We should have played Lee deeper...or maybe higher.
This could be a big week for the Cubs. And I’m not just talking about the pants size of the guys who will be added to the roster. Tonight the Cubs will send Jerome Williams to the mound in Milwaukee. His last appearance against the Brewers did not go well. He gave up more runs than brats eaten, and he ate five brats.

On Sunday, The Franchise is set to return to face the other Chicago team. Then early next week, Kerry Wood will make his return, triumphant or not, against the Brewers in Wrigley.

Well that’s certainly good. You add three starting pitchers, all of above average talent and all 28 years old or younger (Prior and Williams significantly so).

So what do you do with all this pitching?

The rotation currently consists of four guys. Greg Maddux, the future Hall of Famer, who most of the time looks like a good starter, but on occasion will implode into something resembling batting practice. Glendon Rusch, the most consistent starting pitcher the Cubs have had all year. Carlos Zambrano, the toughest, least sane pitcher on the planet, who has had control problems in his last three starts, but has managed to keep the Cubs in a position to win all three games (they won two of them). Sergio Mitre, a guy who none of us knew had a sinker until three starts ago he decided to never let the other team ever hit a ball in the air, again.

You add in Williams who had to rot in Des Moines until his ERA slipped under his cholesterol level, Prior and Wood and that’s seven guys for five spots.

It’s just too bad there’s not a gaping hole in the bullpen that could be filled with a couple of these guys…oh, wait.

The consensus seems to be that if Williams pitches well tonight, he’ll get to claim a spot in the rotation. If he pitches poorly he’ll be back at the Des Moines La Quinta. Prior’s the best starting pitcher any of us have ever seen, so chances are he’s probably in the rotation someplace.

The Meat Tray may not have won a spot in the rotation with his recent run of dominance (and yes, bad luck and Bad Neifi caught up with him in the Bronx), but he did most likely earn a spot on the team so he’ll go to the bullpen.

Fine, that gives you a rotation of Prior, Zambrano, Maddux, Williams, Rusch and Wood. Nope, that’s one too many.

If you’re Kerry Wood, you want Jerome Williams to implode tonight. Because then you don’t have to answer questions from people as to why your return from the DL caused the most consistently good starter the Cubs have had this year to the bullpen.

Moving Glendon to the pen makes sense on a lot of levels. The Cubs have a dearth of quality lefthanded relievers. When Will Ohman is your best one, that’s like having the nicest powder blue tux at the prom. Mike Remlinger can’t get lefties out. Cliff Bartosh can’t get anybody out, and we don’t know much about Rich Hill other than he’s got a ludicrously big curveball and looks like a long lost Lachey brother.

(If anybody ever showed old 98 Degrees videos, I’m sure you’d see Rich in a red jumpsuit with Nick and Drew.)

Here’s the thing about Glendon. If you look at his numbers, he’s not exactly a lefty killer, either.

Righties are hitting .268 with a .352 on base average against him. Lefties are hitting .273 but with only a .278 on base average. He’s not exactly Rick Honeycutt.

With three pitchers coming in, according to my math it means that three guys have to go.

Bartosh is certainly one of them. And it’s probably time for Joe Borowski to make up a vague injury, like shoulder tendonitis. So then who goes? You can send Todd Wellemeyer back to Iowa…again…even though between him and Mike Wuertz you have a 50-50 chance each day of having a righty reliever who can throw a strike.

Rich Hill has to go back to Iowa. I know Hendry said that he wants Hill to get a good look as a lefty reliever, but even if you send Wellemeyer down you’re still at 12 men on the pitching staff, and that’s just too many.

The Cubs’ bench is woefully thin. On days you start Todd Hollandsworth and Michael Barrett, it means your bench is Jose Macias, Enrique Wilson, Jerry Hairston, Hank White and Jason Dubois. That’s it. I’m sure that quintet just has rival managers quaking while pondering the moves the Cubs could make. Oooh.

None of this solves the Cubs real problem. Even last night. They get three runs in the first then nothing. They scratched across a run to go up 4-0 and needed a Brady Clark gift to score the fifth, and winning run.

In today’s Sun-Times, Mike Kiley reports that Austin kEARnS wants to be a Cub. I’m on record as being all for this. However, Austin hasn’t exactly been lighting it up for the last…two years. He had a great rookie year, when he established that though he didn’t have the power of teammate Adam Dunn he was a better all-around player. He struggled in his second season a little bit, but last year injuries and all-around suckiness plagued him, and this year he’s been a disaster. His strike out rate has climbed every year, and that’s not a good thing.

The Cubs know he can play, though. He proved that again, and again and most painfully again, down the stretch in that hellacious series at Wrigley last year. He needs a fresh start and his decline in performance has dropped his value to a point where a trade for him would hardly be cost prohibitive in talent. You’re getting a guy who should be a star, though the Cubs have one of those in center and how’s that working out?

So here’s the deal. A trade for Kearns is an investment in the future. You can not expect a recently demoted player to slip into your lineup and carry you to the postseason. You could argue that a trade for Preston Wilson would actually be a much more impactful deal for this season, and nobody’s pretending that Wilson is the 1987 version of Andre Dawson.

Kearns is the Reds’ version of Corey. They’re basically the same age. They both came up young, but with one difference, of the two, only Kearns has posted more than a half season of good play in any one year. Kearns’ rookie year in 2002 is better (even though it was just over 100 games) than any 100 game stretch Corey has ever had.

Even what we thought was Corey’s “breakout” year in 2003 was one tremendous month (May — .333, 6 homers 20 RBI, 7 stolen bases) sandwiched between two average months (.277 April, .269 June). But we’d take either of those average months now, they’d be a Godsend right now.

Here’s the question. Would you trade, if the Reds were interested, Corey Patterson for Austin Kearns.

It’s a hypothetical, because it opens a hole for the Cubs (no centerfielder on the roster) and doesn’t solve the Reds’ outfield overcrowding. But it’s interesting nonetheless.

Career numbers wise, neither guy looks like he’s ever going to be the player he was supposed to be. But to look at a 25 year old player with obvious ability and give up on him is folly.

Of the two, which would you think is more likely to turn it around and fulfill his promise? That’s an easy one. Have we seen Corey give any indication he’s going to change an approach that is proven to not work? No.

But it’s a moot point anyway, because to get Kearns the Cubs will have to trade pitching. It’s the one commodity the Reds have none of. So if you traded for Kearns, you’d have him and Corey. Though there’s nothing from preventing you from trading Corey someplace else.

There’s the whole, much-discussed issue of would the Reds trade Kearns within the division.

Of course they would. Any GM worth his salt figures that he’s making a trade and getting back as much, if not more, talent than he’s trading. If you’re Dan O’Brien you would trade Kearns to the Cubs if you felt like you were getting back enough value. Instead of the fear of having Kearns come back to light up your club 19 times a season, you have the vision of the pitching prospects you got from the Cubs, shoving it up their hineys 19 times a season.

It’s just like this overplayed notion that Jim Hendry is shell-shocked from trading Dontrelle Willis. We’ve been through this before. I contend that in the long run it’s great for the Cubs that Willis turned out. It makes the potential of every Cubs’ pitching prospect that much greater in the eyes of other GM’s. If every prospect you trade (like the mid-’80s Mets) turns out to be overhyped and undertalented, eventually you have a hard time finding takers for your prospects.

It’s the complaint every team has about trying to trade with Tampa GM Chuck LeMar. Chuck wants to “win” every trade. It’s not enough to trade value for value. He has to hold out to the point where he thinks he’s getting more value than he’s giving up. That’s a noble ideal, but what it really does is it causes you to pass up on deals that could have helped you. You don’t want to get robbed blind in a trade, but there are times, say when you need a left fielder, where you might give up a starting pitcher even though you think the starting pitcher is of more value than the left fielder, because you have other pitchers to pick up the slack, but you don’t have other outfielders who can do the same. If the trade fills a gaping hole in left and you’ve got the pitching to compensate for the guy you lost, it’s a good trade. Even if the pitcher you dealt goes on to have a good career.

Look, trades where you trade nothing (Bobby Hill, Matt Bruback and Jose Jerkoff) and get an excellent player are great. But they rarely happen. You can not wait around for those. What you have to be able to do is pounce on those on the rare occasions they present themselves.