|
| |||
|
You are here > Home > Gonfalon Cubs > Discussion
| |||
Gonfalon Cubs — Cubs Baseball for Thinking Fans Saturday, July 15, 2006Nine Innings of ReflectionsAfter a fairly lengthy layoff – call it time on the DL if you will—I find little has happened with the Cubs…either on the field or off the field. The misery that this season has generated, and the lackluster response to unmitigated failure make it one for the record books. I would recommend the sale of trendy T-shirts saying: “I survived the Cubs season of 2006” although I’m not yet sure I’ll survive it. And more importantly, I’m in no real mood to have “fun” with the ineptitude, rigidity and disregard for baseball fans that this management continues to display long after the ship has hit the iceberg and the passengers have fled. Not even the biggest cynics among us could have imagined a management so contemptible of its frustrated fans and inactive in response to such a season. With the National League as bad as many of us suspected, it’s almost difficult to create a team with a payroll of $95 million heading into the All-Star break 20 games under .500. To catch up a bit, here is a full baseball game of personal reflections about recent happenings – or lack thereof – on the North Side of Chicago. Inning 1: Anything Positive to Say? It’s very difficult to find much of anything positive to comment on when reflecting on recent happenings with the Cubs. But I wanted to open with a fan thought that has little to do with on-the-field performance, statistical analysis or any prognosis for the future. Let me very quickly give kudos to Ryan Dempster for comments he made after blowing a heartbreaking game against the Sox a few weeks ago. I choose to open with Dempster because one of the most infuriating experiences of Cub fandom in the Dusty Baker era has been witnessing excuse-making, blaming, finger-pointing and tantrum-displaying by this manager and his team. Dempster was a devastated, angry player following giving up a death dinger to A.J. Pierzynski, but his post-game comments made me take notice. He said his play has been “embarrassing” and not excusable, and he accepted full blame. I immediately was struck by how unusual it is to hear a player for a Dusty Baker Cubs team respond to failure in this way, and how antithetical this impromptu press conference was to any of the ones that I’ve heard Dusty Baker give in the last three years. If nothing else, I hope Dempster rights himself in the second half, which doesn’t necessarily mean I think he’s the best choice for the closer role when games mean something again. Inning 2: Kerry Wood’s Quiet Goodbye If Kerry Wood has pitched his last game in a Cubs uniform, which now is a distinct possibility, it will leave fans with serious disappointment over the unfulfilled promise of a stellar career and a long-time anchor for the Cubs starting pitching staff. Having said that though, I’ve heard an awful lot lately about how over-rated Wood was, how he “choked” during the big games and how he never became what the Cubs had counted on. I only agree with the last piece. His lack of durability – the repeated stints on the DL – came as crushing blows to the Cubs at various times during various seasons. When Wood was on the field, however, he was hardly “vastly over-rated” and I don’t accept that he had a tendency to “choke” the big game away. He clearly was gassed and mismanaged during game 7 of the NLCS in 2003, which came only a week or so after he almost single-handedly ushered the Cubs to their first post-season series win in an eternity. Wood too often battled control problems when he was on the mound, which prevented him from becoming the ace pitcher that management and fans expected. When he pitched, he could be frustrating to watch because of self-made problems, but he consistently (consistently when he was able to pitch, that is) was one of baseball’s more difficult pitchers to hit against The 20-strikeout game against the ‘Stros elevated expectations, no doubt, but talk about that game being suicidal for his career doesn’t fit for me. He didn’t end with a crash because he had a spectacular once-in-a-lifetime nine innings in May of 1998. Had Wood not pitched that masterpiece, the organization still would have counted mightily on him. He was thought of as a star waiting to happen with or without that game. He still would have performed under three managers who abused him. He still would have rigidly refused to change his mechanics when it was in his best interest to do so.
Wood is a strikeout away from 1,300 career Ks, and he has let up 875 hits in 1,128 innings. He has a 3.68 lifetime ERA with a career whip of 1.26. When he pitched, which wasn’t nearly enough, the Cubs had a reasonable chance of being in the game. That’s what makes the possible end of his Cubs career so disappointing – not because he was so over-rated or such a choker.
Inning 3: An April Illusion
And if that’s the case, was Maddux taking days off when Rich Hill and Angel Guzman and Jae Kuk Ryu and Jerome Williams pitched this year? No one is a bigger fan than I am of Greg Maddux. But if Maddux can bring this team something valuable in a trade, and I’m not sure he can, it would be in the Cubs’ interests to respectfully tell him why the trade must be made. Yes, the Cubs owe Maddux complete respect. However, a team 21 games under .500 trading Maddux away to a pennant-contender is not disrespectful if handled in the right way. What has me most angry though is how we keep hearing from our general manager that this team owes Dusty Baker and Greg Maddux, etc. the right to remain in Cub uniforms. More than anything else, Hendry owes fans a hint that this organization is urgently preparing to make changes and distance itself from the puke we’ve seen on and off the field all year long. If the departure of Baker and/or Maddux (not that I equate the two…) help this club for the future, then that’s the only thing that should be weighing on the GM’s mind right now. Inning 4: The Press Conference That Wasn’t Jim Hendry was going to evaluate the team over the All-Star break to decide what changes needed to be made. Four days later, Hendry voiced support for his manager and wondered where rumors of his firing began. I’m not sure anyone – and I mean anyone – could have envisioned what a miserable and self-delusional GM Hendry has become. He built up a glowing reputation by getting the Cubs out of bad, seemingly impossible contracts (hello Todd Hundley) when he first became GM. But we’re now watching a wreck, an executive who is rigidly locked into one way of thinking and doesn’t appear ready to acknowledge “the plan ain’t working.” It’s clear to many that Baker and his coaches should have been dismissed a long time ago. But if Hendry disagrees, then what good does it do not to sign Baker now—not that I would be anything but angry about that decision. What gets me is that he says he’s doing what’s best for the Chicago Cubs. How is not making a decision one way or the other about Baker best for the Cubs? This is a lost season. The second-half should be used for developing young players and bringing better understanding to the organization about how to build for the future. Those goals could very well be at odds with a manager who has to win to keep his job. That’s a situation that is not best for the Chicago Cubs – it’s best for a sheepish executive not willing to make a decision when the time is right for it. Inning 5: A Season Under This Regime The idea that Hendry still needs to evaluate Baker and this team is, of course, so ridiculous it asks fans to turn off brain cells. Remember that 2006 does not reflect the first year of Baker and this set of coaches. If we go back to the last 162 games under the same manager and the same coaches, we’ve seen the Cubs lose 95 times. That includes a 16-13 September when there was no pressure and little to play for. We’ve seen well over the equivalent of a season of big-market losing baseball, of a team that plays and thinks poorly. Hendry needs more time? Innings 6 and 7: Jacque and Juan Those of us who were not enthusiastic by off-season acquisitions of Jacque Jones and Juan Pierre may be catching some flack now that both players appear to have turned their seasons around to some degree. But this misses the point. I was against both pickups – especially Jones – but never because I thought Jones was a terrible player or that Jones and Pierre would play at the level they did the first two months of the season. Both players under-achieved in these opening months – even to many who opposed acquiring them. Jones is now batting over.300 and his offensive output is somewhat better than I would have expected. But the problem with his signing is that it’s for relatively big money and he’s locked in for two more years at a power position. The Cubs need major upgrades. A mediocre right fielder cuts off one big opportunity to upgrade. And let’s not oversell this turnaround by Jones even though his OPS right now is a career best .861. He’s on pace to hit more home runs than expected – upper 20’s—but he still strikes out a lot and has been terrible whenever a lefty is on the mound. (OBP .235/SLG .385/OPS .621). That’s a platoon player if you ask me. And his defense has been less than I expected. Juan Pierre has resurrected his season to a degree with a decent June and July. Now his OBP is .318. Truth is, what we’ve seen of Pierre lately is a bit closer to the Pierre I thought the Cubs had acquired. But the Cubs gave away promising pitching prospects to get Pierre who was coming off a bad year. And as Pierre has grown older, he’s become more streaky – in part because he doesn’t rely on walks to achieve his OBP. He needs hits and lots of them. The Cubs are now talking about signing him beyond this year, and I truthfully don’t have much of an answer as to what the alternative would be. But the big question is this: If Pierre is in center and Jones is in right in 2007, exactly where does the team target in the everyday lineup for massive improvement? That leaves left field and second base by my count. Inning 8: Is This Unprecedented? I must confess that I don’t follow other sports like I do baseball so I’ve started to ask friends this question: Have we ever seen in any professional sport what we’re seeing in the upper offices of Wrigley Field this summer?
This is what I mean. This is a team in a big-market town with a payroll of $95 million or so. The team crashed and burned in the middle of last year. Is there any comparable example of a team that has been this bad for this long with this kind of a payroll and in this kind of a market that has not made a single serious move with its executives, managers and coaches?
Inning 9: Back in the Game I wanted to apologize for the lack of activity at times on this site. Ross has carried the load heroically when he can, but we don’t have to look far for an example to know that a team needs depth. When I accepted the offer to contribute here, I was very explicit in saying that there would be stretches where I would not be available to post. So I apologize for the lack of activity at times and tip my hat to Ross for keeping the game moving without much help in the lineup or on the bench. We are working to see if we can provide a bit more punch to our roster.
| |||
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
On 6 and 7) Jones has played far above my expectations, and the Cubs should trade him now that he has real value. He won't do it next year or the year after, and I doubt he'll even be considered an asset when 2007 is done.
I was against the Juan Pierre trade, and I'm still against it after seeing his June and July. If we had a competant farm development system, the three players we gave away would be valuable assets, and Pie would be better than Pierre in 2007. This was a mistake from the start, and by resigning him, we'll just be trying to make mistake work just to avoid admitting making a mistake.
The Knicks
In a similar vein, I see the two front offices on very similar paths right now. Thomas fired the coach and is taking the reins in 2006-7. The team will be so bad (and he'll be so low on excuses) that there will be no choice but to fire him. If Hendry extends Baker neither Jim nor MacPhail will get the tabula rasa of some sort of fresh start - they will all sink together on a team that looks doomed to more futility in 2007.
As bad as things have been; how will the Cubs get better? A healthy Mark Prior and Derrek Lee (the first one is looking less likely than ever) will not create the 25-30 game swing the team needs - if they keep up their current pace for the rest of the year. Not even close.
I have a list of people who were interested in forming a splinter blog the last time you all took a lengthy hiatus. I'd be happy to send it your way if you want people who would be more than willing to contribute.
(I understand that lives get busy and we can't expect everyone to contribute something every day, but it's been almost 3 weeks since anything's been posted, and almost 6 weeks since anyone but Ross made a post. Let some of us help carry the burden. We're here every single day, living and dying with this team. It's just crazy to let this thing sit here fallow like some teenager's abandoned Myspace page.)
That leaves left field and second base by my count.
This sums up the Cubs' problems best. For as bad as this team is, they have surprisingly few gaping holes to fill in the offseason. Even in left-field, they've got Matt Murton, who's cheap and should be getting better over time. That leaves 2nd-base, really, as their only hole (unless they don't re-sign Pierre, and even then, they've been raving about Pie for years), and you don't find impact bats at second base. Pretty much, this offseason's going to amount to Hendry making an offer to Alfonso Soriano, and if he turns it down, then Hendry won't know what to do and he'll probably throw a 3-year contract at the next free-agent second-baseman on his Rolodex (Todd Walker?).
On the pitching staff, they should have 4 starters set: Z, Prior, Marshall, Marmol, and enough in-house candidates, that, if he wanted to, I could see Hendry deciding we were set there. At best, he'll throw some money at Zito and maybe settle for Maddux if he loses out on Zito.
The bullpen will basically be in the 2nd year of their 3-year contracts; there's nothing to do there. Hell, even utility infielder is set with Neifi!
Fixing this team requires some creativity and, so far, Jim Hendry hasn't shown any. His roster approach is very much - identify a hole, fill it; identify a scapegoat, trade him. I can't even see who this year's scapegoat is likely to be.
Personally, what I'd do is try to think creatively. A Jones/Murton platoon could be really good, and with Murton as the 4th-outfielder, he'll probably still get into 100-120 games with 400 PAs. I'd offer Prior up as trade bait. The Cubs need to make a clear break from the idea that all they need is for Wood and Prior to get healthy and they're World Series contenders again. I wouldn't give him away for nothing, of course, but try to see if you can't turn him into an elite hitter. I've suggested elsewhere, I'd like to see them try to get Adam Dunn for Prior. If Prior's not valued that highly, then I'd up the offer at our end.
Then, I'd try to get somebody like Nomar (is he a free-agent again?) or somebody of that caliber to be a super-sub, playing 100-120 games wherever needed, serving as injury insurance, DH in inter-league games, top pinch hitter. John Mabry, Jose Macias, and Neifi Perez are not that guy. If the team hadn't so completely soured him by now, maybe Todd Walker could do something like that.
For the starting rotation, I'd try to give as many second-half starts to Hill, Guzman, Williams, and Ryu as possible and decide if any of them can be major-league starters. Even at that, they'll probably need another pitcher or two for next year's rotation, especially if they trade Prior, and that should probably be their free-agent focus.
But, I expect Dusty managing this team next year, Hendry's two big offseason targets will be Soriano and Zito, at least one of whom he won't get, and the White Sox will outdraw the Cubs in attendance next year on their way to becoming the dominant Chicago baseball team.
2) I agree. Wood's a good pitcher. Pitchers get hurt. Injuries are not a sign of choking, moral turpitude or anything else. Who knows what it could have been like with competent trainers?
3) I don't think there's any danger of disrespecting Maddux. He knows the score and, more importantly, I can't imagine he wants to be on a 100-loss team ... and given the way he's been pitching, this might be his last season. You go to Maddux, ask him if he'd like to be traded to a contender and, if he says yes, you do the best you can. If he says no ... I think he has a no-trade clause anyway.
As to Maddux & young pitchers, this seems just part of the Braves mystique, like how each of their pitching prospects was a future CYA winner. I took a superficial look once and it was actually rather hard to see Maddux having any effect upon his arrival. He may have had an effect later but that's impossible to separate from the Cox/Mazzone effect.
As to the Hendry part of that inning, this has been a season full of "emotion." You "respect" players, Dusty feels really bad about how things are going, Womack felt bad about his performance with the Cubs a couple years back and has apologized for it several times, etc.
4) A few years back, BPro's Cubs preview was about how slow-moving McPhail has always been. Their case wasn't nearly as convincing as they apparently thought it was but if they are correct, this would be consistent.
Which brings us to the question I really wish I had the answer to: how much power does Hendry really have in the organization? Several roster moves seem to be Dusty specials; more than a few times now Hendry has called up a player only to see him sit; several times he's made a statement (e.g. "Dubois is going to be the starter") only to have to "clarify" a few days later (by "start" he of course meant "might platoon"). Those all suggest, though hardly prove, Baker was calling the shots when it comes to players and usage.
This latest escapade, in conjunction with BPro's claims about McPhail, may indicate that McPhail is really calling the shots on Dusty. Hendry opens his mouth only to have McPhail tell him that's not the way it's going to work.
5) They're trying to play the PR game. They've blown it but are still playing it.
6) Please don't start talking about how Juan Pierre has turned it around. Juan Pierre is like Scott Podsednik (and Matty Alou and Willie Wilson and Ichiro and a bejillion others in baseball history) -- when he hits 300+ (and runs and fields well), he's reasonably valuable; when he doesn't hit 300+, he's not. BA is highly variable so maybe I shouldn't write off Pierre, but I'm thinking he's more a true 275 hitter these days than a true 305 one.
7) I still don't have a huge problem with Jones' signing. And $5.5 M simply isn't a lot of money. This isn't a crippling contract. Of course that doesn't mean the Cubs will have the sense/guts to write it off.
You're absolutely right that this was a typically blah Cubs move -- perfectly fine in isolation, dissapointing as part of a pattern. What is frustrating is not Jones' contract per se nor what it locks the Cubs into -- you can't do better than Jones for $5.5 M (you might get luckier or unluckier of course) and 3 years is pretty standard these days. What's frustrating is that Jones' money plus Neifi's money plus one of the relievers' money and you're talking about a real impact player. It's Guzman, Wilson, Maldonado instead of Maddux writ small.
8) The Clippers don't quite count -- they were never high payroll were they? And although big market, a distant, distant 2nd in that market. Knicks are a good comp. In baseball, the 2001-2002 O's were a sorry, overpriced lot (and they gave Hargrove another go in 2003); the 93 Mets (though they did fire Torborg very early in the season).
9) Welcome back.
In a similar vein, I see the two front offices on very similar paths right now.
Interesting comparison to the Knicks and the Clippers. I'm not all that knowledgable about basketball so certain questions come to mind: Have the Knicks been this bad for this long and gone all that time without any hint of significant changes -- even if they are poor changes -- from the front office? In basketball, when there's a dud of a team for a long time, there's often fan focus on changing the coach or the general manager, but is there the equivalent of baseball's coaches? In other words, when we look at the Cubs, we wonder how in the world not only has Baker survived this long, but Rothschild and Clines as well. Do avid fans of basektabll teams zero in on assistant coaches or other coaches in the same way?
Finally, does basketball's salary cap make any difference regarding this comparison? A fan could blast Cubs management for the contracts it gave to a Glendon Rusch and a Neifi Perez. Some fans have advocated that the Cubs should trade these players if possible or be willing to eat their contracts, but do NBA teams have the same flexibility? And does the salary cap make the idea of "a big-market team" less meaningful in basketball?
Thanks for the comparisons. I've simply had the feeling this summer that I was seeing something I had never seen before -- even in all my years of following this futile Cubs organization. And I couldn't help wonder whether it was as unique as I perceived it to be in professional sports.
7) I still don't have a huge problem with Jones' signing. And $5.5 M simply isn't a lot of money. This isn't a crippling contract. Of course that doesn't mean the Cubs will have the sense/guts to write it off.
I think DTM makes an excellent point: That Jones has turned his season around to some degree and is posting decent numbers could provide an unexpected opportunity to trade him away to a team in contention. If the Yankees have any interest as reported, the Cubs organization could be able to address criticisms of the Jones acquisition and get out from a contract of another two years. If the Cubs were to get something back for Jones and acquire a real difference maker in right field in the off season, the signing of Jones is no longer an issue.
I agree, as I usually do, with most of the well-stated points Walt raises. We simply have some disagreement over the acquisition of Jones. I was much more against it. But Walt raises a valid point in saying that $5.5 million for a right fielder isn't a tremendous amount of money in the current market. The problem I have is that the $5.5 million is for an everyday player who performs at an unacceptable level whenever a lefty takes the mound. And that this is an organization that is less likely to write off the Jones signing as Walt suggests. Either Jones gets traded with almost all of his money paid for by another team or he's our starting right fielder again next year, I would venture to guess.
And the real issue, of course, comes when we consider this team in a "holistic" way. A mediocre right fielder and signings of players such as Perez and Rusch (as Walt suggests) create a lot of unsubstantial roster fill and less room for cleaning up a mess.
I think it's a fair guesstimate to say that what we're seeing from Jones right now is likely the best we'll ever get from him and perhaps better than what we'll see over the next two years. If I had to predict, which is a dangerous thing, the Cubs will still have Jones next year. The team then might be best off platooning Jones and Murton in right and going after a left fielder that really matters. I'm not thrilled by that scenario for several reasons, but Carlos Lee in left and Jones/Murton in right certainly makes the team better offensively.
Thanks for the offer. I have relayed this information, and I hope we'll be able to get more regular posting here soon. I agree that that would be best to make the blog thrive. My situation is not likely to change: I will post from time to time -- occasionally in bunches -- but there will be stretches where I can't post, which is how it's been from the start. So I agree that it would be worthwhile to increase our staff of posters and have suggested so.
We're in agreement here, although I would say it's reasonable to state, as I did, that he has turned it around in June and July for the reasons you give here: He has hit 300+ in June and July making him valuable over that period of time.
But if it's true that he's a .275 hitter now, his overall value as a leadoff man is completely diminished. I think Pierre has become streaky in just this way. We see stretches of old Juan during a given period. But this type of a player is of little overall value if he's too streaky: With no power to speak of and no ability to get on base in any other way than hits, Pierre's value as a leadoff man rests solely with being able to get a lot of hits consistently throughout the year. That's just what he did for a handful of seasons during his career. I'm just not convinced he can show that consistency anymore. If he's able to get hits in bunches for half a season or even two-thirds of a season, that's not good enough for me because his value is basically nil the rest of the time. He has nothing else to fall back on.
Rookie second baseman Ryan Theriot got his first start Saturday after receiving only four at-bats during his first stint in the majors May 8-26.
Theriot became the sixth player to get at least one start at second this year, joining Todd Walker (33), Neifi Perez (24), Jerry Hairston (18), Tony Womack (12) and Freddie Bynum (1). Baker couldn't say how much playing time Theriot would get at second.
"He just got here," Baker said. "We still have to win ballgames. Everybody says 'Mix in the young guys.' I have a bunch of young guys in already."
A bunch = 2, apparently.
At least on a superficial level, an argument can be made that yes, it does. The Finals cities' baseball teams are both considered "small market" (although Cuban makes that moot for the Mavs). Looking at the conference-final cities, Detroit isn't seen as one of the NBA's glamour-destination cities and San Antonio isn't anyone's idea of a megapolis, either. If the NBA had MLB's financial structure it's hard to imagine Tim Duncan, LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, and Elton Brand *all* staying with their respective teams ... gotta think at least two or three of those guys, were they MBLers of comparable skill, would have jumped ship to the Yankees or Red Sox or Dodgers by now.
I'm trying to think of an NFL team that's a good comp for the Cubs but nothing feels quite right ... the Mike Brown Bengals aren't too far off, maybe the Cards, though neither meet the big-market requirement. 1970s Giants, maybe. The spin-the-wheel feel of the NFL, though, with its shorter seasons, reward-the-weak scheduling, expanded wild-card setup, and the importance of the shared-equally national-TV money pretty much prevent teams from being as totally hopeless from a playoff-contention standpoint as the Cubs currently are.
I'm not too down on Pierre, even though he's only at .316/.355. Lifetime he's a .302 hitter and I'm not sure why, as Walt posits, he'd at 28 (29 in August) suddenly become at true .275 hitter. Granted, he hit only .276 (not enough for him) last year, but he was at .326 the year before and over .300 the year before that (and .357 over 143 at bats since June 1). If he starts getting nagging leg injuries or puts on weight and loses a step or two, then it's time to dump him, but if he's healthy and in shape then there's no reason to think that he won't hit .300 over his next 600-700 at bats.
Happy Base Ball
Happy Base Ball
The difference between .300 and .280 is 2 hits per week. Pierre has zero pop in his bat. He depends completely on batting the ball down and beating the throw. After the wear and tear of 5 seasons of 160 games and 70 SB attempts each, it wouldn't be surprising if he has lost an ounce of both bat speed and foot speed.
And, while other players are compensating for those things by adding some BB and HR, Pierre can't add HR because he isn't strong enough, and he has shown no inclination to add walks. Pitchers know that he has no power, so they throw him lots of strikes. If he doesn't swing, he'll be down in the count, so he swings and puts the ball in play early. It's a vicious cycle, and if his speed really has started to decline, Pierre's run as a regular will not last much longer.
I see no reason to believe that Pierre's speed has fallen to the point where his usefulness starts to vanish. His K/AB is about his career mark, so as long as he retains his speed -- and he's reknowned as one of the hardest-working men in show business, so staying in shape shouldn't be too big of a concern -- I say, again, that there's no reason to expect him to not be a .300 hitter through his 30th birthday.
Happy Base Ball
1997 Chicago Bears come to mind. Hendry's comment about how 79-83 isn't acceptable pales in comparison to the infamous "all the pieces are in place" proclamation. (closes eyes and tries to picture what would happen if Alonzo Spellman played under Baker). Well, the good news is after that team's refusal to reshuffle the deck in the off-season, the owner got fired after one more season. I remember Steve Rosenbloom had a contest - find the best movie title parodies to describe that Bears team. My favorite submissions were "Kramer Vs. Lamer" and "Punt for the Rest of October." Someone should have a similar contest for this Cubs squad.
One might want to toss out the NFL because of its salary cap, but in my opinion that would be wrong. The idea would be to look for a team spending enough money so that it can't blame its finances on why things are going poorly.
Actually, the "all the pieces" comment may have been about the '96 Bears, but ah well.
These are the lead-off hitters for yesterday's junior-varsity (what you call "National League") games:
LA ..... Furcal ..... .346/.355
StL .... Eckstein ... .373/.364
Phi .... Rollins .... .314/.420
SF ..... Winn ....... .340/.423
Atl .... Betemit .... .349/.491
SD ..... Roberts .... .357/.412
Mil .... Gross ...... .361/.456
AZ ..... Byrnes ..... .352/.523 (.230 ISO SLG)
Was .... Soriano .... .351/.568 (.290 ISO SLG)
Pit .... McLouth .... .302/.362 (.281/.329 in 140 AB as leadoff)
CO ..... Carroll .... .390/.426
Cin .... Denorfia ... .348/.409 (22 AB)
FL ..... Ramirez .... .344/.410
Hou .... Biggio ..... .334/.424 (.318 OBA in 282 AB as leadoff)
NY ..... Valentin ... .330/.539 (.251 ISO SLG)
Go Pirates.
Pierre's lifetime .302 BA and .351 OBA would fit in nicely with those numbers, so if he is a .300 hitter, he's still a very useful leadoff hitter (and his speed makes the OBA even more valuable, if only marginally). He's always going to be carrying a deficit in the power department, but we already knew that.
By the way, it's only one day's worth of lineups, but don't those look like good power numbers from the one hole? Why are Soriano and Byrnes batting behind pitchers?
Happy Base Ball
It's been shown that speed is highest in the early 20s, and then starts to decline. If Pierre has lost a quarter step, he can compensate by having improved his SB *technique* over the years. And 3b are too rare to tell us much at this point. That he hasn't gained weight and works hard will not prevent some natural loss of speed. If he has lost a fraction of a second, from home to 1st base, he might lose a hit or two a week.
I assume that Pierre has lost at least a little bit of speed, just due to the ageing curve. Whether it's enough to affect his stats yet, I am not sure. I am only offering an explanation for why W Davis' suspicion might be correct.
No way, absolutely no way, does a quarter-step loss in speed rob him of a hit or two a week. Maybe if 60-70% of his hits were infield hits, but no way that's true; I doubt he averages even two infield hits per week (Anyone got the numbers? I remember Vince Coleman got about 50-60 IFHs a year and I have to believe that Coleman represents the absolute natural limit of the infield-hits skill set).
I'll also argue that the studies which show speed declines after a player's early twenties also show increase in bulk after a player's late 20s. There isn't any easily-discernable added bulk for Pierre; we're not talking Andrew Jones, here. Couple that with his work ethic and I would bet that Pierre's age-induced speed loss would be substantially less than the average player's. If the average guy loses, say, 20% of his speed between 25 and 30 (and I'm just pulling out numbers here for illustrative purposes), then Pierre's loss probably would be in the 5-10% range.
Let's say that an in-his-prime Pierre averages 180 hits a year. Let's say 30% of them are infield hits; that's 54 IFHs a year -- Coleman territory. How many of those IFHs does he lose if he loses 20% of his footspeed? How many if he loses 10%? At the 5-10% mark, I think we're talking maybe, MAYBE, ten hits a year lost to slower footspeed, and that's assuming that Pierre's infield-hit totals are significantly higher than I think they really are.
I don't see how a Pierre who runs 90% as well as he did two years ago when he hit .326 can't still hit .300. A normal loss in footspeed won't affect 70-80% of his hits, and won't take away all that many from the rest. Hell, even catchers leg out the occasional infield hit.
Anyway, I'm done arguing for JP ... I was as happy as anyone in Denver when he left the Rockies, since in every home game he was giving up about 150 slugging-average points to the other guy's center fielder, plus he represents exactly the type of player to whom Baseball Men -- especially the Dustys of the world -- become overly committed. I was only taking issue with the notion that he's now a true .275 hitter.
Happy Base Ball
Should say "after a player's early 20s".
Happy Base Ball
On a personal note, I always read Gonfalon Cubs, as the Cubs are such a fascinating train wreck. The Tigers have been putrid for 13 years, but never really like this. I guess this is one reason sports are so interesting - so many different ways to win and lose.
* And more importantly, I’m in no real mood to have “fun” with the ineptitude, rigidity and disregard for baseball fans that this management continues to display long after the ship has hit the iceberg and the passengers have fled.
The thing that astonishes me most about this season isn't how bad the team is playing -- yes, they are playing far worse than I would have predicted, but I also predicted they'd be under .500 anyway.
What's astonished me is that, to a large extent, the passengers *haven't* fled -- at least in the sense that they continue to flock to Wrigley in large numbers. While we know that attendance is based on pre-season ticket sales, the fact remains that although the Cubs may not be drawing 40,000 fans, they may very well be drawing 30,000+ . . . and doing so on a consistent basis.
Why? This is a serious question and one that clearly affects the way the team is run.
It may be that fans will continue to visit Wrigley as a mecca -- especially those from out of town. If that's the case and the fans truly want to have an impact, most likely it will have to come in the form of lower TV ratings. Even then, though, how dramatically do ratings have to go down to materially affect the Cubs media revenues?
*It’s clear to many that Baker and his coaches should have been dismissed a long time ago. But if Hendry disagrees, then what good does it do not to sign Baker now—not that I would be anything but angry about that decision. What gets me is that he says he’s doing what’s best for the Chicago Cubs. How is not making a decision one way or the other about Baker best for the Cubs?
I'm going out on a limb here, but it's one that I've probably gone out on a few times lately. Not only do I think Dusty will manage the rest of the season, but I think he *should* manage the rest of the season. Let's face it -- bringing in a new manager it this point is not going to accomplish anything. It won't help develop kids (because the new manager will be eager to remove the "interim" label) and it won't get the Cubs into playoff contention. The only thing firing Dusty now will do is make *us* feel glad that the Wicked Witch of the West is finally out of town.
Although I'd love to see that as much as anyone, I don't think my personal psychic benefit is a sufficient reason for the Cubs to have to pay money to two managers for the next few months. They're better off letting Dusty continue to drive the team into the grounnd -- making a convincing case on why both Dusty and Hendry need to be dismissed.
*This latest escapade, in conjunction with BPro's claims about McPhail, may indicate that McPhail is really calling the shots on Dusty. Hendry opens his mouth only to have McPhail tell him that's not the way it's going to work.
For the most part, I've given up on the notion that there is a large Baker-Hendry schism and have thought that either (a) they see the world quite similarly or (b) to the extent they do disagree, Hendry is subservient to Baker. Either way, it's bad news for the organization.
Still, Walt is hitting on something here that I've been wondering about for the last few weeks. It seems that everytime Hendry has gotten in front of a microphone, he's gone out of his way to say two things -- first, that he's working on his own timetable, not anything specific or anything on which he'll elaborate further; and second, that *he's* the one making the decisions.
I've always thought it was odd that he was saying this, because who is really questioning this? MacPhail has insisted that he has no role and I haven't read any media speculation that Hendry isn't entrusted with this responsibility. Frankly, the more I hear Hendry insist that it's his call and his call alone, the more I think that it *isn't* his call.
After actually sitting down and looking at some "career trajectory" studies, I agree with you. I think JP is now a true .290 batter.
Also, in a typical season JP hits about 50% more GB plus bunts than an avg player. Plus, a higher % of JP's GB and bunts are dependent on speed for the outcome. So, would we not expect that any loss of speed will have noticably more impact on Pierre's BAvg than that of a typical player?
Even under my more optimistic analysis above, I wouldn't want to keep paying him beyond, say, 2007, 2008 at the most.
Happy Base Ball
Although I'd love to see that as much as anyone, I don't think my personal psychic benefit is a sufficient reason for the Cubs to have to pay money to two managers for the next few months. They're better off letting Dusty continue to drive the team into the grounnd -- making a convincing case on why both Dusty and Hendry need to be dismissed.
Disagree with you on this one point, djf.
I'm not one to usually advocate that "message sending," or making a move just to make a move is sound practice for an organization trying to better itself. But this Cubs organization is a different animal. It is in desperate need of an overhaul in thinking, and getting rid of Dusty Baker to me is imperative -- as soon as possible. It isn't that Baker's firing closes this franchise's deep cracks; it's that this is the first and easiest change that needs to be made, IMHO.
To me, there are reasons to fire him yesterday. And here is where I go back on my usual position in these matters: Fans, players and the culture of Cubdom need right now to see/hear a sign from unpstairs that a deep and committed change in thinking is taking place. The level of complacency from Hendry/MacPahil has been so impenetrable and damaging to this organization that the sooner serious changes are made, the better.
Secondly, and as stated earlier, a team 20 games under .500 and trying to prepare for next year and beyond does not benefit from having a manager who must "win" to keep his job.
Where we may be closer to agreement is over whether the Cubs should spend lots of money right now to hire a new manager had Baker been fired. The real question to me isn't the usual one about who should be hired by the Cubs -- Uncle Lou, Buck, etc. -- but what changes should be made in the way the Cubs look for a new manager. I would have had no problem seeing our third base coach or broadcaster take over as manager for the next few months and then the Cubs conducting a much more thought-out interview process for a new manager in the off season. It would also have given some opportunity to evaluate any interim manager from within the organization.
Under that scenario, the Cubs would not have paid a ton of additional money, young players would likely have seen more playing time and fans would have been sent a message they more than deserve to hear: This was the start of some serious change.
Finally, I have been with you in the belief that it is best for Baker and company to lose, lose, lose so serious change can be made. But I think our "wish" has come true, and astonishingly enough, it still hasn't worked. I don't think anything the Cubs do for the remainder of the season puts Hendry's job in jeopardy. He's here for two years no matter what. If losing every series until the end of the year meant no JH next year, I'd be in favor of that. But it doesn't. Moreover, Hendry isn't waiting for Baker to crash and burn with this team so he can make a change in the off-season; he's hoping, I think, that Baker's team will play well enough in the second half where he feels he can get by with extending his contract -- as unlikely as that might be.
So to me, keeping Baker right now is a bad sign on a bunch of different levels. Among other things, it indicates that the GM is still looking at wins and losses this year rather than looking to build toward a better tomorrow as a top priority.
What's astonished me is that, to a large extent, the passengers *haven't* fled -- at least in the sense that they continue to flock to Wrigley in large numbers. While we know that attendance is based on pre-season ticket sales, the fact remains that although the Cubs may not be drawing 40,000 fans, they may very well be drawing 30,000+ . . . and doing so on a consistent basis.
Point well taken. When I mentioned passenger fleeing, I meant that in terms of believing that this team has any chance to perform in any meaningful way this year. By Hendry's latest comments, although he didn't specifically state this, you might think that he hasn't given up on 2006.
Everyone else with any baseball sense has, I think. Whether the Cubs are able to play .500 for the rest of the year or lose 6 out of every 10 games is not what's important. And I don't think it is to most fans (passengers) either. But it still is, apparently, to Hendry who is keeping his manager to see if the team can start winning more in the second half.
The park filling up every day is a whole other story...
Cedeno -4, he is at the bottom of regular MLB SS. He has performed significantly worse than a bench player, even N Perez. Yet nobody is talking about how bad he has been. Is he really the SS of the future, or just a scrub who looks good in a uniform?
Murton -1, another disappointment. Without HR power in LF, he has to be really good in the other facets to merit a starting job. But he's not a defensive stud, not a speed guy, and not a .320 hitter. He draws a few more BB than the typical Cub, but that's not near enough.
Here's where we disagree -- while all your points are well taken, they don't really present reasons why Dusty has to be fired today, July 16. rather than at the end of the season.
Do fans need to know that there will be a new sheriff in town and a committed change? Absolutely, but there isn't really any reason why getting that message in early October is so much worse than getting it now. We all may want Dusty gone now (I sure do), but there is no real reason why the organization will be demonstrably worse by letting him go in October.
Furthermore, as for your point that "a team 20 games under .500 and trying to prepare for next year and beyond does not benefit from having a manager who must 'win' to keep his job," how will this change if the Cubs fire Dusty? Most likely, they will bring in an interim manager, and that interim manager will have even more reason to prove himself in August/September than Dusty does.
I don't think anything the Cubs do for the remainder of the season puts Hendry's job in jeopardy. He's here for two years no matter what. If losing every series until the end of the year meant no JH next year, I'd be in favor of that. But it doesn't.
Really? How do we know? Hendry isn't making $4mm/yr like Dusty, and as this season rolls along, it is Hendry that is increasingly drawing the media fire -- even more than Dusty.
If this team limps to a 65 win season, built by Hendry, it is my hope that people will remember last December. At that point, the Cubs had just concluded a season where they missed one of their main hitting stars for several months, along with Wood and Prior each for over a month, and when the team won 79, Hendry clearly and decisively pronounced: "79 wins is not acceptable, and will not be acceptable as long as I'm the GM."
It's too bad the media doesn't recall that quote every chance they get.
Yeah, Cedeno and Murton have been more part of the problem than part of the solution this year. Personally, I think Murton's probably been screwed up by the Cubs' coaching staff because his natural inclinations - show patience and try to use the whole field - run counter to the Cubs' preference for pull-hitting hackers. That said, you're right that Murton hasn't shown enough power this year to be a good corner outfielder.
Cedeno, on the other hand, has no plate discipline and very little power, so he's going to be overly reliant on maintaining a respectable batting average to have any value (gee, who else does that sound like?).
The problem, though, is if you replace Murton and Cedeno with free agents (the only way the Cubs are likely to replace either - any trade they make would likely be for a guy whose team thinks he's overpaid, so it's the same difference), then all of a sudden you've got all eight positions filled with guys making free-agent money (except maybe for Barrett? and Pie if they put him in CF, which I don't expect).
The Cubs aren't cheap, but can they really afford that at their payroll? With a payroll of $100 million, that works out to $4 million per roster spot. If you're paying $5-$6 million for average position players (e.g., Jacque Jones, Juan Pierre), and $2.5 million for bench players (e.g., Neifi, Rusch), and $5 million apiece for bullpen arms (Eyre, Howry, Dempster), then where are you saving money so you can afford your $10 million corner infielders (Lee, Ramirez) and stud starting pitcher (Zambrano)? You've got to be able to find some dirt-cheap pre-arb players if you want to be able to afford to fill some of your holes in the free-agent market.
So, while it's true that Murton's and Cedeno's performances this year have been somewhat disappointing, I think they're still valuable to the Cubs in terms of giving them payroll flexibility to fill other holes. Plus, of course, they're both still young enough that I think we can expect them to get better next season, and, in Murton's case, I think there's a chance that he could get a lot better (although I think that would require a change in manager/coaching staff). But, yeah, in general, your point about Cedeno and Murton's performance this season is well-taken.
You make a good argument that there's no point in firing Dusty. Yet, I've really grown to dislike the man, so on a personal level, I want them to fire him. I also fear that every win with Dusty managing brings them that much closer to bringing him back next season.
So, I had a crazy idea - perhaps even crazier than my earlier suggestion that they hire Derrek Lee as player-manager (which I'd still endorse). What if Jim Hendry named himself interim manager? I think he coached college ball before he became an MLB exec. This team desperately needs to evaluate what they have going into next year and to do this they really need to find playing time for a ton of their young guys - Theriot, Fontenot, Pie, Restovich (who's not terribly young), Guzman, Hill, Ryu, Wuertz, Williams, and others that I'm sure I'm forgetting. I hope Theriot's game yesterday convinced Dusty that playing Theriot at second base isn't going to cost him any wins, but I doubt it.
I just fear that come August 1st, the Cubs lineup will include Walker, Neifi, Phil Nevin in left, Jacque Jones in right against LHP, and Glendon Rusch in the starting rotation. In which case I'll know we're doomed to another 90+ loss season in 2007.
This is a valid point, which perhaps goes beyond the question of no-Dusty or Dusty right now. It really speaks to the "goals" of Jim Hendry for the remainder of this season. By keeping Dusty Baker around, and based on comments he has made most recently, it seems to me that Baker's continuation as skipper of this club is a reflection that Hendry still is thinking too much about wins and losses and turning this season around.
But I can see where an interim manager might press for wins at the expense of developing younger players as well. Point well taken. I guess my answer to that -- as unlikely as it might seem -- is that Hendry would have to let the interim manager know exactly what he expects and what management is looking at for the remainder of the season. And wins shouldn't be at the top of the list.
The problem with keeping Baker around until the off-season is that Cubs management isn't doing that for the same reasons you advocate. It's doing that to see if he can start winning, and woe us all if the team does that enough to have Baker come back in April. That will make neither of us happy. I just don't see the real down side in canning him now.
Really? How do we know? Hendry isn't making $4mm/yr like Dusty, and as this season rolls along, it is Hendry that is increasingly drawing the media fire -- even more than Dusty.
Nothing is for certain, but I don't even think a 65-win season costs Hendry his job. It's completely out of character for isolated and well-bunkered Andy MacPhail to pull the plug on a GM within a season of giving him a two-year extension. I don't see that happening under any circumstances -- as much as I'd like to.
Here's a case in point. We all have "fond" memories of Ed Lynch as GM. Remember that MacPhail never really fired Lynch despite major media fire and fan criticism. It was Lynch who came to MacPhail and resigned. In fact, he had to do it twice. The first time, long after it was clear he was a brutally bad GM and the Cubs were going nowhere, MacPhail talked him out of it.
How I wish you were right, djf. How I wish I would come back here and eat my words and tip my hat to you. Which I most certainly will do...
But I just think there's a greater possibility of Juan Pierre hitting a bunch of home runs in the second half than Jim Hendry being canned before the 2007 season.
The only productive reason to fire Baker now is if Mr. Right is ready, willing, and able to take over right now.
Too bad Joe Girardi is already taken.
You make good points, Duffy, but on this, you have more faith in Jim Hendry than me. I still believe that Jim Hendry WANTS Dusty Baker to be his manager next year. If this season goes badly enough, he may have no choice but to go in another direction, but I think Jim Hendry is looking for reasons to retain Dusty, not looking at who should be replacing him.
And me. I'm with Kiko on ths one. I still don't believe Hendry has concluded that Baker is a goner, and I still think he's hoping the Cubs will play well enough to warrant bringing him back.
Hendry, who knows this, would rather not 1) create the impression that he is scapegoating Dusty by firing him in the middle of the season, 2) disrespect Baker by firing him now, as opposed to the gentler approach of declining to renew him in the offseason, 3) have to deal with the flak over his choice of interim manager, and 4) to avoid that, hire a permanent manager on the run, before he is certain who he wants, and before that person might be available.
These are reasonable points about what may be going through Hendry's mind in playing the role of Mr. Freeze right now. But to me, they are unacceptable. When a team with a $95 million payroll is 20 games under .500, and that team has lost 95 of the last 162 games under the same manager (and his coaches), it is the GM's job to address that. Other GMs who put winning as priority No. 1 risk scapegoating his manager, giving the impression of disrespecting his manager, taking flak over making a decision that's part of his job and making a quick decision as to who will be the replacement. All of that goes with the territory.
Truth is, I'm very afraid Duffy is too right. To me, if Hendry is too concerned about "respecting" Baker at the expense of making a tough decision because he's a brutally bad manager for this team, then he's in the wrong job. Which he is.
Good discussion, btw.
Well, a winning team does not depend on cheap but bad regulars to give them payroll flexibility. A winning team has *good* players who are still young and cheap.
A winning team also has a share of avg players. The Cubs have a few (Jones, Pierre, Barrett{off+def}, Walker (off+def), Maddux), but not enough.
The main difference between top teams and bottom teams is the number of star/superstar players. The Cubs only have only 2 (Zambrano and Lee [assuming his 05 performance will largely continue]). Ramirez is also a plus player, but not a star.
The Cubs need a few more stars. Does anyone know who in that category might be available now, or who might be a free agent in the offseason?
I think the Bruce Kimm debacle is still too fresh in our minds. I don't know why Hendry couldn't promote someone from within the organization with the understanding that a) he's to play Murton, Hill, Guzman, et al for the rest of the year and b) whether or not he's retained beyond this season will depend on the development of those players, not on the team's record. Or, just tell him that he's not a candidate to be the permanent manager. Take away his incentive to win at all costs. (Of course, that wasn't really Kimm's motivation. He wanted to help McGriff break some idiotic made-up record, which was insane. I'm sure we can avoid something that monumentally stupid this time.)
I think Dusty and his staff are doing real damage to the development of the young players right now. Certainly, they're not helping. Why assume we can't do any better? Does anyone believe Murton is playing up to his abilities? And, on a sort of related note, why isn't Hill in Chicago? Wouldn't it be better if he were promoted, and told that he'll spend the rest of the year in the rotation, no matter what? Sending him down every time he has a couple bad starts can't be good for him or the Cubs' long term success.
And I'm not sure why we can't have posts here more often. While the essays have been almost uniformly great, we don't necessarily need content in order to comment. We just need a place to chat/commiserate. A daily Gonfalon Cubs thread.
My other suggestion along these lines would be to sign dJf to a long-term contract with incentives for frequent posting.
So do I. I'd be thrilled if they fired Dusty. I just don't think it absolutely has to happen today. IMO, if Jim Hendry comes out on October 2 and says that "we appreciate Dusty's work, but we feel we need to go in another direction for 2007," the message will be sent just as strongly and with the same effect as if it's said today.
* Kiko: I also fear that every win with Dusty managing brings them that much closer to bringing him back next season.
I don't think that will be the case unless the Cubs go more than 10-15 games over .500 in the second half, drawing their season record to 75+ wins. IOW, it's highly unlikely.
I also look at it in the sense that every loss makes it more likely that Dusty is gone.
* Mike: By keeping Dusty Baker around, and based on comments he has made most recently, it seems to me that Baker's continuation as skipper of this club is a reflection that Hendry still is thinking too much about wins and losses and turning this season around.
Hendry said as much this week, in his Wednesday interview on WGN Radio. He essentially said that he wants to see how the club plays for the next week or so, because if they play like they did in Milwaukee, they can turn the ship around -- maybe not for the playoffs (he did not say that), but at least to the point of giving him reason to keep Dusty around.
Yes, that's a dangerous thing and perhaps reason to fire him now. I'm just quite sure that the Cubs aren't going to go on a 25-5 run, so it doesn't really make much difference.
* Mike: I guess my answer to that -- as unlikely as it might seem -- is that Hendry would have to let the interim manager know exactly what he expects and what management is looking at for the remainder of the season. And wins shouldn't be at the top of the list.
Hendry can say those things to Dusty too, and if you don't believe that Dusty will pay any attention, why do you think an interim guy would?
* Mike: I just don't see the real down side in canning him now.
Well, there is the fact that they'd be throwing money down the drain, plus pissing off the minorty who still thinks that Dusty is the right guy and deserves every chance to succeed.
Actually, I look at it from the converse position: From the Cubs standpoint, there is no real down side in keeping him through the end of the season. The damage has already been done and the horse is already out of the barn. See also Duffy Duff's points in Post #32.
* Billy: I don't know why Hendry couldn't promote someone from within the organization with the understanding that a) he's to play Murton, Hill, Guzman, et al for the rest of the year and b) whether or not he's retained beyond this season will depend on the development of those players, not on the team's record. Or, just tell him that he's not a candidate to be the permanent manager. Take away his incentive to win at all costs.
Not so, for the reasons I mentioned above. Why can't Hendry have the same conversation with Dusty? Furthermore, what manager would want to take on the role of an "interim manager" under your scenario -- where there is no hope of having it become permanent?
Even if one did take the job, they would be auditioning for another gig -- if not with the Cubs, then with some other team. Nobody is going to manage from the standpoint that "wins don't matter" -- how are they going to put food on their tables in 2007?
* Billy: I think Dusty and his staff are doing real damage to the development of the young players right now. Certainly, they're not helping.
They may not be helping, but I'm not convinced that bringing in a new guy for August/September -- most likely with another new guy in the spring -- is really going to make a difference either.
* My other suggestion along these lines would be to sign dJf to a long-term contract with incentives for frequent posting.
Thanks for the kind thoughts; you flatter me.
Seriously, I'm here all week. Try the veal and there's a blue show at 11.
Disagree intensely. Sometimes making a change accomplishing something in & of itself. This is the old story of Bill James in the army sending two terms with the same unit stateside. One seargent notices some ugly, ratty curtains and orders them removed. He also adjusts the schedule some. The soldiers notice the man in charge cares, and their performance improves. James gets stuck for a 2nd term when everyone else leaves. New sergeant orders windows with no curtains and orders the old curtains put back. He changes the schedule changed back. The soldiers, not around for the old changes, see the man in charge cares and respond positively.
If you can't find similar examples of this in baseball, then you just ain't trying. They don't all involve Billy Martin & Bob Lemon either. And it doesn't even have to be a change to someone good either. My favorite is the 1956 Braves going absolutely apesh1t the day the utterly incompetent Fred Haney got hired. Began an 11-game winning streak (or so) with his first game and played .750 ball for 6-7 weeks after scuffling beforehand. A change can send a message, even if it's on paper as horrible as trading Giambi for John Freakin' Mabry.
With this Cubs team in particular making a change can have an impact. In a word - accountability. It would show some. Wouldn't that be an interesting change of pace?
It won't help develop kids (because the new manager will be eager to remove the "interim" label)
World's easiest way around this: tell him in advance that you want him to play the kids. If he doesn't, he's got no chance in hell of getting hired full-time. See, that was simple. Interm managers have far less leverage with ownership than the man making $4 million a year. Tell him he'll primarily be evaluated on how well he guides the team, motivates the players, commands their respect, and stabilizes the clubhouse rather than wins and losses.
and it won't get the Cubs into playoff contention.
Only 15 plane crashes get the Cubs into playoff contention. Actually that wouldn't do it. The difference between the Cubs and the best AAA isn't large enough to overcome their gap to the post-season.
The only thing firing Dusty now will do is make *us* feel glad that the Wicked Witch of the West is finally out of town.
And it will: 1) end the not-stop talk of "will Dusty be fired" which is apparently annoying at least some members of the team. 2) Potentially end (or at least discredit) the superthinned-skinnedness of the Cubs in recent years that's cropped up again in the last few weeks, and maybe force the players to focus on the field, 3) diffuse ever increasing fan anger (I'm genuinely curious to see what happens to Cubs' ticket sales this off-season). If they're just going to fire him, why risk even minimal potential downfall in sales by further alienating the fans? Making *us* (as in all Cubs fans) is never a reason to avoid doing something. 4) again, increase accountability.
Although I'd love to see that as much as anyone, I don't think my personal psychic benefit is a sufficient reason for the Cubs to have to pay money to two managers for the next few months. They're better off letting Dusty continue to drive the team into the grounnd -- making a convincing case on why both Dusty and Hendry need to be dismissed.
(WARNING: needlessly obscure historical reference coming up). That's like saying it doesn't serve any point to fire General Haig after the first wave went over the top at Somme. "Well, we don't have a good idea who else will lead right now, and those 20,000 aren't going to reanimate even if we did. Let 'im send up the next wave and we'll worry about it in 1917."
executes the fundamentals (like sac bunting) poorly,
lacks any appearance of cohesive committment toward the common objective of winning,
no obvert appearance of involvement by the manager to the extent of observing field activities
an almost maniacal obsession toward planless hacking.
this manager's prior winning strategy was to swaller his toothpick after every steroid induced park departure.
seems that the roids were more of a factor in the results
either get a roidboid or fire his carcass.
. . . A change can send a message, even if it's on paper as horrible as trading Giambi for John Freakin' Mabry.
With this Cubs team in particular making a change can have an impact. In a word - accountability. It would show some. Wouldn't that be an interesting change of pace?
As far as change for change sake, I guess my question is -- for what end? Who cares if a message is sent now, rather than on October 2? Nothing is going to happen over the next 10 weeks that is really going to be affected.
Seeing that we agree that "only 15 plane crashes [would] get the Cubs into playoff contention," what would a managerial change accomplish, that a change at the end of the season could not?
World's easiest way around this: tell him in advance that you want him to play the kids. If he doesn't, he's got no chance in hell of getting hired full-time. See, that was simple. Interm managers have far less leverage with ownership than the man making $4 million a year. Tell him he'll primarily be evaluated on how well he guides the team, motivates the players, commands their respect, and stabilizes the clubhouse rather than wins and losses.
Again, why can't you tell this to Dusty? How much leverage do you think a guy has when he's on the last 2 months of his contract, his team is 20 games below .500 and the press is riding him on a daily basis?
Furthermore, this is essentially the message Hendry said the other night -- that if things continue this way for another week or two, then they'll have to play the kids and that Dusty won't be judged by his W/L record in August and September. (Of course, there are only a couple of kids who aren't playing at this point.)
And it will: 1) end the not-stop talk of "will Dusty be fired" which is apparently annoying at least some members of the team.
If Hendry says "Dusty is here for the rest of the season," it might halt or at least change all the talk. Even if it doesn't, though, so what? For the most part, the people annoyed are the ones underperforming and who should be gone anyway.
2) Potentially end (or at least discredit) the superthinned-skinnedness of the Cubs in recent years that's cropped up again in the last few weeks, and maybe force the players to focus on the field,
How will it do this? I see no logic or support for this whatsoever. Jacque Jones, Scott Eyre, and Todd Walker are going to have the same feelings and insecurities regardless of the manager. They're not going to change their personalities.
More importantly, though, who cares?
3) diffuse ever increasing fan anger (I'm genuinely curious to see what happens to Cubs' ticket sales this off-season). If they're just going to fire him, why risk even minimal potential downfall in sales by further alienating the fans? Making *us* (as in all Cubs fans) is never a reason to avoid doing something.
I don't see why firing him at the end of the season won't do the same thing. Ticket renewals aren't until January/February -- by that point, it won't make a difference whether Dusty got fired in July or if he got fired in October. Either way, they'll have a new skipper at the helm.
Furthermore, I might add this -- if Dusty's continued presence is having such an effect on the fan base, why are people flocking to Wrigley at 35,000+ per game?
4) again, increase accountability.
This essentially repeats your other points. Again, I don't see how firing Dusty *now* (rather than at the end of the season) makes that big a difference. We all want to see him gone, but in the grand scheme of things, it makes no difference whatsoever.
They might as well save a few bucks and let the team continue to plummet under Dusty, further ending all doubts on why both Dusty and Hendry deserve to be gone.
As for your Haig analogy, I'm not as much of a military historian as I'd like to be, but there is a notable difference -- in your case, it would hypothetically make sense to relieve Gen. Haig, because his continued presence at his post would affect the future direction of the British army. (In your specific analogy, keeping Gen. Haig means that he'll continue to order further assaults and needlessly lose British soldiers.)
Here, though, I'm not talking about keeping Dusty in 2007. I'm talking about firing him on October 2, rather than July 17. There are no military campaigns that need to be strategized and fought during the next 10 weeks and no real reason to think that Dusty's presence will affect the troops in 2007.
Depending on how you define "serious", both the Bears and the Black Hawks fit that bill. (Basketball can't be an example, the cap means there are no major-market teams in the sense that they can spend more money than the have-lesses.) How long did the Bears stick with Wannstedt? and Jauron? How long has Wirtz stuck with Pulford? Admittedly Pully has changed coaches when appropriate, but one could certainly question the seriousness of his commitment to them.
Although I still think there's several very strong reasons why Dusty Baker's firing should be more than immediate, djf has eloquently argued another point of view, which consistently comes back to the idea of: What difference does it make if it's now or October?
I think it makes a big difference for reasons peviously stated, but I want to focus on an emotional one for a second. Let's say djf is right on every point made, and hiring a new manager right now would do absolutely nothing in terms of what happens to the team this year (goes without saying) or what position the team is in next year when it starts 2007. Let's say, as djf states, that current veterans and developing prospects/rookies would fare no better regardless of what manager is in place for the next few months. And that everyone will get their wish when Dusty Baker is canned the day after the season ends. (I think it will take longer than that).
I say he still should be fired. Longtime and devoted fans who devote money and many hours avidly following this team deserve not to wait a second longer to hear Cubs management say: Enough! One of the biggest and most legitimate criticisms among fans of this team -- here and in other worlds of Cubs banter -- is about the mind-numbing complacency continuously displayed by this organization. What djf suggests is more complacency until October. If there were no other reason to advocate Baker's firing, and I think there are, immediately sending a sign that that complacency has come to an end is a legitimate enough one for me.
Cub fans have a right right now to see Hendry act like a real general manager who has their interests in mind as much as he has the interest of making sure to show Dusty Baker "respect." To put it simply, fans deserve the firing of Dusty Baker right now because they deserve not to wait a day longer for a loud and clear message that this team can no longer tolerate or accept the kind of managing and team performance that we've seen on and off the field.
Even if that change would not amount to any tangible difference toward preparing this team in 2007, and again, I'm not convinced of that, a change now -- a clear, direct and definitive message sent to the players and the organization's fan base -- is more than warranted for its very own value.
Many of us have followed this team's woes for a long, long time. We've seen futile front offices come and go, miserable baseball with men in place hardly competent enough to develop a consistently competitive baseball team. What we're seeing right now though is at another level.
And I just can't imagine a handful of baseball teams we all would agree are light years ahead of the Cubs tolerating this manager's and team's performance for another 70+ games without making a change, without providing a sign of new direction. I hardly think the Astros are the cream of the crop in terms of great baseball organizations, but the quote that I posted from its GM regarding recent moves the team has made is so far removed from the thinking of Jim Hendry that it shouted out at me.
For three years, we've seen Dusty Baker lose control of this team. We've seen one horror after another without so much as a single real response from management. We've been told that 2 + 2 = 5, that the organization was moving in the right direction as everything on and off the field told us otherwise.
I just can't buy the argument that we should wait for 2.5 more months before Hendry lets us know the organization needs to move in another direction. Fans deserve to hear that message right now -- and with an urgency and seriousness that sound organizations demonstrate in sports and out of sports all the time. I guess it comes down to this, djf: Baker should be gone now because Cub fans deserve a serious sign in July, not October, that there will be some light at the end of this long, long dark tunnel.
-- Again, why can't you tell this to Dusty? How much leverage do you think a guy has when he's on the last 2 months of his contract, his team is 20 games below .500 and the press is riding him on a daily basis?
Furthermore, this is essentially the message Hendry said the other night -- that if things continue this way for another week or two, then they'll have to play the kids and that Dusty won't be judged by his W/L record in August and September. (Of course, there are only a couple of kids who aren't playing at this point.)
But Dusty's said repeatedly during his Cubs tenure that no one tells him what to do in the dugout, and no one tells him who to play. What reason is there to think he'll start listening now?
Beyond that, if he thinks that the GM is going to start ordering him around, is he even going to want to have an extension? In the end - especially if he decides not to come back next year - the best thing for Dusty would be to have the Cubs win in the second half and improve their (and his) overall record for future employers to look at. In his mind, that means veterans and plenty of them, not trying out rookies. And who cares what the GM wants if you're not going to be back?
This has been an interesting back and forth, though I tend to fall in the "fire him now" camp (with "now" being defined as "May 2005"). It clears the question up once and for all, better than a statement that Hendry will let him finish the year and evaluate the future then (even if Hendry fully intends not to bring him back for 2007, he can't say that until after the season - wasn't that why a manager quit recently, maybe Pinella in TB, the GM made some statement that he was going to be allowed to finish the year but then they were going in another direction?). The issue needs to be resolved, because it's become the focal point for Cubs coverage since about mid-May. If Hendry just puts the decision off again, it's not going to go away. Only an extension or a firing resolves the issue.
There is very little for the Cubs to play for the rest of this year, but the one good thing that could come would be stacking the lineup and rotation with rookies and seeing who can do what. We kept saying last year that Cedeno should start 100 games so we can see if this is a small sample size fluke or a real level of performance, and Dusty kept sticking him at the end of the bench. Instead, we had to wait until this year to discover that Cedeno's probably not as good as he showed last year. Ditto Murton - instead of demoting him to AAA when he was hitting about .350, he needed to be out there every day and against every pitcher to get the biggest possible look at what he could do. Instead, another small sample size decision was made, and again maybe he wasn't as good as he showed last year. What do we know for 2007 about any of the next crop except for Sean Marshall? Marmol's had a few starts, but Guzman, Williams, Ryu, and Hill spent 90% of the year at AAA. What do we know about Theriot, even as a utility infielder (let alone a potential starter at 2B, where there will apparently be a job opening)?
These are all questions that could be mined for data now when the season is already lost from a W/L standpoint. Hendry should be asking himself - is Dusty Baker the man to do this? If I promote Rich Hill, is he going to go into the starting rotation or get buried behind Glendon Rusch as the third lefty in the pen? If I promote Theriot, is he going to start 6 games a week after Walker is traded or once a week? Dusty's repeatedly saying in the papers now that he's worried about his record, that he's afraid he'll be evaluated on the team's W/L - and I don't think he means just by Hendry, but also by the next team that looks to hire him, so Hendry saying that *we* won't evaluate him on his W/L record probably doesn't do much to ease things. You can't reconcile a manager who needs to win games with an organization that needs to test young players.
You can tell him to play them, you can order him to play them, but really - what are you going to do if he doesn't? Fire him? Refuse to extend him? Dusty can probably see the writing on the wall as well as we can at this point - an extension seems less and less likely as the season wears on and the team keeps losing. If there's a 10% chance that he will get extended, then threatening not to do it isn't much of a threat at all. Why should Dusty listen to the guy who is going to (in his mind) hang him out to dry for his players' injuries and failures? Dusty's going to look out for Dusty.
Here is the real nub of our issue: I agree -- fans do deserve some sort of sign of real change. I even agree that they deserve it now; they've put up with too much for too long.
I just don't think it makes a whit of difference in the long run whether that change occurs today or in October. Fans are still going to be loyal to this team, the team isn't going to be materially further behind in it's development, and will be in just as good a position to hire who they want in October as they will in July.
* UCCF: But Dusty's said repeatedly during his Cubs tenure that no one tells him what to do in the dugout, and no one tells him who to play. What reason is there to think he'll start listening now?
Not a whole lot. OTOH, no one is really saying that Cedeno isn't playing, and Murton has gotten substantial time, with the team making noises that more is coming in the second half. The pitching staff is littered with youngsters who are all seeing substantial time and we even saw a Ryan Theriot start on Saturday (and after Walker's game last night, we may see more).
What more do we want at this point? Yes, we can see more of Rich Hill, Jerome Williams, Jae Kuk Ryu, and even Ryan Theriot. I believe that a significant reason we aren't seeing them, though, is because of Hendry, not Dusty. If Hendry wants these kids back on the big league roster, he'll make the moves needed to do this, regardless of the manager. (Theriot is already up, of course, but I don't believe that Hendry is placing much of a priority on seeing him play in MLB.)
Put another way, this isn't 2003; at this stage of the season, if Hendry calls up these kids with a specific message, I don't believe even Dusty has either the inclination or the power to let them sit so he can play veteran stiffs. Dusty knows he has to manage somewhere in 2007 as well.
Just as importantly, even if Dusty sits these guys, worrying about his W/L record, what makes you think that an interim manager would be acting any differently? If anything, he's got more to prove with a good September W/L than Dusty does.
I guess my point is that I agree that Dusty is going to manage the way he wants. Even if it's not the way we want, however, I believe it is the way Hendry wants. I also believe that a new manager coming in will assign playing time much the same way Dusty is now -- no matter what message Hendry gives him.
* UCCF: Beyond that, if he thinks that the GM is going to start ordering him around, is he even going to want to have an extension? In the end - especially if he decides not to come back next year - the best thing for Dusty would be to have the Cubs win in the second half and improve their (and his) overall record for future employers to look at. In his mind, that means veterans and plenty of them, not trying out rookies. And who cares what the GM wants if you're not going to be back?
This is precisely my point with respect to an interim manager -- Hendry can talk about how he'll not be judged on W/L, but on how often the kids play, the atmosphere in the clubhouse, etc., but who are we kidding? The interim guy will know that if he plays all the kids and goes 10-25, he won't have a managerial gig with the Cubs or with anyone else in 2007.
As we've seen with Baker, managing is all about "fit" - how well do a manager's strengths and weaknesses fit with the team philosophy and the players? I would hope that Hendry would judge any interim manager - and any manager period - on that a lot more than on just the W/L record. The reason to bring in a guy now instead of waiting until the end of the year is that he gets two months to show what he can do (as opposed to 3 hours in an interview). Maybe you find someone who gels with the club, a guy who "gets it" w/r/t where the organization is going and is able to turn that into performance (if not always wins) on the field, a guy who the players really take to. If you think about all of the "big name" managers now - LaRussa, Torre, Cox, etc. - they all had to get their first major league jobs at some point. Wouldn't it be nice if the Cubs discovered one of these guys instead of dragging out another retread like they did when they hired Dusty?
If you don't find that person, you're not bound to keep him, and you've eliminated a candidate for the offseason job search. Really, it's a win/win situation, which is why I don't understand keeping Dusty around at all. If anything, he should have been canned back in May when it became obvious that the team wasn't going to win this year (it was already obvious that he didn't merit an extension). Hell, try two interim guys if you'd like - hire one in May, and if he doesn't seem to be working out then dump him and hire someone else in July. The interim manager is a golden opportunity to maybe get something for nothing, and I'll never understand teams' reluctance to use it.