Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Gonfalon Cubs > Discussion
Gonfalon Cubs
— Cubs Baseball for Thinking Fans

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.

   1. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: June 19, 2006 at 07:23 PM (#2068600)
"This is the hitters' time of the year right now," Baker said. "It's hot. The wind is blowing out. The ball is flying out of here. Every ball up in the air on us was a home run."

Comments like this just frustrate the hell out of me. The wind was blowing out, it was a great hitter's day... yet we lost 12-3. It's not like the wind stopped blowing out when the Cubs came up, so don't blame it on the wind. Blame it on the Cubs lousy pitching (or the Tigers good pitching), or the Cubs lousy lineup (or the Tigers good lineup).

It's like after Saturday's game when Baker said that the ball just wasn't bouncing our way. The Cubs lost 9-3. How many bad bounces do you have to get to lose by 6 runs? Quick ####### blaming the wind and the bounces and the broadcasters and the beat writers and start accepting that this is a bad team that's playing like a bad team.

Just once this season, I want to hear Baker or Hendry say "this is a bad team, this team wasn't as good as we thought it would be coming into this season, we were wrong, we screwed up, changes need to be made." Enough with the excuses already.
   2. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:14 PM (#2068758)
I was going to point out the same quote UCCF. That's a ridiculous explanation when your offense musters all of three runs.
   3. Jerry Mumphrey Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:39 PM (#2068786)
In Dusty's defense, he was merely rationalizing Prior's poor season debut. That's why the players love him so much*, he provides for them excuses so weak as to draw the ire unto himself. In turn, they adopt his stance of unaccountability and perpetual bad luck. I was hoping for some obvious managerial blunders for this high-profile return of his silver bullet, but alas the game was out of hand after only the first inning. You do realize that Tony Womack started because it was father's day don't you? Todd Walker's father, unfortunately, is still alive.

*sarcasm intended
   4. McCoy Posted: June 19, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#2068791)
Geezus so now we are going to pick apart every little thing comes out of Baker's mouth?
I don’t care how frustrated Dusty Baker might be, an ignorant comment like this is indefensible

Indefensible? Why is it even getting attacked? This is like slamming the starting pitcher because he picked an ugly jersey for the team to wear. It's an unimportant statement that has no bearing on the team and it's performance. Pointiing it out and attacking Baker for it is petty and beginning to border on FireJoeMorgan type banality.

I don't want Baker to be the manager either but picking on him because he doesn't remember exactly how many homers the Braves hit off them 3 weeks ago or because it slipped him mind is well . . .come on you can do better then that. You mean to tell me that out of all the things going on with the Cubs the only new thread in a day or two is about Baker forgetting that the Braves hit 8 homers a few weeks back?
   5. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: June 19, 2006 at 10:10 PM (#2068809)
It will be indefensible when Dusty says the same thing after Cleveland hits eight tonight.
   6. dcsmyth1 Posted: June 19, 2006 at 10:19 PM (#2068819)
</i>I don’t care how frustrated Dusty Baker might be, an ignorant comment like this is indefensible."<i>

Well, my answer to this is that, while Baker is probably of somewhat above avg. *natural intelligence*, he is not any sort of *intellectual*. So, he will make these sorts of mistakes, but in the end it has very little to do with his success as a manager.

The thing about managers is, most of them get *stale* with the particular team they're with at some point, and that is the essential reason a change needs to be made. Of course, staleness comes quicker with a struggling team. My reading on Baker is that it's time for a change. I suspect that Baker himself is at least subconsciously aware of this, and that helps explain his sort of defeatist attitude in his public comments. But these people are by nature fighters, with egos, plus there may be a lot of money on the line. So, Dusty will ride it out as long as he can. In the end, unless there is a huge turnaround, I expect him to be fired in the offseason.
   7. Andere Richtingen Posted: June 20, 2006 at 12:18 PM (#2069507)
I was going to point out the same quote UCCF. That's a ridiculous explanation when your offense musters all of three runs.

It's particularly ridiculous when your team has easily the worst offense in the league for the entire season, and that such performances are pretty much expected day in and day out. This team has a terrible, lackluster offense, and it isn't just due to Derrek Lee being out. It's a poorly constructed position roster, and the reasonably promising young players are predictably dying on the vine. It seems to me that this team has been going through the motions pretty much since the beginning of last season.
   8. sterho Posted: June 21, 2006 at 04:17 PM (#2070720)
Maybe Dusty just wants his team back so he can show us what he can do.

We've been tracking the ridiculous things Dusty (and Ozzie) say in The Dusty & Ozzie Show, in the sports section of The Beachwood Reporter (beachwoodreporter.com).

We also asked there this week for Dennis FitzSimons to pull himself away from his duct table and baling wire and do the only thing he can: Fire Andy MacPhail.

This fish stinks from the head down.

We're still tweaking our archives, so for now you can put Cubs in our search function and see what else we've written. (Sorry for the commercial . . . )

The Cubs have jumped the shark.
   9. And You Thought Zonk Was Terminated? Posted: June 21, 2006 at 06:20 PM (#2070834)
Yankees interested in Jacque Jones.

This is a great opportunity - Jones is miscast as an everyday player, and while he's actually hit well in the proper spots (i.e., ONLY when he hits RHP), the Cubs have no use for a middle platoon OF who doesn't walk.

Heck - we don't even need to ask for Cano in return unless the Cubs brass has truly slid in an actual parody and is worried about 2b depth with the departure of Hairston. I doubt Jones would warrant Phil Hughes or Eric Duncan (I'd still ask... maybe if we tossed in an Eyre or a Howry?) - but I'd be perfectly happy getting a Sean Henn, Austin Jackson, or Marcos Vechionacci back.
   10. Luke Jasenosky Posted: June 21, 2006 at 07:36 PM (#2070921)
Indefensible? Why is it even getting attacked? This is like slamming the starting pitcher because he picked an ugly jersey for the team to wear. It's an unimportant statement that has no bearing on the team and it's performance. Pointiing it out and attacking Baker for it is petty and beginning to border on FireJoeMorgan type banality.

McCoy, I probably would have let the comment slide if Baker had only used the "I haven't seen that many..." line. What irked me was the fact that he couldn't (or at least made no effort to) give a solid number to the home runs his staff had given up only a hour before. His job is to manage the Cubs, and I'd like to believe that part of that job is carefully observing your team over the course of their three hours of work every day. Casually tossing off "a number" in place of "eight" might seem insignificant, and perhaps I'm being unfair, but to me it demonstrates a lack of seriousness, and that's what this organization has been suffering from since the Roosevelt administration (I mean FDR, of course, I don't want any Hack Wilson supporters protesting outside my apartment tonight).
   11. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: June 21, 2006 at 07:51 PM (#2070949)
It's likely that it wouldn't take much in the way of prospects since Jones is in the first year of a three-year deal worth about $12 million and the Bombers would essentially be offering a salary dump, though it's unclear if the Cubs would be willing to deal; Jones is hitting .288 with 13 homers and 35 RBI.

(It's a $16M contract - $3M this year, $4M in 2007, $5M in 2008, plus a $4M signing bonus some of which has already been paid.)

Defensive and baserunning problems aside, it's hard to call this a salary dump given the way Jones has performed the last couple of months. He's putting up an .851 OPS and is on pace to hit 30 HRs, despite an awful start. I don't think the Cubs are going to give him up for a PTBNL or a 24-year-old A ball pitcher.

It won't take Hughes or Cano either, though. I wonder how Maddux would feel about pitching for the Yankees - we could kill two birds with one stone. It wouldn't be the best PR move to get rid of Maddux, but PR should be the last thing the Cubs are worried about at this point.
   12. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: June 21, 2006 at 07:55 PM (#2070954)
(I should point out that quote is from the article zonk linked about the Yanks' interest in Jones.)
   13. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: June 21, 2006 at 11:01 PM (#2071164)
I wonder how Maddux would feel about pitching for the Yankees

Maddux + Jones could fetch a decent price.

The silver lining to the organization-wide futility is that the Cubs would be happy to take prospects at any position!
   14. Eric L Posted: June 22, 2006 at 12:04 AM (#2071301)
I have a question:

Obviously, the Giants did not go stale so quickly under Dusty, so who gets the credut?

Sabean?...Bonds?....Kent?....
   15. Dr. Vaux Posted: June 22, 2006 at 01:04 PM (#2072114)
I say Ned Colletti. Sabean's an idiot, and Colletti made decent moves for the most part this off-season, and the Dodgers are letting their most effective players play. He's the only one left who might not be an idiot, so it must have been him.
   16. Kiko Sakata Posted: June 23, 2006 at 07:58 PM (#2073565)
I have a question:

Obviously, the Giants did not go stale so quickly under Dusty, so who gets the credut?

Sabean?...Bonds?....Kent?....


I'd vote for Kent. The Giants actually did go stale pretty quickly under Dusty. After winning 103 his first season, his teams put up winning percentages the next three years of .478, .465, and .420. The next year (1997), the team added Jeff Kent and won 90 games (despite being outscored, they outplayed their Pythag by 10 games).

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dingbat_Charlie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2528 seconds
35 querie(s) executed