This week's mailbag is up on the Official Site, and there are two things that warrant comment in my mind.

The first comes near the end of her answer about Wood's health:

If you look at the Cubs' schedule, they could actually go with a three-man rotation for the first week and a half of the season because of off days. Wood may be 100 percent healthy on Opening Day, yet be placed on the disabled list simply because there's no need to rush his return.

Reading something like this, is it any wonder that people like me are skeptical when we hear from the Cubs that everything's OK when it comes to player health? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Wood really were 100%, wouldn't it be worth having him in the rotation, regardless of a few extra off days? After all, the purpose of giving players extra rest is precisely to get them as close as possible to 100 percent.

Maybe Muskat is just being careless with her use of "100 percent", and what she really means is "medically cleared to join the rotation." But otherwise, we seem to have a situation where Wood is either pitching, or not pitching but still healthy. It allows the Cubs to put a good face on things no matter how things turn out. I can't help but be skeptical when the only two options are both "OK".

The second thing that caught my eye is a question about Neifi Perez:

How did Perez "save" the Cubs in 2005 (see Feb. 6 mailbag)? For starters, the team finished in fourth place, so I'd say they were more dead in the water than saved. More specificially, Neifi stepped in when Nomar Garciaparra got hurt but he hurt the team with his play more than anything else. The Cubs went into this offseason targeting good top of the order players because they were among the worst in baseball at the top of the order. Perez had the bulk of his at-bats at the top of the order. On offense, he was near the worst shortstop in all of baseball. Defensively, he is solid, but so was Jeromy Burnitz in right field. If anything, Neifi was lucky to get so many ABs -- he was in the right place at the right time.
-- Brent E., Bloomington, Ind.

OK, Perez didn't hit .350 with 30 homers and last year wasn't a fabulous season....

This answer is borderline offensive, and I even agree with her later conclusion that "Perez wasn't the worst of the Cubs' problems." Notice how she conflates Brent's (accurate, in my view) observations that Perez hurt the Cubs with the argument that Perez wasn't a superstar.

Let's get one thing straight: no one is complaining that Perez "didn't hit .350 with 30 homers." Numbers like that would have put Perez in historically good company at shortstop. The complaint is simply that Perez is a woeful offensive player, not falling short of just the Jeters and Tejadas of the world but also the Juan Uribes and Alex Gonzaleses, even - and this is the key - in a career year. There's an argument to be made that Perez makes up for some of his offensive shortcomings with his glove, an argument that I've made myself. But to pretend that complaints about Neifi's bat are rooted in the fact that he's not a superstar is just plain disingenuous.