The Sheryl Crow Column (a/k/a “A Change Will Do You Good”?!?)

The last few days have seen some long-overdue changes come at 1060 W. Addison, one widely predicted, one a surprise.  As expected, the Cubs chose not to renew Dusty Baker’s contract yesterday, instead giving him an amicable send-off while they search for other options for next season.  The real surprise, of course, is Andy MacPhail’s resignation, delivered shortly after Sunday’s game.

As much as I’ve bristled against his mismanagement of the clubhouse, dangerous misuse of the pitching staff, penchant toward veteran stiffs, and tactical ineptitude, for years now I have believed that the Cubs problems go far beyond Dusty Baker.  When asking why the Cubs haven’t won a World Series in 98 years (or won a pennant in 61), the inescapable conclusion to me has been that the problems are institutional and go far deeper than lousy managers.  I’ve always thought that the values of a company are set from the top down, and in the Cubs case, much of their shortfalls can be laid at the feet of those at the top of the food chain. 

When the Tribune bought the team in ‘81, there was once a lot of hope in corporate ownership.  At the time, the prevailing sentiment was not only that the Tribune had more capital at its resources than Phil Wrigley, but just as importantly, the cold, bottom line nature of corporate ownership would put an end to much of the cronyism seen during the Wrigley era.  (Does anyone still have fond memories of Salty Saltwell?) With Dallas Green at the helm, fresh off his World Series success with the Phillies, there was new hope, particularly as he backed up the truck.  Under Green’s stewardship, the Cubs went to the playoffs for the first time in 39 years and built a farm system that generated talent to stock the Cubs for years.

When Andy MacPhail joined the organization in 1994, there was a sense of renewed hope.  MacPhail had seen two World Series champions in his days as GM of the Twins, and though he was assuming the role of president, there seemed to be much the same vibe as when the Tribune brought in Dallas Green 13 years earlier.  On a financial level, there is no question that MacPhail’s leadership has been an unqualified success for the franchise. 

Unfortunately, the last 12 years under Andy MacPhail’s stewardship have brought a lot of mediocrity delivered in a slick package to keep fans coming to the park and glued to the television.  At this point, for the Cubs to truly move beyond their short-term focus, their continued belief that with the right patchwork of crusty veterans this year’s 66 win team will turn into next year’s 90 win juggernaut, and their inability to develop position players of any significance, a housecleaning is needed far beyond Dusty Baker.

Andy MacPhail’s resignation was as welcome as it was unexpected.  Heads are truly rolling for the first time in years.  Nevertheless, it seems that the fans’ and media’s bloodlust has not been completely quenched—there remain calls for the Tribune to sell the team as well as criticism that Jim Hendry isn’t being shown the door as well.  At the same time, the media has largely criticized the selection of interim-president John McDonough, not just because he doesn’t have baseball experience, but mainly because McDonough was the Cubs head of marketing (RR).

I don’t believe these are fair criticisms.  As president, McDonough (or anyone else) isn’t expected to be the baseball expert.  Indeed, the only other presidents I’m aware of who came directly from the baseball world are Tal Smith (Astros) and Dave Dombrowski (Tigers).  Instead, the skills that a good president needs are managerial and administrative, most notably setting an overall corporate philosophy (as opposed to a baseball philosophy), hiring the right people, and creating the best conditions in which for them to work.  I don’t hear anyone criticizing Michael Crowley (A’s), Stan Kasten (Nationals), or Terry McGuirk (Braves) because of their lack of baseball experience, and given the unqualified success McDonough has had in his current position, he’s certainly a good in-house choice at this point.  As for Jim Hendry, while I’d like to see his departure, it makes complete sense that the Tribune would want him to stay while McDonough indoctrinates himself with the baseball operations.  Saddling McDonough with the immediate task of hiring a GM and having that person get up to speed on the organization so that s/he can hire a manager and fully prepare for the Winter Meetings, Rule 5 draft, and upcoming free agent market is just foolish.

Nevertheless, McDonough does raise some major concerns.  First and foremost, what is meant by giving him the position on an “interim” basis?  Are the Cubs seeking permanent candidates for the position and do they have a timetable in mind?  Does McDonough have a chance to be named president permanently?  Is it his job to lose?  These questions are of critical importance because they signal the future direction of the franchise. 

Perhaps he was only trying to say the right thing to the fan base, but among McDonough’s first comments were these:

“My goal is singular.  The purpose of why I’ve been asked to do this job is for the Cubs to win the World Series — not win the wild card or win the division or win the pennant.  It’s time to win. It’s time to win the World Series. And I think we need to reward these tens of millions of fans who have waited for a long time.”

He later concluded:

“Realistically, you want to go into every season thinking you’re going to win the World Series.  Our goal is to win the World Series next year and the year after that.  You have to be careful and realistic, but with the resources we’re given and the decisions that need to be made, I think the Cubs will win the World Series and I think the Cubs will win the World Series soon.”

This does not sound like a man who would be in favor of a youth movement, growing pains or a 3-5 year rebuilding plan and understandably so:  McDonough’s “interim” label, as well as his institutional memory, naturally creates the urge for him to want to win now.  This message may also translate to Jim Hendry as well, who understandably feels the urgency of putting 2005-06 behind him and to win as soon as possible.  It looks like we might continue to see a lot of “proven” veterans like Phil Nevin, John Mabry, and Scott Williamson, as even Phil Rogers (RR) observes.

This eventually leads to my other McDonough concern:  If/when the time comes when the Cubs struggle, is he willing to fire Jim Hendry?  One thing seems clear right now—McDonough is completely loyal to Hendry.  Will McDonough have the ability and courage to cast aside his friendship to do the right thing?  If it does get to the point where McDonough dismisses Hendry, does this mean we’ll be seeing the return of Steve Stone?  Time will tell.

In the meantime, I’m certainly willing to give McDonough a chance, if for no other reason than his observation the “he knows what he doesn’t know.” Soon, however, I believe the Tribune should clarify whether they intend to remove the “interim” label or if they intend to search out other candidates.  Until that happens, the Cubs will continue to proceed in a state of limbo, which won’t do the team, Hendry, McDonough, the Tribune, or the fans any good.