Platoon is OK, but one is better

Top Available Second Basemen

• Orlando Hudson: Signed with Minnesota; 1 year, $5 million
• Felipe Lopez: Signed with St. Louis; 1 year, $1.75 million
• Placido Polanco: Signed with Philadelphia; 3 years, $18 million
• Mark DeRosa: Signed with San Francisco; 2 years, $12 million
• Ronnie Belliard: Signed with Los Angeles Dodgers; 1 year, $825,000

This saying is often used to discuss college football quarterbacks: If you have two, you have none. Usually, this describes a team with two good quarterbacks who are forced to share snaps. But unlike splitting series, platoons aren’t usually employed to showcase two really talented players; instead, they hide a problem.

Still, platoons are common and they can be effective, just ask the Cubs’ own Xavier Nady, who was part of a “great” platoon in San Diego. But while platoons aren’t automatically considered a bad thing, wouldn’t you rather have a full-time starter?

Especially when one is available for about the same price as the two-manned lefty-right combo currently employed, I’d rather have the full-time starter.

Reason No. 1 for a permanent starter: It prevents Lou Piniella from doing something stupid, like not platooning Jeff Baker and Mike Fontenot. Hopefully, this is just Lou talking because … (shaking head) … otherwise … I have no explanation.

Fontenot can’t hit lefties; Baker can’t hit righties; neither is head and shoulders better than the other. This is about as obvious as platoon situations get. So, let’s assume Lou retains his sanity, does the right thing and decides to platoon the two. Because barring a spring by Starlin Castro that surpasses even Phil Rogers’ wildest dreams for the Cubs’ top prospect, Baker and Fontenot sharing second base is the Cubs’ best option.

Splitting duties — Baker facing lefties; Fontenot, the righties — they should be fine. Together, and healthy, Baker and Fontenot make a fully capable major league second baseman: Both are solid defensively. And based on career averages, the two will be on base about a third of the time, and provide a little pop.

But the point of these season preview posts isn’t to ask for capable, but to wonder if this is the best the Cubs could do. Combined, the two are fine, and platoons are fine; but a better, affordable, more stable option was available as late as last week — Felipe Lopez.

The early signers: Orlando Hudson, Placido Polanco and Mark DeRosa would have given the Cubs a definitive starter and been an upgrade over the Cubs’ current situation. However, for $5+ million a year, they weren’t affordable. Also, $5+ million is a lot for past their prime two-baggers. However, Lopez was a viable option — both as an upgrade and as a value. Lopez will make $2.2 million, should he reach every incentive in his deal with the Cardinals. At $2.2 million, this is just a bit more than Baker and Fontenot, combined, will make.

Is Lopez the difference in the Cubs (or Cardinals, for that matter) winning the World Series and not winning the World Series? No, of course not, but Lopez is a starting second baseman: Last season, Lopez’s wins above replacement player (WAR) was 4.6. That’s a pretty good stater.

Plus, Lopez’s on-base skills (.383 OBP last season) make him a viable leadoff candidate — a slot Lou has yet to decide on.

Ultimately, the Cubs have greater concerns than second base. As bad as Fontenot was last season, there were a large handful of players and issues more to blame for the Cubs’ failures. But after last season, I hope neither is forced into a full-time role, by injury or otherwise. Even more so, I hope Lou doesn’t stubbornly decide to start one every day, just because.

Things are so much easier when there is permanent starter that makes the “Pocket Rocket” more of a secret weapon.