early start on the excuses for grissom...

[goonys evil twin]

Then you have a problem with who is doing the judging rather than the concept.

 

I have a problem with both.

 

I hate the idea of tenure in baseball. If you've had a job before, you're automatically assumed to be qualified for that job now.

[UK1679666180]

If they assume he could do the job, he would have had a guaranteed contract.

 

It's still up to the person judging to fairly evaluate them.

[goonys evil twin]

If they assume he could do the job, he would have had a guaranteed contract.

 

That's a stretch. They should try and sign him to the cheapest deal possible. Non-guaranteed is cheaper than guaranteed. Plus, they had roster issues that made such a contract difficult. Furthermore, "they" are different people. Dusty didn't sign Grissom. And once Dusty has a worthless veteran available to him, he'll do what he can to play him.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Then you have a problem with who is doing the judging rather than the concept.

 

I have a problem with both.

 

I hate the idea of tenure in baseball. If you've had a job before, you're automatically assumed to be qualified for that job now.

 

No, I think you do kind of agree with the idea, but maybe not to the extreme that Dusty and others do.

 

Do you really think that Pierre has to out-preform Greenberg in SP to get the starting spot? Does Lee need to look over his shoulder and worry about Dope? Should Prior be concerned that if Hill out pitches him this Spring, that his job is at stake? Easy answer: no. Hard answer: what if they go 0-50 during the cactus league? Maybe? It's all relative.

[goonys evil twin]

Then you have a problem with who is doing the judging rather than the concept.

 

I have a problem with both.

 

I hate the idea of tenure in baseball. If you've had a job before, you're automatically assumed to be qualified for that job now.

 

No, I think you do kind of agree with the idea, but maybe not to the extreme that Dusty and others do.

 

Do you really think that Pierre has to out-preform Greenberg in SP to get the starting spot? Does Lee need to look over his shoulder and worry about Dope? Should Prior be concerned that if Hill out pitches him this Spring, that his job is at stake? Easy answer: no. Hard answer: what if they go 0-50 during the cactus league? Maybe? It's all relative.

 

Pierre vs Greenberg and Lee vs Dope is not close to the same thing. Grissom is coming off a terrible year, he was never that good to begin with, he's really old and quite possibly done. He should have to prove he deserves a job. Lee proved he deserved his job, as did Pierre.

[SouthSideRyan]

This has all the makings or settings of Hollandsworth/Dubois II and we all know how that turned out. I'll bet at some point last ST Dusty uttered the same rhetoric about Hollandsworth in relation to Dubois.

 

Nah, Dusty pretty much called Hollandsworth the starter all spring. Kinda like he's been doing for Murton this year.

[biittner77]

 

Pierre vs Greenberg and Lee vs Dope is not close to the same thing. Grissom is coming off a terrible year, he was never that good to begin with, he's really old and quite possibly done. He should have to prove he deserves a job. Lee proved he deserved his job, as did Pierre.

 

According to Baker, he does have to show that he can still play/ has something left.

 

I was actually encouraged by this quote. Baker could have said

 

"Grissom will be a great assest to this team."

 

or

 

"If he's healthy, Grissom will be an important contributor off the bench"

 

or even worse

 

"Grissom will help push Murton"

[goonys evil twin]

According to Baker, he does have to show that he can still play/ has something left.

 

I was actually encouraged by this quote. Baker could have said

 

"Grissom will be a great assest to this team."

 

or

 

"If he's healthy, Grissom will be an important contributor off the bench"

 

or even worse

 

"Grissom will help push Murton"

 

It's certainly not the worst thing he could have said. But it's perfectly fair for people's ears to perk up when they hear/read it. He's giving preferential treatment to a 38/39 year old coming off a terrible year. And apparantly all this guy has to do is look good (not play well, or produce, or prove last year was a fluke, just look good) and he'll get a job.

[TheDude]

I don't understand how the defense of Dusty's quote degenerated into Grissom has to do nothing and automatically makes the team.

 

The entire counter-argument is a flawed strawman because it assumes all or nothing, when in fact nobody (from Dusty who made the quote to those defending it) has stated that to be the position in the first place.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't understand how the defense of Dusty's quote degenerated into Grissom has to do nothing and automatically makes the team.

 

The entire counter-argument is a flawed strawman because it assumes all or nothing, when in fact nobody (from Dusty who made the quote to those defending it) has stated that to be the position in the first place.

 

It doesn't have to be the stated position for people who have paid attention to Dusty and his moves to draw a reasonable conclusion.

 

And nobody said "do nothing". He has to look like he can play. He doesn't have to prove that he can play well, he just has to look like he can.

 

He is going to make the club, that is almost a certainty.

[louisvillecub]

I don't understand how the defense of Dusty's quote degenerated into Grissom has to do nothing and automatically makes the team.

 

The entire counter-argument is a flawed strawman because it assumes all or nothing, when in fact nobody (from Dusty who made the quote to those defending it) has stated that to be the position in the first place.

 

It doesn't have to be the stated position for people who have paid attention to Dusty and his moves to draw a reasonable conclusion.

 

And nobody said "do nothing". He has to look like he can play. He doesn't have to prove that he can play well, he just has to look like he can.

 

He is going to make the club, that is almost a certainty.

 

Bruce Miles also said that yesterday, without the "almost"

[TheDude]

It doesn't have to be the stated position for people who have paid attention to Dusty and his moves to draw a reasonable conclusion.

So here you are saying that Dusty's words do not mean much, only past action. Which means those who are looking at his quote and working from there, aren't on the same assumption-base you're on.

 

And nobody said "do nothing". He has to look like he can play. He doesn't have to prove that he can play well, he just has to look like he can.

 

He is going to make the club, that is almost a certainty.

Can you explain this? How do you look like you can play, and at the same time not play well?

 

It seems to me that if you're not playing well, you won't look like anything but a ballplayer not playing well.

[goonys evil twin]

It doesn't have to be the stated position for people who have paid attention to Dusty and his moves to draw a reasonable conclusion.

So here you are saying that Dusty's words do not mean much, only past action. Which means those who are looking at his quote and working from there, aren't on the same assumption-base you're on.

 

And nobody said "do nothing". He has to look like he can play. He doesn't have to prove that he can play well, he just has to look like he can.

 

He is going to make the club, that is almost a certainty.

Can you explain this? How do you look like you can play, and at the same time not play well?

 

It seems to me that if you're not playing well, you won't look like anything but a ballplayer not playing well.

 

Ask Dusty to explain it. He is the one looking at his legs and bat speed and not interested in what he actually does at the plate.

 

It's funny, a lot of people who support Dusty want others to believe that his oft-repeated absurd words don't mean much. I've always believed that Dusty's actions mean a lot more than his words. He talks off the cuff a lot, contradicts himself repeatedly, makes no sense often. But his actions have been consistent, and they are not hard to interpret.

[biittner77]

It doesn't have to be the stated position for people who have paid attention to Dusty and his moves to draw a reasonable conclusion.

So here you are saying that Dusty's words do not mean much, only past action. Which means those who are looking at his quote and working from there, aren't on the same assumption-base you're on.

 

And nobody said "do nothing". He has to look like he can play. He doesn't have to prove that he can play well, he just has to look like he can.

 

He is going to make the club, that is almost a certainty.

Can you explain this? How do you look like you can play, and at the same time not play well?

 

It seems to me that if you're not playing well, you won't look like anything but a ballplayer not playing well.

 

Ask Dusty to explain it. He is the one looking at his legs and bat speed and not interested in what he actually does at the plate.

 

It's funny, a lot of people who support Dusty want others to believe that his oft-repeated absurd words don't mean much. I've always believed that Dusty's actions mean a lot more than his words. He talks off the cuff a lot, contradicts himself repeatedly, makes no sense often. But his actions have been consistent, and they are not hard to interpret.

 

Fair enough. The ghost of Lenny Harris lingers on in my mind too. It just seems to me that this comment was anything but that ringing endorsement usually given to ancient vets like Grissom.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

My point was that you DO believe in not having to prove yourself every spring with those "strawmen". Sure, its a totally different thing than Murton vs. Grissom, but you DO believe that everyone doesn't have to prove themsleves in the Spring. I agree with most everyone's statements completely....and so does Dusty, but he takes it to an extreme.

[goonys evil twin]

Fair enough. The ghost of Lenny Harris lingers on in my mind too. It just seems to me that this comment was anything but that ringing endorsement usually given to ancient vets like Grissom.

 

I'm not claiming it is a ringing endorsement. I just feel it's an indication that Grissom pretty much has the job unless a leg falls off.

[goonys evil twin]

My point was that you DO believe in not having to prove yourself every spring with those "strawmen".

 

No, I believe that certain people don't have to prove themselves, namely the good starters who aren't in real danger of sucking.

 

Honestly I don't put much emphasis on spring training numbers. But I find it incredibly hypocritical to force kids to produce in the spring but allow vets to stink, and still give the job to the vets. I hate the idea that proven veterans are allowed to keep/win jobs simply because they've been in the majors before.

[mhuber92211]

It is possible to make the team without having a good spring. I think this might be jumping to some bad conclusions based on the same exact thing that we are critizing Dusty for. We assume that we "know" what Dusty will do based on his previous tenure and not what he will do when actually given young talent to play. We can disagree on how much talent Dusty has had here to play (Choi & Dubois) but I think we can say that he has been fair thus far with his quotes about Murton & Cedeno.

 

Relating to Grissom, it is a different type of spring for him then Sing. Sing hasn't had much experience with a MLB spring training and is learning as well as impressing. Grissom has been to at least 14 springs and has an idea of what to expect and how to handle himself. Therefore, Dusty doesn't need to elvaulate his frame of mind or "can he handle the pressure". Dusty needs to evaluate the actual talent level. Comparisons of talent level is what the spring is for Grissom.

[LoneStarCubFan]

Fair enough. The ghost of Lenny Harris lingers on in my mind too. It just seems to me that this comment was anything but that ringing endorsement usually given to ancient vets like Grissom.

 

I'm not claiming it is a ringing endorsement. I just feel it's an indication that Grissom pretty much has the job unless a leg falls off.

 

Grissom's got the job because there's nobody else to give it to.

 

The young guys need to play in DM or AA because there's no way in the world they'll play for Dusty in Chicago.

[goonys evil twin]

Fair enough. The ghost of Lenny Harris lingers on in my mind too. It just seems to me that this comment was anything but that ringing endorsement usually given to ancient vets like Grissom.

 

I'm not claiming it is a ringing endorsement. I just feel it's an indication that Grissom pretty much has the job unless a leg falls off.

 

Grissom's got the job because there's nobody else to give it to.

 

The young guys need to play in DM or AA because there's no way in the world they'll play for Dusty in Chicago.

 

There certainly are other people to give the job to. Just because Dusty has problems properly using non-aged players doesn't mean non-aged players aren't qualified to do the job.

[abuck1220]

 

Grissom's got the job because there's nobody else to give it to.

 

 

BRANDON SING (1) OFF JULIO MATEO IN THE 3RD

BRANDON SING (2) OFF DAVE BURBA IN THE 4TH

[Bgbird68]

 

Grissom's got the job because there's nobody else to give it to.

 

 

BRANDON SING (1) OFF JULIO MATEO IN THE 3RD

BRANDON SING (2) OFF DAVE BURBA IN THE 4TH

 

Sadly, this will not change Dusty's mind about anything. Grissom is on the team, barring one of his legs being cut off.

[atcfootball]

It seems like no matter what Baker does/says some people will just have it out for him. It seems that no matter what happens, Grissom makes the team, or he don't Baker is simply following a "tradition" in baseball. As a general rule from best I can tell, most MLB managers would rather have older players rather then younger players to come off the bench.

 

With this thought I decided to look into what other "Cub" managers in the past have had coming off the bench. (it is up to the reader to pick of they think the player was a bench player or given a full time shot)

Baylor

Darren Lewis

Delino DeShields

Mark Bellhorn

Kevin Orie

Augie Ojeda

Robert Machado

Joe Girardi

Chris Stynes

Ron Coomer

Julio Zuleta

Matt Stairs

Michael Tucker

Gary Matthews, Jr.

Roosevelt Brown

Jeff Reed

Shane Andrews

Willie Greene

Jeff Huson

Glenallen Hill

Dave Martinez

Sandy Martinez

Jose Hernandez

Curtis Goodwin

Orlando Merced

Matt Mieske

(Did not include some players because they started there "Cub" career under another manager)

 

Rigs

Dave Hansen

Miguel Cairo

Manny Alexander

Rey Sanchez

Leo Gomez

Todd Haney

Dave Magadan

Terry Shumpert

Mark Parent

Howard Johnson

Todd Zeile

Glenallen Hill

Willie Wilson

Karl Rhodes

(There were many players that played a little with rigs that had less than 100AB in the season. - For this reason I did not consider them full time bench players).

 

If we judged each manager by the number of "Young" vs "Old" players they had on the bench I would have to say, NONE of the last THREE managers (Baker, Rigs and Baylor) like young players.

It seems to me even if Grissom makes the team, Baker is only following line with "Most" managers in baseball... Lets not forget Rigs was known as a manager that liked young players, yet he did not have many younger players coming off the bench for him either.

[CubinNY]

Grissom is done, he's been done for at least two seasons.

 

keeping him on the roster only holds a someone else down.

[Soul]

Grissom is done, he's been done for at least two seasons.

 

keeping him on the roster only holds a someone else down.

 

I would have to agree. Sad thing is, if he comes out hot in April we'll probably have to live with him the whole season no matter how badly he tanks.