Back office stability and Winning

[Fanzones trumpet]

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.

 

The Cards team of Jocketty/LaRussa was less successful in their first few years than the Hendry/Baker team in their first three years. Jocketty took over before 1995, LaRussa before 1996. Three bad teams (1995, 1997, 1999), one mediocre team (1998) and one surprising run to the NLCS in their first year together (1996), where, like the Cubs in Hendry/Baker's first year (2003), SL blew a 3-1 lead.

[Scott G. F.]

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

 

 

I had to laugh because that use to be so true, but not not anymore. This is the last year for Torre if no WS IMO.

[Scott G. F.]

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.

 

The have been stable because they've won.

 

And Hendry/ baker have a .525 record which is 25 games over on the winning side.

[goonys evil twin]

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.

 

The have been stable because they've won.

 

And Hendry/ baker have a .525 record which is 25 games over on the winning side.

 

There's winning, and then there's WINNING. Hendry and Baker haven't WON, Atlanta and NYY have.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

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.

 

The have been stable because they've won.

 

And Hendry/ baker have a .525 record which is 25 games over on the winning side.

 

25 games over .500 over 3 years is 85-77. That's not good enough to get you into the playoffs(1991 is the last year anyone in the top 4 of the league had a record that poor). Also, let's not forget we were several games below .500 last year, had a poor offseason and failed to address the problems that led to our poor year last year.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Transmogrified Tiger

[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.

 

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.

 

The Cubs (Tribune) never (and I mean never ever) use to make off season noise or trade deadline noise period end of sentance. But with Hendry and MacPhail and Dusty, their buyers every year so far. In 2003 they almost took us all the way, in '04 and '05 it didn't work out that well but they did something. I say keep these guys around to see what happens the next 2 years.

 

I'm no big Dusty Baker fan but give him some room. I believe he's delievred what he's promised. A winning team with it's eye on winning the world series. That has never ever been the case while I've watched the Cubs. ever year they made the playoffs it was considered lucky. Right now they have the Cubs team and system primed for a long term winning run. Cleaning house, to me, would set the entire organization back.

[CubinNY]

I guess the question is: Do you think Hendry and Dusty can get the Cubs to the next level? That is going to and/or winning a Wordl Series.

 

Having a winning record is nice and all, but the Cubs have never reached above mediocrity during the Hendry/Baker tenure. 88 and 89 wins is not that good.

 

It is not wise to compare what has gone on in the 70s, 80s, and 90s with today. The Cubs were a terrible franchise for a long time. Now they aren't terrible, but medicore.

 

I want more.

[CoolHandLuke]

 

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.

 

 

You need to solve the first correctly before you can solve the second though.

[Scott G. F.]

 

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.

 

 

You need to solve the first correctly before you can solve the second though.

 

Who's to say we haven't?

[Fanzones trumpet]

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.

 

The have been stable because they've won.

 

And Hendry/ baker have a .525 record which is 25 games over on the winning side.

 

25 games over .500 over 3 years is 85-77. That's not good enough to get you into the playoffs(1991 is the last year anyone in the top 4 of the league had a record that poor). Also, let's not forget we were several games below .500 last year, had a poor offseason and failed to address the problems that led to our poor year last year.

 

Three years is too short of a time frame IMO to judge a GM. I posted above that Walt Jocketty's first five years in SL were much worse than Hendry's first three years in Chicago. Closer to home, Dallas Green had five bad seasons in his six years in Chicago. Looking back on it, do you think that firing him was the right thing to do?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

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.

 

The have been stable because they've won.

 

And Hendry/ baker have a .525 record which is 25 games over on the winning side.

 

25 games over .500 over 3 years is 85-77. That's not good enough to get you into the playoffs(1991 is the last year anyone in the top 4 of the league had a record that poor). Also, let's not forget we were several games below .500 last year, had a poor offseason and failed to address the problems that led to our poor year last year.

 

Three years is too short of a time frame IMO to judge a GM. I posted above that Walt Jocketty's first five years in SL were much worse than Hendry's first three years in Chicago. Closer to home, Dallas Green had five bad seasons in his six years in Chicago. Looking back on it, do you think that firing him was the right thing to do?

 

You have to look at the direction the team is headed. I wasn't old enough to remember the beginnings of Jocketty or Green's terms, but it's pretty clear the Cubs have regressed from the beginnings of Hendry's regime, in terms of talent on the major league roster and talent in the minor league system. His decision making has also been much more questionable as time has gone on.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Transmogrified Tiger

[Scott G. F.]

I guess the question is: Do you think Hendry and Dusty can get the Cubs to the next level? That is going to and/or winning a Wordl Series.

 

Having a winning record is nice and all, but the Cubs have never reached above mediocrity during the Hendry/Baker tenure. 88 and 89 wins is not that good.

 

It is not wise to compare what has gone on in the 70s, 80s, and 90s with today. The Cubs were a terrible franchise for a long time. Now they aren't terrible, but medicore.

 

I want more.

 

I want more too and the Cubs have had some good success over the last 3 years. Have they won the World Series? No. Will they with the current people in place? I say give them 2 years and see.

 

88 and 89 wins is that good if and when you consider the horror that was this orgainization over the span of my life. Do I want them to win the WS of course yes. Do I believe that we have a legitimate shot with JH and DB? Yes I do.

 

It's alway been "let's look for the next 'right manager' for the Cubs".

Fact is, there is no right manager for the Cubs we've used every type in the last 30 years with no sucess. I say stick with the current winning system and see if it brings you a WS ring.

 

It's not a perfect system but it's getting the Cubs much closer then anything prior to it.

[Scott G. F.]

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.

 

The have been stable because they've won.

 

And Hendry/ baker have a .525 record which is 25 games over on the winning side.

 

25 games over .500 over 3 years is 85-77. That's not good enough to get you into the playoffs(1991 is the last year anyone in the top 4 of the league had a record that poor). Also, let's not forget we were several games below .500 last year, had a poor offseason and failed to address the problems that led to our poor year last year.

 

Three years is too short of a time frame IMO to judge a GM. I posted above that Walt Jocketty's first five years in SL were much worse than Hendry's first three years in Chicago. Closer to home, Dallas Green had five bad seasons in his six years in Chicago. Looking back on it, do you think that firing him was the right thing to do?

 

Dallas Green pleaded with the Tribune Company to open the purse strings and they didn't or the Cubs would have won IMO. That set up McPhil and letting Maddux go to the Braves (if I remeber correctly).

 

When Dallas Green was hired by the Cubs he built the 1984 team bringing in Ryne Sandberg to name just one of many.

[Fanzones trumpet]

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.

 

The have been stable because they've won.

 

And Hendry/ baker have a .525 record which is 25 games over on the winning side.

 

25 games over .500 over 3 years is 85-77. That's not good enough to get you into the playoffs(1991 is the last year anyone in the top 4 of the league had a record that poor). Also, let's not forget we were several games below .500 last year, had a poor offseason and failed to address the problems that led to our poor year last year.

 

Three years is too short of a time frame IMO to judge a GM. I posted above that Walt Jocketty's first five years in SL were much worse than Hendry's first three years in Chicago. Closer to home, Dallas Green had five bad seasons in his six years in Chicago. Looking back on it, do you think that firing him was the right thing to do?

 

You have to look at the direction the team is headed. I wasn't old enough to remember the beginnings of Jocketty or Green's terms, but it's pretty clear the Cubs have regressed from the beginnings of Hendry's regime, in terms of talent on the major league roster, talent in the minor league system. His decision making has also been much more questionable as time has gone on.

 

The talent's regressed from the beginnings of Hendry's regime? Here's the starting lineup on opening day 2003--Miller, Choi, Grudz, Gonzalez, Bellhorn, Alou, Patterson, Sosa. Other than Sosa (who was in the midst of a precipitous decline) and possibly Alou (who was coming off a bad 2002), 2006's lineup is better or equal. The current bullpen is much much better than the bullpen in 2003: (Veres, Borowski, Remlinger, Guthrie, Farnsworth, Alfonseca). And the only reason the starting pitching isn't at least is good is that Wood and Prior are currently hurt.

 

I disagree about the relative farm system strength. The Cubs are starting two position players who like like they're keepers (unlike Hill and Choi). They have Felix Pie at AAA, and good pitching depth.

[Fanzones trumpet]

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.

 

The have been stable because they've won.

 

And Hendry/ baker have a .525 record which is 25 games over on the winning side.

 

25 games over .500 over 3 years is 85-77. That's not good enough to get you into the playoffs(1991 is the last year anyone in the top 4 of the league had a record that poor). Also, let's not forget we were several games below .500 last year, had a poor offseason and failed to address the problems that led to our poor year last year.

 

Three years is too short of a time frame IMO to judge a GM. I posted above that Walt Jocketty's first five years in SL were much worse than Hendry's first three years in Chicago. Closer to home, Dallas Green had five bad seasons in his six years in Chicago. Looking back on it, do you think that firing him was the right thing to do?

 

Dallas Green pleaded with the Tribune Company to open the purse strings and they didn't or the Cubs would have won IMO. That set up McPhil and letting Maddux go to the Braves (if I remeber correctly).

 

When Dallas Green was hired by the Cubs he built the 1984 team bringing in Ryne Sandberg to name just one of many.

 

Green built the 1984 team exclusively through trades. His real contribution was building up a terrific farm system that was just starting to produce when he was canned. The Green farm system was the foundation of the 1989 division champion team.

 

Actually, the Trib did open the purse strings when Green was the GM; they had the third highest payroll in MLB in 1985. The thing that sunk Green was the injuries/poor play of expensive veterans he had signed in 1985-1987 (as well as personality conflicts with Trib executives). The problem with the firing was that it happened at precisely the time that his young players were starting to produce.

 

The Trib also opened the purse strings for Green's successor, Jim Frey. In winter 1991, they went on an expensive spending spree for George Bell, Danny Jackson and Dave Smith. It was the bad experience with those high priced players that led to Tribune financial retrenchment in the early 1990s.

[goonys evil twin]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v650/Mym/MySpace/LoweredExpectations.jpg

[Scott G. F.]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v650/Mym/MySpace/LoweredExpectations.jpg

 

 

Ha ha Gooney. But the blue cool aide is still strong in my vains right now. Don't be fatalistic. It's to early for that plus the JH signing will be Staurday followed by Dusty.

[BigbadB]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v650/Mym/MySpace/LoweredExpectations.jpg

 

 

Ha ha Gooney. But the blue cool aide is still strong in my vains right now. Don't be fatalistic. It's to early for that plus the JH signing will be Staurday followed by Dusty.

 

I can respect your opinion's Scott, but I just can't agree. I was just as excited as you were in 2003. However, it's been a slippery slope downhill ever since. I sorta gave 2004 a so/so grade, but I wasn't happy with the finished product. 2005 was a horrible season to be a Cub fan. Corey Patterson and Neifi Perez batting 1/2 practically all season long.

 

LaTroy Hawkins bombed as a closer in 2004. Who does Dusty appoint as his closer in 2005? LaTroy. How many times did LaTroy need to prove he isn't closer material? Way too many. I watch every Cub game I can. I know you know frustration, but watching Patterson and Neifi bat 1/2 in the line up and LaTroy blow another game as the closer has been more frustrating than any Cub season I have ever encountered, including 2003.

 

That's how bad 2005 was for me. In 2003, the Cubs had a very strong farm system. They got out of some bad contracts after that season, and they had money to spend and talent available to trade to improve the team. The 2004 team was not as good as the 2005 team.

 

The 2005 team was not just a talented team that encountered too many injuries. They were also a very poorly managed team. You have a bunch of free swinging hackers throughout the line up and a manager encouraging them to be even more free swinging. Assembling an everyday line up was a circus.

 

It's now 2006. The Cubs had over 40m in payroll available to spend, a roster crunch and tons of quality talent to trade. What do we have to show for it? Glendon Rusch and Neifi Perez sign 2 year deals. Jacque Jones signs a 3 year deal. They traded 3 prospects for a guy in the last year of a contract, a guy who could end up walking at the end of this season (Pierre). They've traded away guys who are absolutely at the lowest value they could possibly be (Sosa, Patterson, Mitre, Hawkins, etc...)

 

With the horrible offseason that this team had this year, I'm not the slightest bit interested seeing any extensions given out this offseason. Hendry has made some good moves, and Hendry has made some bad moves. Dusty (and this is just my opinion) has been horrible with his in game management. And, after seeing how he operates, I'm not really sure how he developed a reputation for being a guy everyone wants to play for. I think it's probably more true that mediocre veteran players love playing for him, because he's going to give them playing time they might normally not deserve.

 

If this team flounders offensively, I want Hendry and Baker gone. I want a management team that understands the importance of plate patience and OBP instead of a preference for an aggressive plate approach. I'm going to prefer a management team that limits starters to pitch counts, and will even consider removing a starter in a blow out game. I want a manager that makes his in game decisions based on percentages and scouting instead of hunches. I want a manager that will bench a guy who doesn't hustle, not reward him with more playing time. I want a guy who knows that sitting a guy on the bench for not hustling is teaching a valuable lesson, even if it hurts the team as a whole to sit that player on the bench for a game. There are guys who WILL hustle if your starter won't. No player is bigger than the game, and no player should be treated as if they are bigger than the game. The manager needs to instill this into each of his players and get the most out of each player everyday. Maybe that's another reason players like playing for Dusty. He doesn't make them hustle and there is no disciplinary action for not making them hustle.

 

But, that's just me. I don't care about stability. There's hardly anyone left from the 2003 team, and the minor league teams have taken on quite a different look since then as well.

 

Do I know who should replace Hendry and Baker, or do I know that the guys hired to replace these two will be any better. I can't answer either question. I'm not in a position to answer that question. But, as a hard core fan that watches nearly every Cubs baseball game, there are issues with this team and there are issues with this management team. And I've seen enough that I want someone gone. I wanted Dusty gone last year. If the same stupid in game decisions happen again this year, I want Hendry and Dusty gone.

 

I've spent most of this offseason listening to how the Cubs front office wants to be rid of Todd Walker. Why? Even if it's what they really want to do, why is this public information? All he does is go out there and play his best every game and he provides plenty offensively. Sure, he runs his mouth, but I can't say I blame him. I'm running my mouth right now. I'm not happy with this organization right now, and I can see how some players who want nothing more than to win might be a little unhappy with the organization as well.

 

How any manager could allow any player to sit on their butt in the clubhouse and watch the game on tv, and then allow them to be critical of the guys in the booth is beyond ridiculous.

 

These guys make millions of dollars to play this game. A manager needs to remind these players that they need to respect this game a little bit more than they have.

 

While I wanted Sammy gone just as much as the next guy after the 2004 debacle, the Cubs management team crapped all over him through the media. It didn't need to go down like that. But, to save face or to make themselves look better, they do it anyway. They drove Sammy's value down so bad, no team wanted him. While his skills were diminished to the point where he didn't have much value, not every team may have been completely convinced he was done. We should have gotten much more for Sosa than we did.

 

I could go on and on, but I won't. I can respect your opinion, but I can't agree with it. I'm not happy with this management team and I haven't been since 2003.

[BigbadB]

Of course, winning or making playoffs does solve a lot of my issues. :D

[frostwyrm]

Two words: INCREASED PAYROLL. Hendry/Baker apologists love to ignore the payroll growth, but if the payroll were to drop back to old levels I guarantee you Hendry/Baker fans would be the first to bemoan the situation.

[Scott G. F.]

BBB that was quite a posting on the situation. I'm glad I brought the topic up just for a posting such as that. But this management team is a dynamic team. Dusty Baker could do nothing wrong in 2003. WE (royal kind) all loved him. He owned Chicago and was a darling. Finally a manager that will bring the Cubs to the promise land. Jim Hendry was the best at his craft too ho ho what a time. Then 2004 followed by 2005. Both disappointments. No doubt about it.

 

I understand you're fed-up with the current management but is it because us Cub fans usually run the management out of town after not giving them enough time to cultivate a winner? The record indicates that that might just be the case. That's why I'm saying give them 2 years to see what can be done. If they fail then I will believe that they had a true shot and couldn't produce a World Series.

 

Winning solves alot of problems and the one little post following the thesis was very funny to me and is an indication to me that you'd like nothing better then the Cubs to win regardless of who manages them. Same as me.

 

BTW what's Lou Piniella doing these days?

[Scott G. F.]

Two words: INCREASED PAYROLL. Hendry/Baker apologists love to ignore the payroll growth, but if the payroll were to drop back to old levels I guarantee you Hendry/Baker fans would be the first to bemoan the situation.

 

To clarify, Hendry and Baker fan I am not. Cub fan yes. With new avenues of funding for the Cubs to spend the payroll needed to be increased.