Chicago Cubs: No chicken and beer in the clubhouse

 Despite seasons of 92+ wins the last four years under Maddon, the front office has made this season about accountability. In that vein, a comprehensive list of changes has been put forth and accepted by both players and the front office to keep the focus in 2019.

The Chicago Cubs have been a successful, laid-back, and fun team since Joe Maddon showed up in 2015. Even in eternal loser-mode, fans and the team itself were always considered lovable. Zoos in the park, dress-up road trips, and parties after wins did nothing to dispel this notion, as the Cubs under the direction of Joe Maddon has been nothing short of a trip. However, the trip in 2019 may be less of a drunken, cross-country boys’ road trip in a Winnebago and a lot more of a sober, suits and ties business trip in a limo.

According to The Athletic’s (yes, you have to pay) Patrick Mooney and Sahadev Sharma, the Cubs are taking some steps to make sure that accountability is a priority this season. This may be short-sighted of me, but it seems like the word “accountability” basically means “not fun.” And, I’m not sure I really agree with or understand the shift in philosophy given this team won 95 games last year with a lot of things going wrong. Winning is certainly fun and masks or cures a lot of issues, but we were winning, and winning a lot. As Jon Lester noted in the article, there certainly may be some complacency and stagnation, but was it enough for this new structural manifesto?

Maybe something is going on in the clubhouse we aren’t aware of. Maybe Tommy La Stella was too pranky with the front office last offseason. Maybe Theo Epstein is hoping Daniel Descalso is the new David Ross. Maybe Epstein and Jed Hoyer didn’t like the LaStella and Ian Happ show after home runs? (strangely, both guys won’t be on the Opening Day roster) Not that I feel like the gang’s going to hop in the Mystery Machine to foil some sinister plot by the Front Office to squash fun, but it does seem like a lot of talk and discussion about “what went wrong” is just overkill and should be chalked up to “things didn’t go our way in 2018.”

Chicago Cubs: Would 2018 have played out differently with a healthy Bryant?

While I’m just speculating here, the idea that something was irrevocably broken in the clubhouse or with the team isn’t something I really subscribe to given my limited scope. What I saw more than “complacency” in the second half of 2018 was a team that was getting worn down (playing 40 days in a row) and besieged by injuries (Yu Darvish, Brandon Morrow, Kris Bryant, Addison Russell, Anthony Rizzo, Kyle Schwarber at various points), trying like hell to use flex seal to keep the boat afloat as the Milwaukee Brewers zoomed by with their shiny new Christian Yelich outboard. The Cubs still won 95 games last year, something we all would have given our left arm for in 2012.

Instead of chalking up the failures and disappointments to growing pains and injuries in 2018, the Cubs have decided they will attack their deficiencies in an attempt to make sure there is more accountability in 2019.

Here’s how: there will be more BP, lineups will be released for entire series, players will have to spend more time in the dugout, the focus will be placed on 10 trap games, and, my favorite; postgame fast food and beer consumption will be limited.

The problem with these specific changes is that they all seem to be double-edged swords of sorts. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul if you will. While some of the changes and focus on accountability could very well lead to better results, the changes could have unintended (and possibly disastrous) consequences for a club that is already damn good and has seemed (at least from the outside looking in) to have great chemistry the last few years.

Chicago Cubs: Is Joe really on board with all of these changes?

Less batting practice has been a hallmark of Joe Maddon‘s philosophy, not wanting to tire and wear down players in the dog days of summer. That hallmark has worked relatively well too, given that Maddon’s teams have performed better in the second half, if healthy and fresh. While this change to more BP could heighten focus and set up more of a daily routine for some players, it could also irritate others who don’t need the extra batting practice on a 95-degree day in August.

Lineups being released for an entire series may enable that same focus and accountability with all players, as well as improve the lines of communication between manager and player (something I didn’t realize was an issue with the uber-affable Maddon).  It could also hinder Maddon’s mad-scientist ways, limiting his ability to change or tinker based on what he sees in a given game (this could be a positive or negative, depending on the decision/change and whether or not you like managers tinkering).

Players in the dugout should always be a thing, so I have no real issues with that one, and I doubt most of the players do either.

More from Chicago Cubs News

• Cubs: Adrian Sampson is forcing his way into the conversation
• Projecting the Chicago Cubs bullpen to open the 2023 season
• Cubs fans are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel
• Justin Steele has evolved into a frontline starter for the Cubs
• The future of first base is murky right now for the Cubs

The focus on specific games piece worries me a bit because every game during the regular season is important. No game is more important than another because they’re all worth the same whether they’re played in April or September, on a Thursday in Cincinnati or a Tuesday in Seattle. If the team focuses on certain trap-games, does that mean other games will be less important? You cannot logically emphasize some games over others without then de-emphasizing some by accident.

Also, if the team doesn’t win those games, do they then take the loss harder than another because they were really focusing and really trying hard that game? Do they change their lineup and set their pitching rotation differently because of these highlighted games? Again, this idea could be beneficial or detrimental, and I liked the way Joe Maddon approached one game at a time and not letting the pressure exceed the pleasure in any given moment. This one feels like it’s handcuffing Maddon from a philosophical standpoint in the same way the BP thing would.