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. Clute Posted: October 01, 2006 at 02:17 PM (#2193272)
Not to mention, I believe will be the first player to have 200 hits and not hit 300.
   2. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: October 01, 2006 at 02:20 PM (#2193277)
Lou Brock hit .299 in 1967 with 206 hits.
   3. Neil M Posted: October 01, 2006 at 02:24 PM (#2193280)
owest batting average for a player with 200 hits. Pierre entered Friday’s game batting .291. The current low is .295 by Jo-Jo Moore of the 1935 New York Giants.

That's from the intro, guys. Drink some more coffee.
   4. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: October 01, 2006 at 02:30 PM (#2193285)
He has no shot at the record, but Pierre can become only the 4th player in history to notch 700 ABs.
   5. Kirby Kyle Posted: October 01, 2006 at 02:49 PM (#2193295)
If my math is right, Pierre has made 510 batting outs this season (AB-H+GIDP+SH+SF). The alltime record is 535 by Horace Clarke in 1970, but I think Pierre has a chance to register the highest out total since 1999, when a Colorado shortstop and future Cub who shall not be named here made 514 outs. I may have missed someone in the past couple of years, though.
   6. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: October 01, 2006 at 04:31 PM (#2193345)
Bill Buckner once had 200 hits and didn't hit .300.

all the local writers have issued their pre-mortems of the expected announcement Monday. I may write my own

Getting a little late for a pre-mortem.

Looking at the team, I find it amazing that they're fifteenth in the league in runs scored despite almost no one on the offense having that bad of a season. John Mabry collapsed, and Neifi had a bad year by his standards. About everyone else with at least 100 at bats did around what they normally do.
   7. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 01, 2006 at 04:32 PM (#2193346)
I realize that it's fairly pointless to try to read tea leaves when we'll get the news in 24 hours anyway, but I can't help but point out that this snippet on Larry Rothschild caught my eye:

Rothschild, a South Side native who has been the team's pitching coach since 2002, was taking a businesslike approach about his future. On Monday, manager Dusty Baker is expected to part ways with the Cubs. That would leave the coaching staff in a state of uncertainty.

"That's something we will evaluate later and after I speak with Dusty," Cubs general manager Jim Hendry said.


Maybe I'm reading too much into Hendry's comment, but does anyone think it's odd that he's saying he'll evaluate Rothschild after talking to Dusty, rather than at the same time as Dusty?

Is it possible that Dusty might stay under the condition that Rothschild goes? If so, firing the coaches would be a move that should have been made months ago (if not at the end of last season), but seeing that it's Jim Hendry we're talking about, I suppose it's possible.

Alternatively, is it possible that Hendry will want to release Dusty and keep Rothschild -- either to saddle the next manager with him as a pitching coach (horrible idea) or even name Rothschild to be the next manager himself?

I hope I'm wrong of course. Not that I want to see Rothschild any more, of course; I'd like them both to be gone.
   8. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 01, 2006 at 04:34 PM (#2193348)
Getting a little late for a pre-mortem.

Yeah, I meant that I might write a post-mortem, whereas the media is all jumping to write one in advance. I'm not sure if I'll say anything, though; we've pretty much talked about Dusty to death and the media has pretty well summarized most of what's to say at this point.
   9. Dusty's Least Favorite Base-Clogger (Roy Hobbs) Posted: October 01, 2006 at 05:18 PM (#2193379)
Baker shouldn’t be the only one to go.


Well, this is the real shame. The cluelessness doesn't start and end with Dusty. Hendry and McPhail need to be shown the door along with the deservedly-maligned Dusty. But, of course, the suits at the Tribune Tower would still have no clue about how to go about developing a competitive baseball organization and who to hire.

With Hendry still left to cast about and hoard banjo-hitting middle infielders, over-priced relievers and outfielders with dubious production (the bastard will probably trade low-salaried Murton for some washed up vet), the Cubs will flounder for years to come.
   10. Andere Richtingen Posted: October 01, 2006 at 06:54 PM (#2193514)
It would be really stupid to retain Rothschild. Not that I really have anything him against him, but Hendry should be looking for zero continuity between regimes.

Anyway, I wouldn't read too much into what Hendry said about evaluating Rothschild after Baker, before Baker, whatever. Hendry has to talk in those terms because that is what he set up for himself in July. I more or less assume that Hendry pretty much knows what he's going to do right now. If he's going into the meeting with Baker tomorrow with the idea of allowing Dusty to talk his way back into a job...well God help us all, and God help Hendry in particular, because if he enters 2007 with Baker as his manager, in all likelihood he will not be the Cubs GM in 2008, and will never be a GM again. The Cubs do not have good prospects for success in 2007, and there is little Hendry can do to turn that around. He will need every bit of good will that will come with an overhaul of the coaching staff if he wants to keep his job.
   11. Kiko Sakata Posted: October 01, 2006 at 07:30 PM (#2193559)
Are all of the coaches' contracts up at the end of this season? If so, the "evaluating Rothschild" is somewhat irrelevant. I would hope that (a) Hendry has a pretty good idea, if not exactly who the next manager is, then at least who his top 2-3 candidates are, (b) Hendry has a firm timetable for when he's going to bring in the new manager, and (c) Hendry's going to let the new manager name his own coaching staff. I've never really understood why a general manager would insist on putting coaches in place over the manager's objection (if a manager's going to insist on hiring bad coaches, to me that's an indication that he's a bad manager and is a fireable offense).

The Cubs do not have good prospects for success in 2007

I agree with this in the general sense of "good." That is, the Cubs aren't going to the playoffs next year. But the Cubs underperformed and imploded so badly this year, that I think they're liable to get about a 10-game "dead-cat bounce." Now, 75 wins still pretty well sucks, but if McPhail really likes Hendry (and all indications are that he does), he could point to that 10-win improvement as a reason to keep on following the same foolhardy path.
   12. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: October 01, 2006 at 09:23 PM (#2193881)
Macphail is resigning.
   13. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: October 01, 2006 at 09:25 PM (#2193886)
Macpahil is out. He's staying on with the team as it relates to league matters, but out as President and CEO.

It's not just going to be Dusty getting the blame for this season.
   14. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 01, 2006 at 09:28 PM (#2193896)
if he enters 2007 with Baker as his manager, in all likelihood he will not be the Cubs GM in 2008, and will never be a GM again.

I think that will probably be true regardless of who is next year's manager.


Are all of the coaches' contracts up at the end of this season?

I believe so. The reasons Rothschild why is in a slightly different position than, say, Gene Clines, are (a) he was a holdover from the Don Baylor era and was Hendry's guy in the first place and (b) last year, he turned down a multiyear deal with the Tigers to stay with the Cubs -- and Hendry may want to reward that loyalty.
   15. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 01, 2006 at 09:29 PM (#2193903)
   16. Cooper Teenoh Posted: October 01, 2006 at 09:42 PM (#2193945)
So, who are people that all of you think would be worth having as the President of the Cubs?
   17. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: October 01, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#2193965)
Meatwad for President!

Honestly, I don't know. I don't really keep up with which front office guys at that level are unemployed, underemployed, looking for work, etc.

I'm guessing they're not about to promote Hendry.
   18. zfan Posted: October 01, 2006 at 10:10 PM (#2194003)
I have no idea about his qualifications, but hasn't there been a rumor that Kevin Towers will be out as San Diego GM? Any chance the Cubs see him as someone to hire and promote?

Sounds like McDonough may be the permanent guy, but that leaves Jim Hendry as the senior baseball man in the organization.
   19. Cabbage Posted: October 01, 2006 at 10:47 PM (#2194029)
So, who are people that all of you think would be worth having as the President of the Cubs?

Someone from a strong organization. Somewhere that has a cohesive and efficient organziation with a STINKING PLAN FOR WINNING SOME STINKING BALLGAMES.


Or maybe someone who's really good looking. Let's hire Francesca!
   20. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 01, 2006 at 11:40 PM (#2194057)
Someone from a strong organization. Somewhere that has a cohesive and efficient organziation with a STINKING PLAN FOR WINNING SOME STINKING BALLGAMES.

I know this sounds good, but I disagree. They need to find a good executive -- even if that person has no baseball experience whatsoever. (By "baseball experience," I mean as a player, manager, GM, scout, etc.) They need someone with a philosophy about how to run a successful organization, what types of people to hire and to weed out, what values the organization will have, etc. That person could be within baseball, of course, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

In fact, I'd venture to guess that if you surveyed the other 29 presidents, you'd find that those with baseball experience are in the significant minority.

In fact, Tal Smith (Astros) and Dave Dombrowski (Tigers) are the only ones I can think of at the moment.
   21. jwb Posted: October 02, 2006 at 12:36 AM (#2194084)
"But if [TribCo president FitzSimmons] would step away from the insanity for a moment, he would see that the problems are systemic and not entirely the result of a clueless manager."

Fixed that for ya, Rick!

We rip Morrissey quite a bit around here, with good reason. But I think this is nicely done:

"Somehow MacPhail and Hendry, two decent but overmatched men, have survived. There's no explaining Pauly Shore either."

To your health, sir!

If you're looking for someone attractive and has some experience luring pitchers, <a=http://www.ujenatalent.com/masters/13660.html#gallery>here is</a> an idea. But we already have enough injured pitchers, so maybe not.
   22. Patrick Cowsill Posted: October 02, 2006 at 05:13 AM (#2194251)
The Juan Pierre's numbers are pretty weird: he only struck out 38 times all season. But he also walked only 32 times (so basically he swings at everything). And he was caught stealing 19 times (or 33% of the time). Jones and Ramiriz who hit after him had 81 and 117 RBIs respectively. Jones also struck out 116 times. Perhaps team BA with runners in scoring position could provide some insight.
   23. CFiJ Posted: October 02, 2006 at 01:15 PM (#2194375)
They need to find a good executive -- even if that person has no baseball experience whatsoever. (By "baseball experience," I mean as a player, manager, GM, scout, etc.) They need someone with a philosophy about how to run a successful organization, what types of people to hire and to weed out, what values the organization will have, etc. That person could be within baseball, of course, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

You know, whenever I was talking about judging MacPhail as a CEO and not as a GM, I was talking about this. His job was to caretaker the Cubs as an organization, not focus purely on the onfield team. That's what the GM is there for. One can rightly jettison MacPhail for the overall direction of the organization, and for his apparent inability to find someone who could run baseball operations competently, but I never agreed with, for example, Bruce Miles comparing MacPhail to Himes et al and wondering why they were gone after X number of years, but he was still there after 12.

At any rate, they're blowing things up and starting from square one. All to the good. How Hendry survived the purge, I don't know, but I'm leaning towards the theory that he pulled a Claudius. Well, that, and a fortuitous contract extension before things dove into the crapper.
   24. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 02, 2006 at 02:53 PM (#2194461)
You know, whenever I was talking about judging MacPhail as a CEO and not as a GM, I was talking about this. His job was to caretaker the Cubs as an organization, not focus purely on the onfield team. That's what the GM is there for.

Sure. The difference, though, is that you were seeing MacPhail's days as the Twins GM as irrelevant. I disagree and believe they are quite pertinent when trying to consider the nature of MacPhail today.

For that matter, McDonough's work as the marketing czar are completely relevant when assessing his merits as president. What type of marketing organization did he run? How did he delegate? How loyal was he to underperforming employees? Who are the types of people he hired? How willing was he to "think outside the box" and consider unconventional ideas? What was the atmosphere of the marketing department?

All these questions are relevant (heck, crucial) when considering what McDonough brings to the table. They are just as relevant when assessing MacPhail. The difference is that MacPhail's prior work happened to be as a GM rather than as a marketing czar, but examining his philosophies and managing style/ability are certainly relevant, which was my point.
   25. CFiJ Posted: October 02, 2006 at 06:50 PM (#2194684)
The difference, though, is that you were seeing MacPhail's days as the Twins GM as irrelevant.

No, I was seeing his record as the Twins GM as being irrelevant. No one was talking managing styles in that thread.
   26. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 02, 2006 at 07:35 PM (#2194728)
No, I was seeing his record as the Twins GM as being irrelevant. No one was talking managing styles in that thread.

I think you need to look a bit closer at Posts #9 and #22. The question of who he hires as coaches and managers certainly plays into his management style, which I specifically referred to in those posts.

Furthermore, in Post #22 of that thread, I specifically mentioned how it is appropriate to examine "the success and managerial philosophies [other presidents] have had in their other enterprises." The same is true of MacPhail as well, which was a significant part of my point. Just as one should judge the Lewis Wolffs by how well they ran their past enterprises, whom they hired as key employees, and what management philosphies they had, the same can be said about MacPhail as well -- though in his case, "key employees" would mean coaches, managers, scouting directors and the like.

In addition, it isn't just relevant to discuss "managing styles" (such as whether he's a tough boss, how he delegates, etc.); it's entirely relevant to consider his vision (if any) on how to build and run a successful baseball organization. This would be judged in large part based on what he says today and on other things he has said over the past 12 years and in his interviewing process.

It can also be determined, albeit to a smaller extent, how he made up the Twins, what type of players he drafted, who he hired as coaches and scouting directors, and how he built the major league team. The point isn't to ask "was this trade a good one"; it is to ask "what overall philosophies did he have while running the Twins." Did he follow the same philosophies then as he does today? If not, what changed and why?

This is the area that you viewed as completely irrelevant and I wholeheartedly disagree. As I said in the other thread, I realize a move like acquiring a backup catcher will say virtually nothing about his abilities and philosophies with the Cubs. OTOH, judged as a whole, MacPhail's decisions while a Twins GM have some relevance. Not the be all, end all, of course, but they do help tell what kind of person MacPhail is.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3783 seconds
35 querie(s) executed