Back office stability and Winning

[Scott G. F.]

Jim Hendry and Dust Baker are in current negotiations for extending their jobs. IMO I'm glad that the Trib wonks will create some stability. I hate getting a new manager/GM and putting to much hope on them. The one thing that some or most Cub fans have been saying is "try and build the team like the Braves". Well the one thing the Braves have is stability in the manager and back office. Same goes with the Cards and Yanks, all winning organizations.

As much criticism that Dusty gets, much well earned, he is the only winning manager I've seen in my life time over three seasons with the Cubs. Not perfect but not bad either.

JH has his share of bad moves too but he has made some great moves. 2 words Todd Hundley!

 

I like having the Cubs organization create a stable environment. It’s good for the players or perspective players seeing that the Tribune Co. has committed to the back office and believes in their system. (for now)

 

I see these eventual signings as a good thing for the long term winning prospect of the Cubs.

[David]

Actually, from all the recent reports I've heard, they will not be extending Dusty until after the season, if at all (please don't)...

 

Hendry is going to get his extension soon, though. Not sure how I feel about that.

[Scott G. F.]

Actually, from all the recent reports I've heard, they will not be extending Dusty until after the season, if at all (please don't)...

 

Hendry is going to get his extension soon, though. Not sure how I feel about that.

 

I'm betting Dusty gets a 2 years with a 1 year option.

 

Hendry a 3 year.

[Soul]

Dusty isn't really back office though.

 

Hendry is, and he's been around for a little while now. Hasn't gained us much. MacPhail was around forever it seemed, and that pretty much netted us nothing. Now he's even further in the back office.......still nothing.

 

It depends who you are giving the stability to.

[Guest]

Are the Braves and Cards successful because they have stable management or has their management been stable because they've been successful? I'd wager it's more likely to be the latter. Neither Baker nor Hendry has earned the kind of tenure track Cox and Schuerholz enjoy. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to extending Hendry, just that his results to date aren't good enough to make that decision a no-brainer.

 

Like many others here I would shed no tears if 2006 is Dusty's last season here.

[TB_11]

Are the Braves and Cards successful because they have stable management or has their management been stable because they've been successful? I'd wager it's more likely to be the latter. Neither Baker nor Hendry has earned the kind of tenure track Cox and Schuerholz enjoy. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to extending Hendry, just that his results to date aren't good enough to make that decision a no-brainer.

 

Like many others here I would shed no tears if 2006 is Dusty's last season here.

 

As it relates to the Cubs, any competent manager who knew the basics of the position should have been able to pull together winning season from the talent and health we had in 2003 and 2004.

 

As much as I don't like Ozzie Guillen, I believe he's right when he says that managers can do a lot to reduce a team's success, but not much to improve a team's success (obviously said in so many words, though).

[Scott G. F.]

Are the Braves and Cards successful because they have stable management or has their management been stable because they've been successful? I'd wager it's more likely to be the latter. Neither Baker nor Hendry has earned the kind of tenure track Cox and Schuerholz enjoy. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to extending Hendry, just that his results to date aren't good enough to make that decision a no-brainer.

 

Like many others here I would shed no tears if 2006 is Dusty's last season here.

 

I'm not sure that Cox was hired and won right away, I doubt it, but before the WS appearence for the Cards LaRussa was in the hot seat and the fans were calling for his head. (Red Bird Nation Blog... now dead).

The Cubs have been sucessful under Dusty and Hendry since 2003. Back to back winning season 03 and 04 for the 1 st time in 30 years. They have a competative team on the field and expect to win.

That's an entire mind set of loveable losers to expected winners.

I believe they've done a good enough job to be extended.

[BigbadB]

Hendry and MacPhail have been able to get the Tribune to open the purse strings, something no other GM's have been able to do.

 

Because the money has been available to make improvements to the team, I can't really give Baker any credit for their back to back winning seasons.

 

While injuries have had their impact on the last two seasons, injuries can't be used as the excuse for why you didn't win.

 

Rewarding a manager coming off of a losing season is not my idea of good business practice.

 

I watched Dusty manage this team all of last year, just like I've watched managers manage their teams since the early 70's. After watching last year, I'm under the impression that any clown can manage a baseball team. Maybe not well, but they could do it, and probably at least match Dusty's record of last year.

 

I honestly felt that Dusty was attempting to get himself fired with the moves he made. I don't think he likes it here, and the feelings with me are mutual. I don't like him here. To top things off, he's one of the highest paid managers in the game today. I expect much more than what we got.

 

A manager needs to be a leader, lead by example and make sound decisions 162+ games a year to make his team as successful as they can be. Dusty failed badly at this last year. An extension is the furthest thing from my mind at this point.

[Scott G. F.]

Hendry and MacPhail have been able to get the Tribune to open the purse strings, something no other GM's have been able to do.

 

Because the money has been available to make improvements to the team, I can't really give Baker any credit for their back to back winning seasons.

 

While injuries have had their impact on the last two seasons, injuries can't be used as the excuse for why you didn't win.

 

Rewarding a manager coming off of a losing season is not my idea of good business practice.

 

I watched Dusty manage this team all of last year, just like I've watched managers manage their teams since the early 70's. After watching last year, I'm under the impression that any clown can manage a baseball team. Maybe not well, but they could do it, and probably at least match Dusty's record of last year.

 

I honestly felt that Dusty was attempting to get himself fired with the moves he made. I don't think he likes it here, and the feelings with me are mutual. I don't like him here. To top things off, he's one of the highest paid managers in the game today. I expect much more than what we got.

 

A manager needs to be a leader, lead by example and make sound decisions 162+ games a year to make his team as successful as they can be. Dusty failed badly at this last year. An extension is the furthest thing from my mind at this point.

 

I understand your point of view. But looking at the longest term Cub managers you have Jim Riggleman with 5 years then Leo D. in the '60's!

Jim Riggleman's best year was 1998 at 2nd place.

[Guest]

I'm not sure that Cox was hired and won right away, I doubt it, but before the WS appearence for the Cards LaRussa was in the hot seat and the fans were calling for his head. (Red Bird Nation Blog... now dead).

Cox took over managing duties for the Braves mid-season in 1990. Their unprecedented playoff run began the next year. How many 90 win seasons have the Cubs had under Hendry/Baker? The Braves had eight in Cox's first eight full seasons.

[BigbadB]

In a 5 year period, a whole team's roster can turn over. How many players do the Red Sox have left from their World Series team, and that was just 2 years ago?

 

The Cubs 2003 line up featured:

 

Sosa, Patterson, Moises, Aramis, Gonzalez, Grudz, Karros, Miller

 

Who is left from that Cub line up? Aramis! Who we acquired mid season that year.

 

Not one bench player from 2003 is still on the team. Only Prior, Wood and Zambrano remain from the entire pitching staff of that year. That's 4 players out of more than 25 from just 2003 alone.

 

What stability is necessary in the role of a manager when the roster itself is not stable?

[Scott G. F.]

In a 5 year period, a whole team's roster can turn over. How many players do the Red Sox have left from their World Series team, and that was just 2 years ago?

 

The Cubs 2003 line up featured:

 

Sosa, Patterson, Moises, Aramis, Gonzalez, Grudz, Karros, Miller

 

Who is left from that Cub line up? Aramis! Who we acquired mid season that year.

 

Not one bench player from 2003 is still on the team. Only Prior, Wood and Zambrano remain from the entire pitching staff of that year. That's 4 players out of more than 25 from just 2003 alone.

 

What stability is necessary in the role of a manager when the roster itself is not stable?

 

BBB whom from the bench would you have retained Lenny Harris? I keed!

 

The stability through the Cubs system would provide what the Braves have, such as watching younger players develop and knowing how to manage them once at the major leauge level. The knock that Dusty doesn't develop younger players is crap. I believe that would prove to be false if given time (aka stability).

 

IMO if you roll out a new GM and managers every 2 to 3 years you'll never win. It's like trying to solve complex math by changing more then 2 factores instead of solving for one then the others in some type of order.

 

I'm just trying to state that the Trib and Cubs might want to stick with a more stable back office and manager, since over the last 30 years bringing in new people hasn't worked.

[BigbadB]

Bobby Cox: 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, etc.. infinity...

 

Baker: 1st, 3rd, 4th

 

This isn't comparing apples with oranges, but rather grapes to watermelons.

[goonys evil twin]

Stable mediocrity doesn't really excite me. Sounds a lot like sticking with the proven veteran who has shown over and over he's not good enough to help you win, instead of taking a chance on a young guy who might be terrible or great. I'd rather go for the gold and risk brilliant failure than settle for the slightly above .500 stability of this regime.

[Scott G. F.]

Stable mediocrity doesn't really excite me. Sounds a lot like sticking with the proven veteran who has shown over and over he's not good enough to help you win, instead of taking a chance on a young guy who might be terrible or great. I'd rather go for the gold and risk brilliant failure than settle for the slightly above .500 stability of this regime.

 

There is no hot new manager out there. If so name one.

But as far as stable, yes I would like to be excited watching the Cubs come down to the last couple games each year like during the Dusty Term unlike most if not all the years I've watched the Cubs.

 

Dusty is 25 games over .500 as a manager as of last year.

 

It seems thet Jim Hendry is an easier sell on this thread.

[goonys evil twin]

Stable mediocrity doesn't really excite me. Sounds a lot like sticking with the proven veteran who has shown over and over he's not good enough to help you win, instead of taking a chance on a young guy who might be terrible or great. I'd rather go for the gold and risk brilliant failure than settle for the slightly above .500 stability of this regime.

 

There is no hot new manager out there. If so name one.

But as far as stable, yes I would like to be excited watching the Cubs come down to the last couple games each year like during the Dusty Term unlike most if not all the years I've watched the Cubs.

 

Dusty is 25 games over .500 as a manager as of last year.

 

It seems thet Jim Hendry is an easier sell on this thread.

 

I don't need popular names, nor am I satisfied with meaningful games in September. I want a World Series, and this group has not shown they are capable of getting the team there.

[neely crenshaw]

i would rather see us create stabilty with a good office and staff rather the one we have. they have been here for several years and have built zero...

[Scott G. F.]

Bobby Cox: 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, etc.. infinity...

 

Baker: 1st, 3rd, 4th

 

This isn't comparing apples with oranges, but rather grapes to watermelons.

 

The Cubs winning percentage since 1990 .468

The Cubs winning percentage under Dusty .525

 

Looks like the Tribune and Cubs are moving in the right direction to me. Lets see how far they can take this.

[goonys evil twin]

i would rather see us create stabilty with a good office and staff rather the one we have. they have been here for several years and have built zero...

 

This is true. Andy has been around for over a decade, and Jim has been a vital cog for nearly as long. This front office has had more stability than either the Yankees or Red Sox, and probably just about every other team in baseball. Yet they've done nothing on the field to deserve such stability and are due for an overhaul.

[goonys evil twin]

Bobby Cox: 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, etc.. infinity...

 

Baker: 1st, 3rd, 4th

 

This isn't comparing apples with oranges, but rather grapes to watermelons.

 

The Cubs winning percentage since 1990 .468

The Cubs winning percentage under Dusty .525

 

Looks like the Tribune and Cubs are moving in the right direction to me. Lets see how far they can take this.

 

We've most likely already seen that.

[Scott G. F.]

I don't need popular names, nor am I satisfied with meaningful games in September. I want a World Series, and this group has not shown they are capable of getting the team there.

 

So 2003 didn't happen?

Didn't JH make moves that look like he's trying to win? Dusty Too?

 

I say extend them both for at least 2 years.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't need popular names, nor am I satisfied with meaningful games in September. I want a World Series, and this group has not shown they are capable of getting the team there.

 

So 2003 didn't happen?

Didn't JH make moves that look like he's trying to win? Dusty Too?

 

I say extend them both for at least 2 years.

 

They didn't win the World Series in 2003 did they? They won 88 games in 2003 then collapsed in the playoffs. I don't care if they look like they're trying to win, I care if they actually do win. And so far they have not, nor have they done anything to make it look like they'll be any better than they were. Every GM and manager does things to try and win. The problem is lots of them fail, as Hendry and Baker have.

[CubinNY]

The Braves and Yankess haven't won because of stability.

 

The have been stable because they've won.

 

Steinbrenner would have fired the lot of them if they would have lost 2 out 3 WS.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I don't think the words Steinbrenner and stability belong anywhere near each other. :lol:

[goonys evil twin]

I don't think the words Steinbrenner and stability belong anywhere near each other. :lol:

 

To be fair, the front office has been relatively stable since the late 90s. There are always rumors of guys leaving, but once they started winning a lot, he kept people on.