BBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRR UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU CCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don;t worry, the dustbag will be his kryptonite. Just wait for that first o'fer, and watch how long he sits....

He already had an o-fer. Then he played the next day and went 4-for-5. Nice story, though.

Ah, c'mon. Those are great lines by Dusty.

He stuck Bruce right out there. Nothing to criticize here. It wasn't Dusty's choice to hold him back to keep him away from Super 2-ism.

He stuck him right out there alright. He hit him third in the order in his third game. He's definitely not up to paint.

C'mon everyone!

BBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Michaelangelo to Pope Julius: "I ain't up here to paint. No, wait ..."

Sorry for the overexuberance. A .571/.684/.786 279 OPS+ line can do that to a person, even if it is just 4 games. The Boss has been ready for the majors since, oh, last June. It's about time we Cincinnatians get to see him

Ah, c'mon. Those are great lines by Dusty.

Exactly. The Dusty stuff is beyond old at this point. Dusty can't win. When he does the correct thing they just say "Just wait." Corey Patterson's down, Bruce is up. You have to bend over backwards to criticize the man this week.

Very, very premature, but I have a feeling all three OF for the Reds right now will someday be in the Hall of Fame. OK, so I hope they will. But it doesn't seem too unreasonable of an idea.

BRUCE!

The first week you’re up here is one of the best times. (Teams) try to find your Kryptonite. Right now, he doesn’t have any.”

Ted Cox says hi

and pardon me for being dense , but what does “He ain’t up here to paint” mean?

why "paint"?--does that mean house painting or beaux arts?

"he ain't up here to sing"

"he ain't up here to do molecular biology"

"he ain't up here to sell jeans"

Also, of course Bruce isn't there to paint. He's there to rake.

True, nothing to ding Dusty on yet (and yes the "just wait for his first 0-fer" comments are moronic hyperbole at any time) but notice what Dusty said (emphasis added):

That’s why most guys that come up here I play right away, because they were hot (Bruce was hitting .364 in Class AAA Louisville). The first week you’re up here is one of the best times.

The question is how patient will Dusty be when they find his kryptonite, when Bruce isn't hot, when he hits 150 for a month. Of course Dusty plays the guy while he's hitting 500.

Also, at the moment at least, even by Dusty's standards, the Reds don't have another viable CF option.

To elucidate, when Dusty started to come under some criticism for his handling of young players in Chicago, his response was always along the lines of "if they produce, I'll play them." He would often bring up examples of players who were good-great from the start (though his memory wasn't always great).

So Dusty has said he put Bruce in the lineup because he's hot and he's kept him in there a full week while he's been hot. Maybe Dusty has turned a new leaf but his treatment of Bruce so far and the quoted statements are perfectly consistent with his behavior in Chicago.

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice time to hit your 1st homerun, Jay!

#15 - Nothing iffey About Griffey:

F**k you. Seriously. There is nothing more loathsome on these sorts of boards than the one overenthusiastic 4-year-old who breaks the margins by posting a 100-character long word with no spaces. Absoluetly annoying as hell, and you should know better.

I'm as enamored of Jay Bruce as anyone...but I try to express it more maturely.

When FOX went to the live 600 look-in for Griffey...Thumb Brennnnerman said something along the lines of, "Griffey is the kid of guy that would just as soon get a base hit here to help the team win than hit a HR"

It was the 8th inning, Reds down 8-7, one out, man (well, not actually a man...it was Jay Bruce Wayne) on first...I think Griffey would have liked to hit a bomb there.

And rake he shall! However, I thought it was a custom in MLB to ignore a fellow's first career HR? I think that trumps a walk-off celebration, and ignoring him at the end of the game would have been fantastic. Cruel, but fantastic.

When they ignored Youkilis' first homerun he gave everyone an "air" high five. It was hilarious. Ignoring a walk off would have been the highlight of the year.

Re: #15

He should have his children should have their keyboard taken away.

I think the alliteration had something to do with the use of the word "paint."

The Braves are now 2-16 in one-run games this year? Wow.

Agreed, Daryn. Imagine Bruce throwing his helmet and then jumping up and down at home plate all by himself. Throw in a few muscle flexes and a bow, and he's guaranteed to kick of SportsCenter.

How much longer do Bruce, Votto and Edmonds have to be in the starting lineup while Felix Pie and Matt Murton rot in Iowa before Cubs fans start to wonder if Dusty Baker may not have been the problem after all?

How much longer do Bruce, Votto and Edmonds have to be in the starting lineup while Felix Pie and Matt Murton rot in Iowa before Cubs fans start to wonder if Dusty Baker may not have been the problem after all?

Well, Pie is hitting .114 in Iowa. Otherwise, I agree with you.

and pardon me for being dense , but what does “He ain’t up here to paint” mean?

You get paint on your pants from sitting on the bench, and Bruce won't be sitting on the bench?

Considering the low number of walks drawn by Bruce in the Minors, I think Dusty will like him for a long time.

On scales of first week in the majors, how does Bruces rank up there?

well I guess technically he has one more game to go for that.

Is there a lot of painting that needs to be done at GABP?

How much longer do Bruce, Votto and Edmonds have to be in the starting lineup while Felix Pie and Matt Murton rot in Iowa before Cubs fans start to wonder if Dusty Baker may not have been the problem after all?

Eleventy billion years.

How much longer do Bruce, Votto and Edmonds have to be in the starting lineup while Felix Pie and Matt Murton rot in Iowa before Cubs fans start to wonder if Dusty Baker may not have been the problem after all?

I don't think any of us on BTF think Dusty was the problem, but he was most definitely a problem.

Bruce was the top-scoring position player in my fantasy league this week. That's a pretty good debut.

He also has the third highest weekly total of any player yet- only Soriano and Berkman have had better weeks. What an unbelievable way to start a career. And to think, some thought me foolish for paying 8 bucks for him in our auction. Suckers.

I don't think any of us on BTF think Dusty was the problem

Any of us?

My freshman year in college, I went out and had way too many the night before a doubleheader. I got the start, extraordinarily hungover, and preceded to strike out at a ball above my head. After the inning, I told my coach I was feeling sick, and he removed me from the game. Between games of the doubleheader, he asked me if I had been drinking the night before, and I admitted I had. As punishment, I was suspended for our weekend home DH and I had to spend the hours leading up to the game painting the dugouts at our relatively new field.

So, unlike Bruce, I really was up there to paint.

I don't think any of us on BTF think Dusty was the problem, but he was most definitely a problem.

Dusty's biggest problem is that he had a better grasp of the talent of Choi, Dubois et al than BTF did.

Any of us?

Well, I meant the main folks who hang out in game chatters or the Gonfalon Cubs section.

I don't think any of us on BTF think Dusty was the problem, but he was most definitely a problem.

BS

38. Gambling Rent, Posted: June 01, 2008 at 06:11 PM (#2802422)

I don't think any of us on BTF think Dusty was the problem, but he was most definitely a problem.

BS

not sure why you are calling bs, Dusty was a problem, the ownership was a problem, and then the fans insistence that their team was better than they really were allowed the ownership to ignore fatal flaws with the roster.

nobody said that Dusty was the only problem with the cubs.

Sorry, I am not going to sit back and let people try and re write the history books. Not with all the vehement hate that was put into these very threads about the guy.

no, not going to happen.

Dusty's biggest problem is that he had a better grasp of the talent of Choi, Dubois et al than BTF did.

You've definitely got a point there. Dusty did a number of things poorly in Chicago and they are fair game for criticism. Choi? Dud. DuBois? Bigger dud. I know some would say "Well, yeah, but based on what we knew at the time he handled them poorly." Maybe that's fair, but what if Dusty saw flaws in their many of us didn't? I was as big a proponent of Choi as anybody. I missed that call and so did a lot of other smart fans. Maybe Dusty, with all his years of experience, recognized he wasn't THAT good.

Cubs players 27 and under 2003:

Corey Patterson (23) - Played regularly when healthy
Aramis Ramirez (25) - Played regularly once acquired
Hee Seop Choi (24) - Played pretty regularly through All-Star break, gave way to Karros and Simon down the stretch, both of whom finished year with better numbers. Choi hit .218.
David Kelton (23) - Last MLB game 2004.
Bobby Hill (25) - Last MLB game 2005.

Kerry Wood (26) - Arguably relied on him too much.
Mark Prior (22) - Arguably relied on him too much.
Carlos Zambrano (22) - Threw more innings than Wood OR Prior
Kyle Farnsworth (27) - Led Cubs with 77 games pitched.
Juan Cruz (24) - ERA of 6.05 in 25 games.
Todd Wellemyer (24) - ERA of 6.51; didn't really emerge as good major league pitcher until this year, if he keeps it up.
Sergio Mitre (22) - 10-23, 5.36 ERA for career.
Phil Norton (27) - Who?
Felix Sanchez (21) - 1 2/3 career innings.

Cubs players 27 and under 2004:

Michael Barrett (27) - Everyday catcher.
Aramis Ramirez (26) - Everyday 3B.
Corey Patterson (24) - Everyday CF.
Jason DuBois (25) - Career .233 hitter, out of big leagues since 2005.
David Kelton (24) - Hit .245 in Iowa, 10 AB with Cubs.
Brendan Harris (23) - Five organizations in the past five years.

Kerry Wood (27) - Pitched when healthy.
Mark Prior (23) - Pitched when healthy.
Carlos Zambrano (23) - 16 wins.
Francis Beltran (24) - Career 5.86 ERA.
Jon Leicester (25) - Career 5.88 ERA.
Michael Wuertz (25) - 31 games, Dusty pitched him 75 the next year.
Ryan Dempster (27) - Injured.
Andy Pratt (24) - Threw three innings his entire career.

I would do '05 and '06, but I have to leave. At a glance, I don't think there's any condemning evidence of him holding back youngsters in those years either. Maybe he blew out Wood and Prior by overusing them. But Woody had already been Tommy John-ed by then. I'm sure Dusty didn't help either of them long-term, so that's a legit knock. But where are all the good young players that supposedly rot on Dusty's watch while he plays Neifi Perez at seven positions simultaneously? Sure, he played some shitty veterans. But, with hindsight 20/20 (or maybe, just maybe Dusty's foresight pretty decent), he played them over shitty prospects. The good young players he had, everyday and pitchers alike, played.

I think Dusty tried to play his best players without an age bias. Maybe he failed in that, but I really doubt he failed because of a pro-veteran agenda.

Sorry, I am not going to sit back and let people try and re write the history books. Not with all the vehement hate that was put into these very threads about the guy.

no, not going to happen.

be clear then instead of throwing innuendo out there. You are telling us that there were people on these boards who felt the cubs crappiness was 100% Dusty Bakers fault? Seriously? I know you live in a simplified black and white world, but I can't think of anyone on these boards who felt Dusty was 100% responsible for the crappiness that was the cubs.

The problem with those Cubs' teams was that nothing was ever anyone's fault.

I can't think of anyone on these boards who felt Dusty was 100% responsible for the crappiness that was the cubs.

feel free to put "blame" into a spread sheet.

Was there the occasional article on the players, sure.
Every once in a while the front office received a lashing my the Maridiot's.
Later in Dusty's tenure, the training staff took a little heat

but make no bones about it.

Dusty got 99% of the hate.
Still does.

Gambling Rent is 100% right about this, and anybody who claims otherwise is trying to rewrite history, either because of sinister motives (wanting to whitewash the record) or out of a faulty memory. It was always, always, always, ALWAYS Dusty's fault. When the players failed, it was because Dusty was playing "Dusty's Guys." Whenever he would make a statement to the media, it was "Dustbag" this, and [insert imprecation here] that. The hatred was irrational, unstoppable, and unabating. Don't insult my intelligence by disingenuously claiming that BBTF collectively only rated him as "part" of the problem. Maybe so - I can't read minds - but when it came time to make snarky comments he was 95% of the problem.

Note that I still don't think Dusty is/was a particularly great manager. And I think that he did deserve a lot of the blame for the Cubs' nosedive. But he was getting it with both barrels here from nearly everyone, nonstop, back then and even now.

I agree that Dusty got blamed, but the blame was going around all over the place. I know plenty of posts were blaming the fans and the Tribune company because the fans were accepting of the mediocrity. It was never one blame directed at one person.

Do many people felt Dusty was the biggest blame? of course he was, but the ownership got plenty of flack also.

BBBBBRRRRRUUUUCCCCEEEE! I just wanted to make Iffy Griffey feel like he's not alone.

Dusty got 99% of the hate.
Still does.

I'm not going to disguise the fact that he, more than anyone else in the organization, frustrated me to the point that I decided to start following a second team. (On the bright side, my two favorite teams now have the best record in MLB!)

Still, hate is different than blame. There are many things for which Dusty deserves blame -- his mishandling of Prior; his endless apologies for bad baseball and/or bad behavior; his irrational fondness for stiffs like Lenny Harris, Jose Macias, et al.; "walks clog the bases"; his mishandling of Hee Seop Choi; and many others.

Even I won't say he was the only problem they had, however. Jim Hendry was/is still a problem. The players themselves were a problem. The training staff has been a problem. Ownership was/is still a problem. The organizational philosophy and goals was/are still most definitely a problem. The fans have been a problem too.

Dusty embodied so many problems, though, that I was really, really happy the day he left.

Note that I still don't think Dusty is/was a particularly great manager. And I think that he did deserve a lot of the blame for the Cubs' nosedive. But he was getting it with both barrels here from nearly everyone, nonstop, back then and even now.

I could not agree with you more.