on in-game and adjusting to them is by far the biggest key to them winning.

Let's hope this young team matures quickly and realizes everything they've done prior to this doesn't mean squat. Only how they react tonight does. The Cubs looked their youthful ages last night, but thus far, they've reacted well to every bit of adversity thrown their way like champions.

The difference now is, tonight, they absolutely have to.

Darling spectacular in Nashville, deserves another shot

When the Chicago Blackhawks fell behind the Nashville Predators last night 3-0 on the road after 20 minutes in the first game of the Stanley Cup playoffs, I lashed out at them in frustration on social media, which resulted in a myriad of interesting and sometimes angry replies.

"Have faith," one gentleman said.

Boy was that easier said than done yesterday. The Hawks stunk so badly I wanted to do the old remote toss.

I've been watching and playing hockey since I was 7 years old, when my dad whisked me away one sunny April afternoon from my first grade class claiming I had a dental appointment.

When we arrived to our actual destination, the Old Chicago Stadium, I was introduced to the Chicago Blackhawks for the first time. There were my Hawks heroes I'd only heard about on the radio and read about in the newspaper taking on the Minnesota North Stars --- in a winner-take-all Game 7 --- in what was one of the nastiest sports rivalries mankind has ever produced.

My father was kind enough to bring earplugs, and when soloist Wayne Messmer - the 1980s version of Jim Cornelison - belted out the National Anthem, I was literally scared. Sound had feeling. The seats were vibrating. The concrete was actually shaking below me while the noise was a deafening 120 decibels, as loud as standing near a jet engine that had just fired up.

All around me, angry drunk men wanted blood. Minnesota's.

The Hawks went on to win the game 7-4 - and the series - that day. I was hooked. I remember wearing the red iron-on Hawks T-shirt to class my dad bought me that day to school as often as he'd let me.

Point being, me and hockey go way back. I didn't just jump on this wagon. This isn't my first rodeo. Pick your metaphor, because my point is the same.

Rallying from a three-goal deficit is hard enough, but doing so in the NHL playoffs the way the Hawks did last night is near impossible. History says so. So forgive me if I was momentarily stunned when the Hawks rallied to win, 4-3, in double overtime, to take a 1-0 series lead from a Tennessee-based bunch that probably has nightmares about guys named Kane, Toews, Hossa and Keith by now.



Some of my opinions about hockey ruffle some feathers from time-to-time, but that's okay. Several weeks ago, when I posted on Twitter that I felt Scott Darling was recently playing more fundamentally sound hockey than Corey Crawford, people got mad. Real mad.

The thing is, even when I have an unpopular opinion, I don't have that opinion for shock value. That's not me. My opinions come with thought and reason attached. If people don't agree with them, no hard feelings. That's what makes sports fun for us all.

My opinion about Crow, who was yanked at the end of the first period last night, is based on things I see, and countless playoff games I've seen firsthand over three-plus decades of watching Hawks teams that were good, bad, or downright ugly.

I don't hate Corey Crawford. He's an elite goaltender. And will be the Hawks' #1 for a long time. My lone knock on him is sometimes I feel he takes poor angles when facing shots, such as coming too far out of the net, not hugging the post tight enough during some plays, or not keeping his stick down on the ice at crucial times.

These things don't happen all the time. But they occur enough for my seasoned eyes to notice them when they do. They're little things that matter.

Last night, Crawford had one of those off nights, which included a terrible play behind his net that led to an easy Nashville score. When Crawford struggles, they're usually things that appear to involve brief lapses in focus. I don't know why they happen, but they do.

Goaltending in the NHL isn't easy. It's a thankless job that gets you ripped when you lose, and heaped with praise when you win. So I'll gladly give Corey Crawford a pass, especially since there are 18 other skaters out there who didn't play all that well in front of him yesterday during the opening period. He's won a Stanley Cup. I get that.

But backup goalie Scott Darling, who came on in relief of Crawford and stopped all 42 shots he saved, including pressure packed ones in OT and double OT, is going to be an impact goalie in the NHL for a long time. Whether he stays in Chicago for a while or not remains to be seen, but the fact he's from Illinois gives us a leg up, and having two outstanding goalies on the west side of Chicago is an awesome problem to have.

If coach Joel Quenville wasn't confident in Darling's abilities, he wouldn't have replaced Crawford last evening. And he wouldn't have been given a contract extension and a raise by the Hawks if the organization wasn't confident in his tremendous ability.

For 60-plus minutes last night, Darling made some of the best saves I have ever witnessed in postseason play in my 38 years. He's big. He moves with lightning reflexes from post to post. He squares to shooters. His eyes are constantly glued to the puck in his own zone.

Does that mean I feel he's better than Crawford? I'm not ready to jump to that conclusion yet. But hockey is a funny thing, and riding a hot goaltender in the playoffs can literally win you a Stanley Cup.

Now, coach Q has a huge decision to make. Does he go with Crawford, the seasoned vet who has been yanked three different times over the past month and a half in Game 2, or Darling, who has one postseason appearance under his belt - albeit one that was worthy of a heavyweight hockey title belt?

That's why they pay Quenville the big bucks. I'm just a sportswriter with an opinion.

An opinion that hopes he gives the kid another shot in Game 2, and that by doing so, Hawks fans realize it's not because Corey Crawford is suddenly bad, or disliked.

When a baseball hitter is on a hot streak, you keep putting that hitter in the lineup. When a point guard comes off the bench and scorches defenses, you give him more time on the court. When your backup football QB lights up defenses, you take a closer look.

I just think right now, since the Hawks have a tendency to have lapses during games, you need a goalie who's standing on his head. And like it or not, Scott Darling is the guy who seems to be doing that right now.

It reminds me of the early 90s, when the Hawks had a pair of goalies on their rosters who both wound up becoming Hall-of-Fame caliber goalies, in Dominik Hasek and Ed Belfour. Both got lit up and swept by the eventual Cup champion Pittsburgh Penguins in the Final.

Does that mean both goalies were bad? Nope.

I'm not suggesting Darling is headed for the Hall of Fame after one amazing playoff win. But like it or not, he's the reason the Hawks aren't facing a 1-0 series hole as you wake up today.

Here's hoping Q hops on that horse and rides him to the finish line again in Game 2.

Call it a hunch.

Cubs On Right Track, But Let's Allow Them To Blossom

So, the Chicago Cubs and their fans say they want to win a World Series title, eh?

Good, glad to see we're all on the same page. For those who don't feel like stopping by Google and looking up how long it's been since that occurred, let me give you a refresher course.

The last time our 'lovable losers' hoisted baseball gold was 1908, or 106-plus years and counting.



That's not a dry spell, that's four generations of misery. Since that time, the Cubs' dreadful stretch without a championship has been blamed on black cats, billy goats, Leon Durham, Steve Bartman, and so many ridiculous things that it crossed passed absurd into Twilight Zone territory long before even I was born way back in 1976.

We live in an era where our every thought is public knowledge. Social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., put our things out there for all to see. Pick your poison. Everyone, myself included, is an armchair critic.

Which is why I find the debacle of the Chicago Cubs so tantalizingly fascinating. Each time I log on to a site and give anyone the tiniest hint I'm being critical of the Cubs, I'll inevitably get an angry comment back, a snarky reply, or just good old-fashioned anger in return.

Which is fine. It comes with the territory. If you are a writer and have a sports-related opinion, you better have thick skin. But you also better be prepared to back up your points.

I don't like making sweeping generalizations, but sometimes I wonder: Why do so many Cubs fans seem so angry?

Is it because they know the crosstown Chicago White Sox had possibly the best offseason of any major league team, signing on-base guy Melky Cabrera, former Yankees closer David Robertson, lefty veteran slugger Adam LaRoche, and another reliever who averaged over a strikeout an inning in 2014?

Or perhaps the anger stems from things like Cubs fans seeing their former players, like Jeff Samardzija, land elsewhere and succeed. He's in a Sox uniform now, in case any of you shut your TV set off for the last month.

When your foundation includes names like Adam Eaton and Jose Abreu, youngsters who were both .300 hitters in 2014 --- and perennial Cy-Young candidate Chris Sale --- well, that's not just a good offseason. It's a full-fledged revival on the South Side.

Full disclosure, I'm a lifelong White Sox fan. But I'm not one of those Sox fans who gets my rocks off seeing the Chicago Cubs lose. I'm just not. The trouble is, if you grew up in Chicago, you've been trained, A.K.A. brainwashed, by one or more of your family members to root for one team over the other.

Maybe I don't get angry like so many Sox and Cubs fans do when debating things like which team had the better offseason because my beloved Pale Hose actually hoisted a World Series trophy in 2005, so as a fan, I know what that feels like. I understand the rush (and relief) as I sat there in shock and disbelief the same way so many of you sat there certain Mark Prior and Kerry Wood were about to become lifelong Chicago icons back in 2003.

That ill-fated Cubs game against the Marlins happened over a decade ago, now. And I bring it up not to pick at that scabby, lifelong wound, folks. I bring it up because I want to see the Friendly Confines host a World Series game in my lifetime the same way all of you do, north/south side allegiances be damned.

But I'm also a realist, and I'm here to tell you that while the Cubs are headed in the right direction, they also have a ways to go. Listening to Chicago talk radio, you'd think they'd already won the 2015 Central Division Crown.

But lets take it one step at a time.

The 2014 Chicago Cubs, when we last left them, didn't have a single .300 hitter on their roster. They didn't have a hitter with more than 78 RBI. They also only had one pitcher with 10 or more wins.

So forgive me, my pinstriped friends, for telling things the way they really are, but those are all facts.

Sure, they, too, had a solid offseason, signing all-star caliber catcher Miguel Montero, and landed a whale ace starter in Jon Lester. Those two should be a great starting point for a team that's lacked direction and leadership for far too long. A tip of the cap, there.

The signing of former Tampa Bay manager Joe Maddon was a refreshing wakeup call to Cubs fans everywhere that this organization finally means business, as well.

But this remains a team that won 73 games in 2014. All I'm saying is let's be cautiously optimistic, given this team's history, rather than expecting anything.

If there's one thing I learned in 2005 being a Sox fan, it's that great things happen when you least expect them. Just ask the Kansas City Royals, who almost did the unthinkable in October.

The Cubs and their fans have every right to be excited about youngsters like Starlin Castro, Anthony Rizzo, Javier Baez and Jorge Soler. I also think Soler, Rizzo and soon-to-be starring in primetime third baseman Kris Bryant are legit, though I'm not sold on Baez's ability to make consistent contact with the baseball. The trouble is --- and remains --- these are players who, for the most part, haven't proven a thing yet on a major league diamond when it comes to winning consistently.

Winning teams also do a lot of little things right, and my lone fear is this organization has put too much emphasis on people who can hit the ball out of the park, rather than plucking youngsters who would rather get an opposite field base hit with two strikes.

Maybe someday soon these guys will all blossom into stars. And maybe in nine months, Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer will be proven to be geniuses who orchestrated this entire thing from the ground up.

But until I see it with my own eyes, in person, I'm going to keep reverting back to the history book that shows pictures of Moises Alou leaping into the stands and throwing a temper tantrum. Or the 1969 Mets crawling out of last place to shock the world. Or the team that lost in the World Series, ahem, back near the end of World War II.

Talk is fun, but it's also cheap. It doesn't win baseball games. It doesn't put talent on the field. But the fact we are even talking about these things in a positive way, in Chicago, on both sides of town, is a good thing. A great thing.

Hell, let's all root for our Chicago teams to do well, together.

Just don't get mad at me if year 106 becomes year 107 on the North Side. Or year 108.

Life's too short for that kind of anger. Channel that angry energy toward your team, on the field.

It's the exact same unhealthy anger and energy that should've been given --- in a POSITIVE WAY --- to Mark Prior that night after Alou missed the foul ball in 2003, rather than some guy named Steve Bartman, when things didn't go the Cubs' way.

Soon, on a warm April or May evening later this year, you'll all see signs of your Cubbies starting to bloom like the flowers that grow outside. And bloom, they shall.

But a word of advice:

Water them wisely, Cubs fans. So that someday, just maybe ... they'll grow into a garden, alongside the magnificent ivy that rests on the outfield walls, for us all to behold and admire.

Even us hated Sox fans.