Baker on Cedeno in suntimes

[goonys evil twin]

1st, I didn't start with Chicken Little. Someone else did and I used it. My application of that word is not towards posters but chicken little arguments. Further, My posts on this thread are not necessarily just a reflection of my view of other posts on this thread, but a general posting attitude that is pervasive when it comes to Ronny/Neifi. Ronny is the starter, Dusty's said it, Hendry'd implied it, and now Bruce has said it. Neifi replacing Ronny has been posted ad nauseum anytime cedeno's struggles are mentioned. If you don't see this, you are selectively reading the board. So maybe the second post on this thread was not a good example - i will give you but that, but there aren't a shortage of examples on this board lately of it.

 

A) It doesn't matter who said it first, calling somebody chicken little is hardly in-line with the don't insult posters part of this board.

 

B) It doesn't matter if they've said he's the starter, their track record indicates he won't get much of a leash.

 

C) If people think his leash will be short, and you believe otherwise, then simply state that fact, don't rip to shreds those people who think the Cubs will screw it up.

 

D) Just becuase you think something is Chicken Little, doesn't mean it is. Just because you think the trend has been ad nauseam, doesn't mean it's to a disgusting or ridiculous degree in other people's opinions. And just because a lot of people share the opinion that the Cubs are going to give Neifi more time than they should, doesn't give you the right to start playing vigilante and ripping to shreds people who think that.

 

This message board, being a Chicago Cubs message board, is going to hit on the same storylines all of the time. The same topics are going to be discussed over and over. If you get sick of them, as I do at times, then you stay out of the debate. But you can't stop people from saying Dusty will give the SS job to Neifi eventually by telling those people to shut up because Hendry and Dusty already said it's Ronny's job. Just like you can't stop people from talking about Wood and Prior being injury prone and you can't stop people talking about the Cubs futile history.

 

If you think Ronny is going to get 120-130 starts, and that he is not in jeopardy of losing his job, even if he struggles. Fine. I hope you're right. But it doesn't make much sense to argue with people who don't agree with you on that topic, because nothing will be proven until much later this summer. And it doesn't make any sense to call people names for thinking Ronny is going to have a tough time keeping Dusty from replacing him with Neifi.

[badger1679666666]

1st, I didn't start with Chicken Little. Someone else did and I used it. My application of that word is not towards posters but chicken little arguments. Further, My posts on this thread are not necessarily just a reflection of my view of other posts on this thread, but a general posting attitude that is pervasive when it comes to Ronny/Neifi. Ronny is the starter, Dusty's said it, Hendry'd implied it, and now Bruce has said it. Neifi replacing Ronny has been posted ad nauseum anytime cedeno's struggles are mentioned. If you don't see this, you are selectively reading the board. So maybe the second post on this thread was not a good example - i will give you but that, but there aren't a shortage of examples on this board lately of it.

 

A) It doesn't matter who said it first, calling somebody chicken little is hardly in-line with the don't insult posters part of this board.

 

B) It doesn't matter if they've said he's the starter, their track record indicates he won't get much of a leash.

 

C) If people think his leash will be short, and you believe otherwise, then simply state that fact, don't rip to shreds those people who think the Cubs will screw it up.

 

D) Just becuase you think something is Chicken Little, doesn't mean it is. Just because you think the trend has been ad nauseam, doesn't mean it's to a disgusting or ridiculous degree in other people's opinions. And just because a lot of people share the opinion that the Cubs are going to give Neifi more time than they should, doesn't give you the right to start playing vigilante and ripping to shreds people who think that.

 

This message board, being a Chicago Cubs message board, is going to hit on the same storylines all of the time. The same topics are going to be discussed over and over. If you get sick of them, as I do at times, then you stay out of the debate. But you can't stop people from saying Dusty will give the SS job to Neifi eventually by telling those people to shut up because Hendry and Dusty already said it's Ronny's job. Just like you can't stop people from talking about Wood and Prior being injury prone and you can't stop people talking about the Cubs futile history.

 

If you think Ronny is going to get 120-130 starts, and that he is not in jeopardy of losing his job, even if he struggles. Fine. I hope you're right. But it doesn't make much sense to argue with people who don't agree with you on that topic, because nothing will be proven until much later this summer. And it doesn't make any sense to call people names for thinking Ronny is going to have a tough time keeping Dusty from replacing him with Neifi.

 

For the final time, I never called anyone (any single poster) any names.

[CubsWin]

RETIRING TYPE: Baker said it's up to shortstop Ronny Cedeno to improve his pitch selection. During a spotty spring at the plate, Cedeno's basic problem has been that he is getting himself out.

 

"They're not getting Ronny out,'' Baker said. "Ronny is getting Ronny out. The whole thing is pitch selection. He's been over-aggressive swinging at low-percentage pitches.''

 

I thought the bolded quote was funny because it perfectly describes Neifi's whole career. Of course you'll never hear Dusty mention that.

 

 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/cubs/cst-spt-kiley21.html

This could be a simple case of Dusty being asked this question about Ronny and not about Neifi. Or it could be that he believes Ronny has the ability to be more than what he is showing now while believing that Neifi isn't going to get better than what has been showing. It sounds like to me that Dusty is simply sharing with the media the coaching he has been giving Ronny which is very supportive coaching if you ask me. He empowers the young player by letting him know that it is within the player's power to make this simple adjustment and have the success he was having before. There is nothing wrong with his swing mechanics. There is nothing lacking about the player's talent level. It is completely within the player's control to succeed. How does this supportive coaching promote the idea that Baker dislikes young players?

 

There are a lot of positive or neutral ways to spin this quote, but only one way to take it negatively. I fail to see how this is any sort of evidence in favor of the theory that Dusty loves Neifi Perez because he is a veteran and dislikes Ronny Cedeno because he is inexperienced.

 

That's not to say that a solid case can't be made that Baker prefers to play veterans. I believe he does. I just don't think a quote like this one is evidence in support of that theory.

[DesMoinesCub]

I just read the whole thread, and I just thought Chicken Little was the nickname we decided to give Neifi because of his legs. (Note sarcasm...I am really not that stupid)

[CubinNY]

 

There are a lot of positive or neutral ways to spin this quote, but only one way to take it negatively. I fail to see how this is any sort of evidence in favor of the theory that Dusty loves Neifi Perez because he is a veteran and dislikes Ronny Cedeno because he is inexperienced.

 

That's not to say that a solid case can't be made that Baker prefers to play veterans. I believe he does. I just don't think a quote like this one is evidence in support of that theory.

 

I don't think anyone has said anything like that, except for the people who have said that others are implying that.

 

I don't really have a problem with the quote per se. What I have a problem with is Dusty's track record of overlooking poor play by vetren players and keying on poor play by rookies or non-vetran players. To me, and I could be wrong in this instance, this is a case in point. As I said in my first post in this thread, only time will tell what Dusty will do.

 

Why is it that a rookie with a good track record in the minors has to win a job in ST but a vetran with a crappy track record doesn't lose a job in ST. I am not talking about starting or being a back up here but an overall thing.

 

Last year Hollandsworth was handed the job in LF and DuBios had to play his way into the position. How much pressure was put on DuBios? He couldn't have an 0-3 without looking over his shoulder.

[goonys evil twin]

There are a lot of positive or neutral ways to spin this quote, but only one way to take it negatively.

 

I think that's a rather arbitrary and subjective claim.

[goonys evil twin]

For the final time, I never called anyone (any single poster) any names.

 

You called out one single post and said it was Chicken Little. I don't understand how you can deny that.

[rawaction]

Let it drop, boys.

[badger1679666666]

For the final time, I never called anyone (any single poster) any names.

 

You called out one single post and said it was Chicken Little. I don't understand how you can deny that.

 

No I didn't. Someone asked for an example. I never would have quote it unless asked to.

 

And even THEN, i called the post a chicken little post, i never even named the poster as chicken little.

[CubsWin]

There are a lot of positive or neutral ways to spin this quote, but only one way to take it negatively.

 

I think that's a rather arbitrary and subjective claim.

Its only arbitrary if it has nothing to do with the thread, and it is only subjective if you can show that it isn't necessarily accurate which means that there are several negative interpretations of Dusty's quote. Thats certainly possible. I just couldn't think of any at the time.

 

How many ways can you negatively interpret Dusty's quote?

[CubsWin]

 

There are a lot of positive or neutral ways to spin this quote, but only one way to take it negatively. I fail to see how this is any sort of evidence in favor of the theory that Dusty loves Neifi Perez because he is a veteran and dislikes Ronny Cedeno because he is inexperienced.

 

That's not to say that a solid case can't be made that Baker prefers to play veterans. I believe he does. I just don't think a quote like this one is evidence in support of that theory.

 

I don't think anyone has said anything like that, except for the people who have said that others are implying that.

So what do you think the original post in this thread, the one that I quoted, was saying?

 

It seemed clear to me that frostwyrm was saying that Baker was being critical of Cedeno when he would never be critical of Neifi even though he does the exact same thing. Thus, the old rookie SS vs. veteran SS routine, but maybe he was saying something completely different.

 

What was your take?

[Gunned]

Mew mew mew.

[UncleDon]

Murton hits .500, and it's just spring training. Cedeno has a rough couple of weeks, and he's not ready. Such negativity...

[Geech]

It's hard to be positive when my margins are warped by huge avatars.

[KatJ]

It's hard to be positive when my margins are warped by huge avatars.

 

Speaking of avatars, I can't even see yours. I get the aggravating red x.

[Geech]

Yeah, Cox deactivated my webspace for some reason.

[CubinNY]

From Sullivan

 

—Marquis Grissom's spring hasn't been strong enough for him to automatically gain a spot on the Opening Day roster, but his résumé is long enough for the Cubs to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-060322cubsbits,1,2578044.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

[louisvillecub]

From Sullivan

 

—Marquis Grissom's spring hasn't been strong enough for him to automatically gain a spot on the Opening Day roster, but his résumé is long enough for the Cubs to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-060322cubsbits,1,2578044.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

 

Good God Almighty. Translated to "he sucks, but because he's a veteran, he automatically gets a spot."

 

Jeesh.........and people doubt that Baker prefers old washed up vets over young 'uns???

 

Give me a break.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Grissom really hasn't impressed me or anyone in ST. Look at Babe Ruth's resume. Why isn't he on the team? :lol:

[UBlink]

Grissom really hasn't impressed me or anyone in ST. Look at Babe Ruth's resume. Why isn't he on the team? :lol:

 

Can he catch the ball?

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Grissom really hasn't impressed me or anyone in ST. Look at Babe Ruth's resume. Why isn't he on the team? :lol:

 

Can he catch the ball?

 

Well, provided it's hit right at him. He doesn't even flinch when the ball hits him. Tough dude.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Pagan or Restovich should be on the team over Grissom. This has a "Lenny-esque" feel to it though.

[wastra]

Pagan or Restovich should be on the team over Grissom. This has a "Lenny-esque" feel to it though.

 

 

I like the thought of Restovich being our right handed corner outfield bat off the bench. He has far more potential than Grissom, I think, LOL. He;s not a prospect, but he looks like he could be coming into his power.

[CubsWin]

Pagan or Restovich should be on the team over Grissom. This has a "Lenny-esque" feel to it though.

 

 

I like the thought of Restovich being our right handed corner outfield bat off the bench. He has far more potential than Grissom, I think, LOL. He;s not a prospect, but he looks like he could be coming into his power.

Clearly, Grissom hasn't earned a spot on the Cubs roster as of now. So, I've been thinking about Pagan and Restovich and who would be better? I like Pagan. I like that he is still only 24 and has speed as well as some power. It is interesting to note that of the three, Grissom, Restovich and Pagan, Pagan is the only one currently on the 40-man roster. The only problem is that as a player type, he is very similar to Hairston and would basically be duplicating him on the roster. The Cubs lack power off the bench and thus have a greater need for someone like Restovich.

 

But, at this point, its anybody but Grissom for me.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Pagan or Restovich should be on the team over Grissom. This has a "Lenny-esque" feel to it though.

 

 

I like the thought of Restovich being our right handed corner outfield bat off the bench. He has far more potential than Grissom, I think, LOL. He;s not a prospect, but he looks like he could be coming into his power.

Clearly, Grissom hasn't earned a spot on the Cubs roster as of now. So, I've been thinking about Pagan and Restovich and who would be better? I like Pagan. I like that he is still only 24 and has speed as well as some power. It is interesting to note that of the three, Grissom, Restovich and Pagan, Pagan is the only one currently on the 40-man roster. The only problem is that as a player type, he is very similar to Hairston and would basically be duplicating him on the roster. The Cubs lack power off the bench and thus have a greater need for someone like Restovich.

 

But, at this point, its anybody but Grissom for me.

 

Pagan is having a nice spring, but the guy has over 2200 Minor League PA's and has a SLG of .373 and an awful .095 IsoP. I wouldn't count on many XBH's from him. My preference is Restovich, because he has minor league performance in addition to the tools that got him(and Pagan) drafted so high, and he isn't redundant with another player on the roster like you said.