I just vomited into my mouth.

Waddle and Silvy? An odd name for a show...

You made us laugh. You made us cry. You made us feel like we could fly.

But anyone who's been following the Cubs even a little saw this coming, right? I'm thinking that my Cubs sabbatical is going to continue indefinitely.

Oh, and Waddle and Silvy is Tom Waddle (former mediocre Bears wide reciever) and Marc Silverman (local radio guy). Waddle's name make anything sound funnier. When Waddle used to do Sports Central on WGN with Dave Kaplan, there was a clip of Milt Rosenberg, the host whose show followed theirs, stumbling over whether it was "Waddle and Kaplan" or "Coddle and Waplan".

Sandberg should be hired on one condition: Rafael Palmeiro, hitting coach.

Oh, and Waddle and Silvy is Tom Waddle (former mediocre Bears wide reciever). . . .

BLASPHEME!!!

In 25 years this will make a great snippet in a baseball book with a "Vern Rapp of the 21st Century" feel to it.

I'm not sure why there's such a strong, negative reaction to Sandberg as manager here. I mean, I can't defend why they should hire him, but I haven't seen anyone give any good reasons why they shouldn't even consider him. And a couple "back in my day" quotes isn't cutting it for me.

Sandberg was my favorite player growing up, so maybe that's why I think this, but I have a hard time believing he'd be a worse manager than Loopy Nella. Presumably he won't vacillate between (1) acting like a stroke victim and (2) helping to scapegoat one player per season.

What do we actually know about his managerial tendencies, though? Has he been a nightmare as a minor-league manager? Is he old-school to a fault? Does he despise base-cluttering? Can he handle malcontents and a mentally-challenged press corps? I am not understanding why people are mouth barfing over this...

The team roster at Iowa ain't great, yet they are indeed in 1st place. From scanning some box-scores, it looks like Sandberg does put Fuld at leadoff and run his low OBP SS out in the 2-slot, but that might be a directive from above (at least wrt Fuld). Taschner doesn't seem to be overworked and is trhiving (which has to be a plus of some sort). There isn't a ton of data readily available, though.

In any case, who has any real idea about the sort of manager he'd be? If he truly does tank, then it would also cost Hendry his gig, so there are alternative ways in which this inevitability might be a boon to the team.

Cross-posted from the Gonfalon Cubs page:

I think there is huge public pressure to hire Sandberg. Whether Hendry (or Ricketts) bow to it is an open question.

First, of course, there is the fact that Sandberg was one of the more popular Cubs in an era where WGN was one of the few superstations around and millions of folks were cutting their teeth as Cubs fans. Add that to his HoF speech, full of sanctimony that the public lapped up (and I abhorred) and he became a true folk hero -- even before his number was retired.

That's past history, of course, but at the time the team rightfully told him to get some minor league experience. He can now say that he's done that.

Frankly, I don't really want him as manager but I think it would take some fairly large cohones at this point to tell the '80s version of Mr. Cub that "we appreciate your efforts and sacrifices but are going in a different direction." How would the front office look when Sandberg then leaves the organization forever to manage in Baltimore (or elsewhere)?

Of course, this isn't an endorsement of him -- I have know clue if he'd be any good and refuse to follow the lead of others who insist he's the best candidate. I do think he's the most likely candidate, though.

#10 sums it up well; my complaint is not that they might hire Sandberg, but that Hendry might still be around to do the hiring. Piniella didn't over pay for Soriano's decline phase, Hendry did. Piniella didn't trade for Milton Bradley, Hendry did, and yet it looks like the Ricketts family may keep Hendry around (sigh).

plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose .....

Moses:

It just seems to have a bad vibe.

After being such a quiet and reserved player I see a guy who seems to have a chip on his shoulder. Was it all the public grief over his wife? I do not know.

But it just seems........off.

Oh, and Waddle and Silvy is Tom Waddle (former mediocre Bears wide reciever). . . .

BLASPHEME!!!

Oh, I'm sorry. Allow me to correct:

"Tom Waddle (former mediocre Bears wide receiver and son-in-law of less mediocre wide reciever Gino Cappelletti)"

Is that better?

Would he get a major league job with another team? It seems to me that he did everything by the book once he decided to get into managing and if he doesn’t get the Cubs job now that must lead to a lot of bad blood. He can’t do any worse with the current roster and he can already get a feel for Zambrano this week.

Sandberg seems to think he deserves the job because he's Ryne Sandberg, goddammit. It reminds me a bit of Willie Randolph's attitude when looking to become a manager.

It's not really fair because Sandberg willingly went to the minors, but his attitude seemed to be like a princess willing to sleep on a mattress with a pea underneath it -- he'll do it to show he really means it. Now please remember who he is and get him away from the rabble.

Randolph bombed because his attitude was all wrong. Sandberg's giving me a simmilar bad vibe.

Mostly, I loath this idea because it reminds me of the dumb decision making processes the team's had in the past. Remember when they had Billy Williams and Fergie Jenkins as their hitting and pitching coaches for a spell? Were they really the best guys they could find for the job? No, but they were famous former Cubs who wanted the job, so the team treated the coching positions like some sort of retirement golden parachute. It's feel-good fan-pandering, not making hard decisions actually designed to make the team better.

Teams can be loyal to their former players, but for it to work they can't act like a bunch of starfuckers. The Dodgers under O'Malley hired Alston and Lasorda as managers because they were the best regarded coaches, certainly not for the big league playing careers.

Would he get a major league job with another team?

No, of course not. Which is why the Cubs should think twice before hiring him.

You really think Sandberg wouldn't be able to land a coaching job elsewhere? Why? To play devil's advocate for a bit, how was Girardi any better a candidate when he was chosen? He's worked out pretty well, it has to be argued, though how well longterm remains to be seen, of course. Docking Sandberg points for willingly going into the minors and plying his trade seems a might bit unfair to me. This, to me, shows that, chip or not, he realizes that he needs to build a case, to learn the system, and to 'pay his dues.' Perhaps he hasn't paid them enough, but he's far from a Mattingly type who fully fits the damning Dag Nabbit heaps onto Sandberg in #16. I haven't seen enough form Sandberg to know if he actually is going to wind up like Randolph. He very well may, and Dag knows *far* more about managers than I do. That said, I just don't get the vitriol...

Sandberg should be hired on one condition: Rafael Palmeiro, hitting coach.

Dave Martinez can help out with the outfield and baserunning. Just guessing, but Mark Grace is probably qualified too.

Waddle and Silvy? An odd name for a show...

I prefer to listen to Dingo and The Baby.

I think there is huge public pressure to hire Sandberg.

But what does that mean, really? The Cubs are 10 games under .500 right now. If someone besides Sandberg gets hired and the team starts the 2011 season well, is anybody going to care? Will there be boycotts? Of course not. And if Sandberg gets hired and the team sucks, nobody is going to be supportive of the Cubs simply because Ryno is the manager.

Sandberg seems to think he deserves the job because he's Ryne Sandberg, goddammit.... his attitude seemed to be like a princess willing to sleep on a mattress with a pea underneath it -- he'll do it to show he really means it. Now please remember who he is and get him away from the rabble.

Are there actual facts that back up these opinions (incidents or quotes), or are these just your pure subjective impressions? Sandberg is in his fourth season as a manager in the minors (cf. Randolph, who never managed in the minors). I can't believe that someone who spent two years in Peoria, managing A ball, has some tremendous sense of entitlement.

i think sandberg as manager has a lot more credibility to it than players such as pete rose, don mattingly, willie randolph. he's spent time in the minors. whether it's enough time is up for debate, but there are a lot of players who feel they can be managers without any experience.

has kirk gibson managed anywhere?

i'd rather have a former player be a minor league manager first, with no major league coaching experience than the other way around.

his HoF speech, full of sanctimony that the public lapped up (and I abhorred) and he became a true folk hero

I have no memory of this. Recap?

I'm not sure why there's such a strong, negative reaction to Sandberg as manager here. I mean, I can't defend why they should hire him, but I haven't seen anyone give any good reasons why they shouldn't even consider him. And a couple "back in my day" quotes isn't cutting it for me.

Speaking only for myself, Sandberg always rubbed me the wrong way, even as a player, and his HOF induction speech and recent "back in the day" stuff has only solidified that.

That said, objectively, I think Sandberg's a fine choice. He's served a perfectly appropriate apprenticeship and, to the extent minor-league W-L records actually tell you anything, he's been successful. I also think that the Cubs are probably going to need/want to go relatively young here in the next few years as they try to work their way out of some albatross contracts (Soriano, Zambrano). So, Sandberg's familiarity with the Cubs' minor-leaguers is probably a good thing (and any possible rookie mistakes by manager Sandberg are less likely to matter since I doubt the Cubs are major contenders in 2011 regardless of the manager). To the extent that a player's playing style can tell you anything about his managerial style, Sandberg was a smart player - good baserunner, smart fielder, appreciated the value of a HR. Maybe didn't take quite as many walks as you'd like, but there's not much to object to there unless you're looking for excuses to hate him.

But all of that said, I can't get past my gut reaction: bad idea, disaster waiting to happen.

I have no memory of this. Recap?

Full Text here

It was all about doing things right. If you played the game the right way, played the game for the team, good things would happen. That's what I loved most about the game, how a ground out to second with a man on second and nobody out was a great thing. Respect.

I was taught you never, ever disrespect your opponent or your team mates or your organization or your manager and never, ever your uniform. Make a great play, act like you've done it before, get a big hit, look for the third base coach and get ready to run the bases, hit a home run, put your head down, drop the bat, run around the bases, because the name on the front is a lot more important than the name on the back. That's respect.

When we went home every winter, they warned us not lift heavy weights because they didn't want us to lose flexibility. They wanted us to be baseball players, not only home run hitters.... These guys sitting up here did not pave the way for the rest of us so that players could swing for the fences every time up and forget how to move a runner over to third, it's disrespectful to them, to you, and to the game of baseball that we all played growing up. Respect.

It was all about doing things right. If you played the game the right way, played the game for the team, good things would happen. That's what I loved most about the game, how a ground out to second with a man on second and nobody out was a great thing. Respect.

I was taught you never, ever disrespect your opponent or your team mates or your organization or your manager and never, ever your uniform. Make a great play, act like you've done it before, get a big hit, look for the third base coach and get ready to run the bases, hit a home run, put your head down, drop the bat, run around the bases, because the name on the front is a lot more important than the name on the back. That's respect.

When we went home every winter, they warned us not lift heavy weights because they didn't want us to lose flexibility. They wanted us to be baseball players, not only home run hitters.... These guys sitting up here did not pave the way for the rest of us so that players could swing for the fences every time up and forget how to move a runner over to third, it's disrespectful to them, to you, and to the game of baseball that we all played growing up. Respect.

Only the third one says anything about what kind of manager he might be. The first two are his opinion and there isn't really a right or wrong.

These guys sitting up here did not pave the way for the rest of us so that players could swing for the fences every time up and forget how to move a runner over to third

This is awesome.

I'm with Kiko's comments in 23 especially:

I can't get past my gut reaction: bad idea, disaster waiting to happen.

Only the third one says anything about what kind of manager he might be. The first two are his opinion and there isn't really a right or wrong.

I know. Like I said above, I think the objective evidence says he'd be fine as a manager. I just don't like him (and I realize that puts me in the minority among Cubs fans).

Are there actual facts that back up these opinions (incidents or quotes), or are these just your pure subjective impressions?

Pretty much my subjective impressions. There's some quotes I remember coming from him when he was hired that really rubbed me the wrong way, but I'm too lazy to check.

It was all about doing things right. If you played the game the right way, played the game for the team, good things would happen. That's what I loved most about the game, how a ground out to second with a man on second and nobody out was a great thing. Respect.

Is this a ####### joke? It looks like a quote from the Onion. I thought that some of the anti-Sandberg sentiment was mostly a reflexive dislike of players who were well-liked by the media in ways that came off as phony, but mercy, them quotes is just priceless.

Of course, his minor-league record is solid, and as noted upthread, four years in the minors do show a seriousness about managing. Such quotes could also be the kind of old-school small-ball worship that is de rigeur among those looking to break into the lineup-card game. I also think it should be beyond dispute that Sandberg would easily get a job, at least as a coach, with someone else where he to leave Chicago.

Happy Base Ball

I know. Like I said above, I think the objective evidence says he'd be fine as a manager. I just don't like him (and I realize that puts me in the minority among Cubs fans).

While he never rubbed me the wrong way, he was never a favorite of mine. I was a huge Dawson fan as a kid and will continue to have a soft spot for Shawon but for the most part I have always been a pitching guy first. Hopefully he will be fine and he will not instruct everyone to hit less homers:)

I would love to see Girardi as manager, but don't see that happening.

Personally, I have no opinion one way or the other as to whether or not Sandberg should succeed Sweet Lou; nor do I have any opinion as to how Sandberg will do should he get the job. But I would be interested in seeing the results, as Hall-of-Fame players turned managers seem to have become incredibly scarce, and successful ones rarer still.

If I'm not mistaken, Bob Lemon is the last manager to win the World Series (1978) after being elected to the Hall as a player (1976 induction). Yogi went into the Hall in 1972, then won the pennant with the Mets in 1973; he also, of course, won a pennant as manager of the 1964 Yankees, but that was pre-HOF induction. Red Schoendienst went into the Hall as player-plus in 1989, but that was more than twenty years after winning the World Series as Cardinals manager. Likewise, Al Lopez's HOF induction came many years after his pennant-winning managerial stints.

Since the Hall didn't open until the mid-1930's, obviously no one could have done it prior to that. So is Bob Lemon the only man to manage a team to a World Series victory after having been elected to the Hall of Fame as a player? Or am I missing somebody?

DB

It was all about doing things right. If you played the game the right way, played the game for the team, good things would happen. That's what I loved most about the game, how a ground out to second with a man on second and nobody out was a great thing. Respect.



I was taught you never, ever disrespect your opponent or your team mates or your organization or your manager and never, ever your uniform. Make a great play, act like you've done it before, get a big hit, look for the third base coach and get ready to run the bases, hit a home run, put your head down, drop the bat, run around the bases, because the name on the front is a lot more important than the name on the back. That's respect.



When we went home every winter, they warned us not lift heavy weights because they didn't want us to lose flexibility. They wanted us to be baseball players, not only home run hitters.... These guys sitting up here did not pave the way for the rest of us so that players could swing for the fences every time up and forget how to move a runner over to third, it's disrespectful to them, to you, and to the game of baseball that we all played growing up. Respect.

And then Thom Brennennnmenn moved on to the second inning...

Based on Sandberg's comments, I figure there are two ways it could go:

The good way - Sandberg creates a culture of fundamentally sound baseball play, like the Twins, and his Cubs teams have great defense, and good situational hitting - a mix of home runs, walks, low DPs, and execution on sac flies and moving runners over.

The bad way - Sandberg loves the little ball, bunts too much, hits and runs too much, gets into ego clashes with his players for not "playing the game the right way", and doesn't know how to handle a pitching staff.

Sandberg was my favorite player as a kid (we both played second base), but I'm with others here. I hope it'd work out, but for some reason I got a bad feeling about this.

Yeah, I have to go with the "gut feeling isn't good" opinion, but I agree with Moses that that isn't enough to go by. Maybe he would do a fine job. The problems I have with Sandberg are 1) he has never seemed like the sharpest knife in the drawer to me, and 2) the clubhouse situations during his tenure as a player, while not his fault, might have reflected a less than monumental stature among his peers. But who knows, maybe he's older and wiser and more effective now.

One thing is for damn sure, and that is that if the Cubs had that impression of him, letting him go through the ranks like this was not a good plan if they didn't plan on making him manager some day.

Since the Hall didn't open until the mid-1930's, obviously no one could have done it prior to that. So is Bob Lemon the only man to manage a team to a World Series victory after having been elected to the Hall of Fame as a player?

Yup. He and Berra and the only inducted to manage in the World Series after enshrinement.

Thanks Dag.

DB

Are there actual facts that back up these opinions (incidents or quotes), or are these just your pure subjective impressions? Sandberg is in his fourth season as a manager in the minors (cf. Randolph, who never managed in the minors). I can't believe that someone who spent two years in Peoria, managing A ball, has some tremendous sense of entitlement.

I can't find it anywhere, no key words I can think of to look it up that don't bring up tons of other results in Google, but I'm pretty sure that after his first year managing in Peoria he said something along the lines of: "I think I've learned everything I can here and it's time for me to move up to the next level", ignoring the fact that it's not his decision to make whether he should be promoted and also that any promotion for him means that another manager will no longer have his job.

Sandberg got ejected like every 10 games in the minors, pretty much because "it's what managers do"

He also once had his 1 and 2 hitters walk on 8 pitches and proceeded to bunt them over with his 3 hitter. In the 1st inning.

Our only hope is that he says a bunch of stupid #### leading up to the job and then miraculously turns out to not be a buffoon. i.e. he becomes an intelligible Ozzie Guillen.

The good way - Sandberg creates a culture of fundamentally sound baseball play, like the Twins, and his Cubs teams have great defense, and good situational hitting - a mix of home runs, walks, low DPs, and execution on sac flies and moving runners over.

How do you manage/teach that? All I can picture is Mr. Burns: "You, Strawberry, hit a home run!"

Our only hope is that he says a bunch of stupid #### leading up to the job and then miraculously turns out to not be a buffoon. i.e. he becomes an intelligible Ozzie Guillen.

I get the impression that the fanbase's desire for Sandberg as manager is a bit of subconscious emulation of the White Sox. Of course, the White Sox won the World Series more despite Ozzie instead of because of him. (Guillen has become a better manager since then, however; personal issues aside, he generally handles his staff well, and has become better and better at the most important job - putting his players in a position most likely to succeed.)

People ##### when managers are recycled. People ##### when managers are hired with no experience. I am starting to believe people here like just like to #####.

HW kinda nailed my feelings -- it's not rational (is anything?) but it just don't feel right.

If you want "rational" here's the best I got ...

1. It always smells funny when teams hires one of its legends as manager -- you always wonder if they really deserve it.

2. I'd say the recent track record of teams hiring former star players as managers hasn't been good -- I'm having trouble thinking of a recent one that's worked. Heck, star players rarely seem to become good managers.

3. The Cubs are one of the most PR/image-conscious teams ... and this smacks of a "fan-friendly" (or at least "media-popular") sort of move.

4. The Cubs are always reluctant to face up to reality and rebuild (and do a lot of house-cleaning probably) and "hire guy who was great 15 years ago and has been in the organization for the last several years" seems consistent with a continued reluctance.

All of that could be silly. Most especially maybe bringing up a manager from the minors is a sign of some serious rebuilding.

Finally, as someone above basically mentions -- better to replace Hendry and let the new guy decide who his manager is than hire a new manager then can Hendry (which surely can't be further away than the end of 2011).

All that said ... I don't really have a better candidate in mind than Sandberg.

EDIT: of course, Ozzie. Not really a "legend" but certainly long-time player and popular with the fans when he played.

I am starting to believe people here like just like to #####.

I'm pretty sure that's not limited just to here.

Only thing I can offer about Ryno: when I served him this spring he was putting away enough whiskey to make Larry Bowa proud.

But was it Bushmills?

Steve,

People ##### when shitty managers are recycled, and they ##### when new guys who look like they'll be shitty managers are hired.

I wouldn't be here ######## if Fredi Gonzalez was recycled, and would probably be ######## less if Jody Davis (who was shuffled off to a new position while Sandberg was being promoted) or Pat Listach were being talked about for the job.

Ryan,
I would agree to both Joddddieee Davis and Listach as candidates would not be bad, but Ryno has also paid his dues. But then again, I am biased.

It's the Cubs. They are doomed to mediocrity. See a game at Wrigley, enjoy the sunshine, sing "Take Me out to the ballgame", have a few beers. Winning? Not in the plan

Of course, the White Sox won the World Series more despite Ozzie instead of because of him.

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with this. Go back and look at that roster one more time. Any HOFers? Hurt, who barely played and ???? maybe Buerhle. What about that team screams 99 wins and dominant postseason? Quite a few people here have a hard time giving Ozzie credit because of some of the stuff he says, and some of his small ball tendencies. But that team, by the best I can figure, really over achieved and tons of credit for that goes to Ozzie.

---

I understand the bad feelings, and quite frankly, if Hendry thinks it's a good move reflexively I'm inclined to disagree with him. And I can see this blowing up, and I can also see it working. But I hope everyone at least realizes it's just a feeling and nothing based on any facts or evidence.

Don't know if anyone remembers his (thankfully) brief stint writing for Yahoo! Sports, but if his thought processes in those "articles" represents his managerial processes (something that SouthSideRyan's anecdotes, & Ryno's own spoken words, seem to suggest), then the Cubs, or anyone that gives him a shot at the wheel in MLB, are probably in for it.

Speaking of guys that paid / are paying their dues -- what happened to the Chris Chambliss Fan Club?

1. It always smells funny when teams hires one of its legends as manager -- you always wonder if they really deserve it.

This is similar to why academic departments are (or at least should be) reticent about hiring their own PhD graduates as faculty. The problem is always one of perspective: if you're really close to someone, then it's very hard to be objective (one way or the other). There can also be a problem here of organizational incest. If Sandberg came up through the Cubs organization, even if he knows "The Cubs Way", you're not getting the genetic variation that you would perhaps want to see (from a pure evolutionary standpoint). Bringing in people with a different perspective can often help to shake things up and loosen up some institutional inertia.

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with this. Go back and look at that roster one more time. Any HOFers? Hurt, who barely played and ???? maybe Buerhle. What about that team screams 99 wins and dominant postseason? Quite a few people here have a hard time giving Ozzie credit because of some of the stuff he says, and some of his small ball tendencies. But that team, by the best I can figure, really over achieved and tons of credit for that goes to Ozzie.

Fair enough. Ozzie's grown on me quite a bit as a manager, but until 2008 or so, he was trying too hard to be Tony LaRussa, in my opinion. He liked using Cotts as a LOOGY in 2005 (look at how many 0.1-inning appearances he had), despite Cotts being tough on all comers that year. He has since learned his lesson, and deploys his current lights-out lefty, Thornton, against anyone and everyone.

I will say that my "despite of" was a bit strong; Ozzie didn't really do much in 2005 to hurt the Sox. He handled his starters well, and made sure he rested guys, particularly Iguchi (who never played a major league-length season before) so they'd be fresh at the finish (you can argue this didn't work, as the August and September White Sox were notably worse than the pre-August White Sox). He just got a lot of credit for that World Series win, when it was really more about a bunch of pitchers coming together at the right time.

For the record, I have no problem with anything he says. One flaw, which he has been improving upon, is common to most managers: he favors players who played the game like he did. He's given plenty of playing time to guys like Dewayne Wise, slap hitters with little patience, because Ozzie was that kind of player.

Now, I'd actually put Ozzie as an above-average manager. He's shown a willingness to learn and change on the job, which is vital for success. He still handles his staff very well, and most of his players seem to love him (provided you don't get on his bad side early). I enjoy having him as manager of the Sox.

(Sorry, this post was rambling. I'll work on that. :) )

Like you guys say, I have no idea if Sandberg would be good for the Cubs, or any team. Something that I don't think has been said, though, is that managing a team is not mostly about lineups and strategy. It's mostly about managing people; how do you get the most out of your players (yes, where to play them and bat them is part of that). But I'd rather have a guy who is a crap strategist and good people manager (not to be read as simply "nice" or "tough") than the other way around. Sandberg may have a simpleton's view of stats, strategy and philosophy and be an excellent manager. Basically, we have absolutely no way of knowing or judging, other than results on the field, most of what a big league manager does. Which is why, IMO, there is always a feeling of "that team won despite the manager" - you see bad tactical decisions and assume the manager is a net negative. Probably, if the team won, especially if it is a team not made up of all-stars, he was a positive, albeit not as positive as he could have been.

I also think a lot of this is a natural aversion to anything Hendry proposes.

The point of his time in the Cubs minor league system is a good one. For one thing, it should make those kids, for a few years anyway, "his" guys. So, he might give them a shot over an aging veteran where another manager, ahem, wouldn't.

But I'd rather have a guy who is a crap strategist and good people manager (not to be read as simply "nice" or "tough") than the other way around. Sandberg may have a simpleton's view of stats, strategy and philosophy and be an excellent manager

This reminds me far too much of the defenses of Dusty Baker to not have me vomiting for the hills.

I get that, SSR, but a) Baker won a fair bit and, look at the Reds this year and b) an uber-stat saavy geek is not getting the job and, if he did, would almost certainly suck at it.


Sandberg has managed for a few years in the minors. Surely there is some idea of how he's done down there. Have his players developed? How has he handled attitude problems? Personal conflicts? Playing time allocation? Etc. He's been clearly the heir apparent for four years, have you Cubs fans paid any attention to what he was doing down there or are you content to simply say that he sounds old-school, so he must suck?


I sound like a dick, I think, and I don't mean to. It's just that much of the criticism really does come off as, "I don't like him or his sound bites." Which I get, I don't much like the quotes from him I've seen. However, quotes are one thing, on-field performance quite another. And he actually does have an on-field vita now; what is it?

Of course, the White Sox won the World Series more despite Ozzie instead of because of him.
I agree with Moses. I think Sandberg is as good a choice as anyone, and hiring a first-time manager would be a nice break from Cubs history, but if you want to send Ozzie up north, I'd be happy to try to win the World Series despite Ozzie.

But was it Bushmills?

Bushmills, in Chicago? Feckin' Prod shite...

I think we're projecting how we like other people to be (especially our work superiors) onto Sandberg. He seems pretty humorless, bland, and probably a bit wound up. I've worked for a boss like that, he wasn't that fun to be around, definitely not fun to be around when you had made a mistake or it was "that kind of day", but 90% of the time it was fine and I mostly just avoided him and did my job.

Then again, I don't have Milton Bradley's ego.

EDIT: Also, Sandberg being the excellent player and competitive guy that he is, may actually blend more with the typical professional baseball player attitude. A lot of them seem to be humorless, bland, and a bit wound up - so maybe it works out better.

Basically, us schlubs probably want another schlub above us, so we project that onto our teams - we want a mensch like Earl Weaver or Bobby Cox, not Pete Effin' Rose.

I get that, SSR, but a) Baker won a fair bit and, look at the Reds this year and

And look at what he did with the Reds in 2009 and 2008. Look at what he did with the Cubs in 2004, 2005, and 2006. This year he had a good may and for the most part the team has kept their head above water the rest of the time. We'll see how they finish the year.

As for Ryno. . .
2007-2008 Peoria:
The 2007 team featured pretty much no hitter that we are going to be seeing in the majors or would want to see in the majors. The 2008 Chiefs team featured several "older" players that hit decently but I just don't see any positional players on that team that are going to be mainstays or even good bench players for the Cubs.

2009 Tennessee
This team had Colvin and Castro on it

2010 Iowa
For the most part AAA is the place where you stack your usable MLB parts. You do have a sprinkle of some youth here like Darwin Barney the 24 year old SS. But for the most part this team is loaded with filler

So in terms of positional players for the most part future Cubs' teams are going to be filled with players that Ryne Sandberg has barely ever seen. The only two players he some experience with is Colvin and Castro. So will that help Sandberg? Will coaching two players over two seasons ago mean he will be better at developing them than some other guy hired off the street?

As for pitchers I don't see anyone in the 2007 Chiefs team that will be on the 2011 Cubs team same with the 2008 team. The 2009 team had Cashner and Russell on it as well as Jay Jackson and Chris Carpenter. This year he is again managing Jay Jackson.

It just doesn't look like Ryno has worked with these guys a lot. This isn't like Earl Weaver and the Orioles where he developed all these guys and they were all major league talent and he knew what he had.

For instance of BA's top 10 prospect list for 2010 Cubs Sandberg has worked one season with Castro, none with Jackson, 4 games with Vitters, 79 innings with Cashner, parts of 3 seasons with Jay Jackson, none with Lee, none with Watkins, 32 innings with Carpenter, none with Flaherty, and none with LeMahieu.

Oh, I'm sorry. Allow me to correct:

"Tom Waddle (former mediocre Bears wide receiver and son-in-law of less mediocre wide receiver Gino Cappelletti)"

Is that better?

BLASPHEME!!!

In the age of "For who, For what?" Tom Waddle was a gamer. If Waddle was still conscious and walking around on his own two feet you knew there was still a quarter or two left in the game. The man would kill himself for a first down.

Tom Waddle's got to be a great cult football player. I doubt anyone outside the Chicago area knows who he is (there's no reason for them to, that's for sure) but in the mid-1990s he was so immensely popular. One of the most popular players this side of backup QB in franchise history.

I get that, SSR, but a) Baker won a fair bit and, look at the Reds this year and

And look at what he did with the Reds in 2009 and 2008. Look at what he did with the Cubs in 2004, 2005, and 2006. This year he had a good may and for the most part the team has kept their head above water the rest of the time. We'll see how they finish the year.

Sure. I'm not arguing he's world's greatest manager. I'm just saying, for all the criticism (and I share a lot of it), he has had some success.

As for Ryno. . .

Thanks for the analysis. That doesn't look to give him any more advantage over anyone else with a few years of minor league experience.