National grumblings about Baker's future

[CubinNY]

Chicago is a Cubs town. Always has been always will be. As someone pointed out the Mets didn't "lose" New York because they never "had" it

 

Couldn't agree with you more. All it takes is the Cubs to sniff first place and Chicago will go crazy yet again. Cubs and Bears are the pulse of sports world in Chicago. It's just the way it is. The Sox just won a freaking WS and still only draw 20,000 for a weekday night game. Not that we should care whose more popular, but if questioned no doubt the Cubs are what Chicago craves...

 

I wish the Cubs had a crappy draw and were good. It would be much easirer to get ticktes.

 

Instead they draw great and are crappy and I still can't get tickets.

-------------

 

Let's get back on topic.

 

I beleive it is only a matter of time until Dusty has a Lee Elia type meltdown that will be the tipping point.

[goonys evil twin]

So anyway, if Baker were to get fired, who would be the interim coach? I'd have to think that such a drastic measure would call for more than promoting the triple A guy and riding out the year. In other words, if they fire Baker to try and put a charge into the team to compete this year, do they have to go outside the organization and hire an out of work manager with experience?

 

They seemed to be stockpiling castoffs from other teams for a couple years, but most of those guys have moved on.

 

I could see a couple options. If they fire Dusty and everybody related to the offense, I could see Larry Rothschild given the interim tag. He has managing experience, and the Cubs have put their most important asset in his hands. Or I could see Speier given the job. The big question would be how amicably the split was. If Dusty really wanted out and the Cubs let him go, maybe they'd keep on a guy like Dick Pole or Gary Mathews. But if it gets ugly, I'm guessing those guys will leave with Dusty. I don't see them going outside the organization, at least not in the short-term. They tend to promote from within for such things.

 

Of course, there is always the chance that Brenly gets the nod.

 

The least likely would be the PR move of hiring a popular ex-player.

 

But then again, I don't think he's leaving anytime soon.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Fire Baker. Convince Davey Johnson or Larry Dierker to take the job.

[Banedon]

Fire Baker. Convince Davey Johnson or Larry Dierker to take the job.

 

How about Bob Brenly?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Fire Baker. Convince Davey Johnson or Larry Dierker to take the job.

 

How about Bob Brenly?

 

I think both Johnson and Dierker would be better choices than Brenly. If we move Bob down, who replaces him in the booth?

[CubinNY]

IF they hire Brenly I hope it is on an interm basis only.

 

He is as sac happy as Dusty.

[goonys evil twin]

Fire Baker. Convince Davey Johnson or Larry Dierker to take the job.

 

How about Bob Brenly?

 

I think both Johnson and Dierker would be better choices than Brenly. If we move Bob down, who replaces him in the booth?

 

I would not like to see Brenly at the helm, small balling this team to death. But if they did, then maybe Stone will be brought back to the booth. Otherwise, you'd probably have a string of try-outs hoping to get the job full-time for next year.

 

Bill Murray has been pretty quiet since that string of late 90's early 00's films.

Edited May 8, 2006 by goony's evil twin

[Banedon]

Fire Baker. Convince Davey Johnson or Larry Dierker to take the job.

 

How about Bob Brenly?

 

I think both Johnson and Dierker would be better choices than Brenly. If we move Bob down, who replaces him in the booth?

 

Honestly, that is a lot less relevent to me than who the manager is. I certainly wasn't saying I'd be against either Johnson or Dierker. Just was throwing out an option of a guy that's been around the Cubs for a year and 30 games or so now. The guys are familiar with him, and I think he'd straighten these guys out. I don't know if he'd be interested, but it's an option.

[Soul]

Fire Baker. Convince Davey Johnson or Larry Dierker to take the job.

 

How about Bob Brenly?

 

I think both Johnson and Dierker would be better choices than Brenly. If we move Bob down, who replaces him in the booth?

 

Bring Stone back.

 

BTW, I think Brenly would be a fine choice, and a welcome change of pace from Dusty/Baylor. Dierker & Johnson would be good as well. I'd also take Valentine.

 

I think the ultimate point is, there are managerial options available. There's no reason we should be sticking with Dusty Baker. I wish the guy well, but he's done a pretty poor job here, IMO.

[Banedon]

Fire Baker. Convince Davey Johnson or Larry Dierker to take the job.

 

How about Bob Brenly?

 

I think both Johnson and Dierker would be better choices than Brenly. If we move Bob down, who replaces him in the booth?

 

Bring Stone back.

 

BTW, I think Brenly would be a fine choice, and a welcome change of pace from Dusty/Baylor. Dierker & Johnson would be good as well. I'd also take Valentine.

 

I think the ultimate point is, there are managerial options available. There's no reason we should be sticking with Dusty Baker. I wish the guy well, but he's done a pretty poor job here, IMO.

 

I'd like Valentine as well, though I'm pretty sure he's under contract in Japan if I'm not mistaken.

[Banedon]

IF they hire Brenly I hope it is on an interm basis only.

 

He is as sac happy as Dusty.

 

Well I can't see that happening. If Brenly was to come down out of the booth, they'd have to hire a new color guy. It doesn't make sense to bring him down just to send him back up. And a manager that has won the World Series is probably not gonna be an "interim" guy...

[goonys evil twin]

IF they hire Brenly I hope it is on an interm basis only.

 

He is as sac happy as Dusty.

 

Well I can't see that happening. If Brenly was to come down out of the booth, they'd have to hire a new color guy. It doesn't make sense to bring him down just to send him back up. And a manager that has won the World Series is probably not gonna be an "interim" guy...

 

He could be when no other team has shown any interest in him.

[Banedon]

IF they hire Brenly I hope it is on an interm basis only.

 

He is as sac happy as Dusty.

 

Well I can't see that happening. If Brenly was to come down out of the booth, they'd have to hire a new color guy. It doesn't make sense to bring him down just to send him back up. And a manager that has won the World Series is probably not gonna be an "interim" guy...

 

He could be when no other team has shown any interest in him.

 

Or he's not interested in managing again.

[Soul]

IF they hire Brenly I hope it is on an interm basis only.

 

He is as sac happy as Dusty.

 

Well I can't see that happening. If Brenly was to come down out of the booth, they'd have to hire a new color guy. It doesn't make sense to bring him down just to send him back up. And a manager that has won the World Series is probably not gonna be an "interim" guy...

 

He could be when no other team has shown any interest in him.

 

I wouldn't worry about a color guy, either. They could do a number of things. They would probably just stick Dave Otto in there until a permanent replacement was found. I can handle Otto for 30 games.

[goonys evil twin]

You guys need to stop getting my hopes up that Baker will get fired....*sigh*

 

Seriously, this is like talking about trading for Dunn. They should do it, they could do it, and it would be the smart move. But they won't do it.

[cheapseats]

 

The Sox play in a bigger park. They should outdraw the Cubs EVERY year but they don't. "Outdraw" doesn't equal "more popular".

 

As has been pointed out, Wrigley now has a higher capacity than US Cellular.

 

And how in the world do you define "more popular" if it has nothing to do with attendance. Let's not let the facts get in the way. :roll:

 

The Cubs have been Chicago's team for the last twenty years or so, but it hasn't always been that way. Before 1984, the Sox often outdrew the Cubs.

 

The Cubs haven't always been the dominant team in the city. Just because many of us on this board aren't old enough to remember what it was like in the past doesn't mean the past didn't happen.

 

Anyway, if the Cubs want to turn things around, firing Baker would be a start, I guess, but why should we be confident that his successor would be any better? The same person who hired Baker in the first place would be the man to pick his replacement. Baker doesn't always put the best nine players on the field, so I'd like to see him go. Hendry doesn't do enough to put the best 25 players possible on the roster, so I'd like to see him go, too.

[BeerHere]

Hendry missed the boat when he let Girardi take the job with Florida. He would make an excellent Cubs skipper IMO.

 

Oh, by the way, speaking as someone that lives and works around Chicago. Yes, the Cubs have something to be concerned about. Chicago baseball fans fall into three categories:

1) Cubs fans - never change always bleed cubbie blue

2) Sox fans - same as above for the sox

3) Fair-weather fans - follow whichever team is winning

 

It's category #3 that the Cubs dominated for a long time. The park, the atmosphere, the locale etc., all favored the cubs. Now that the sox have a better park and the city is dumping $$ to build up the area around the park the atmosphere is better. Add in the fact that the sox have finally brought a world series title to Chicago and you see the problem for the cubs. The ticker-tape parade was absolutely huge and it wasn't 100% diehard sox fans. The fair-weather fans deserted the sox in 94 for "giving up". It's those fans that have returned to the southside at the expense of the Cubs.

 

I work in the Loop. If the amount of Sox apparal is any indication, the city of full of sox fans and the amount is growing by the win.

 

The Cubs MUST be concerned. If they lose this year and next, while the sox are winning divisions and titles the balance will easily tip to the Sox. Let there be no doubt whatsoever. I think the Tribune will realize this and begin to find a buyer while the value is the highest (this year). They would be stupid to do otherwise and owe it to their shareholders.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2006 by BeerHere

[Soul]

 

The Sox play in a bigger park. They should outdraw the Cubs EVERY year but they don't. "Outdraw" doesn't equal "more popular".

 

As has been pointed out, Wrigley now has a higher capacity than US Cellular.

 

And how in the world do you define "more popular" if it has nothing to do with attendance. Let's not let the facts get in the way. :roll:

 

The Cubs have been Chicago's team for the last twenty years or so, but it hasn't always been that way. Before 1984, the Sox often outdrew the Cubs.

 

The Cubs haven't always been the dominant team in the city. Just because many of us on this board aren't old enough to remember what it was like in the past doesn't mean the past didn't happen.

 

Anyway, if the Cubs want to turn things around, firing Baker would be a start, I guess, but why should we be confident that his successor would be any better? The same person who hired Baker in the first place would be the man to pick his replacement. Baker doesn't always put the best nine players on the field, so I'd like to see him go. Hendry doesn't do enough to put the best 25 players possible on the roster, so I'd like to see him go, too.

 

I would point more to the total fan base of a club, rather than present attendance. I do remember the days when Wrigley wasn't an automatic sellout though. It was kind of nice----you could actually get decent tickets without having to buy the moment they came on sale. Good prices too.

 

I am confident the successor to Baker will be better simply because it can't get much worse.

[Banedon]

You guys need to stop getting my hopes up that Baker will get fired....*sigh*

 

Seriously, this is like talking about trading for Dunn. They should do it, they could do it, and it would be the smart move. But they won't do it.

 

The difference with the Dunn thing is that the Reds would've had to cooperate, so it wasn't entirely in the Cubs control. This is.

[biittner77]

 

 

The Cubs haven't always been the dominant team in the city. Just because many of us on this board aren't old enough to remember what it was like in the past doesn't mean the past didn't happen.

 

.

 

With the exception of 1983 I can't remember a time pre 1984 when there was a buzz about the Sox. The Cubs were on TV every day. The Sox were on fuzzy 44 then went to the ill fated ONTV subscription channel. Transitional fans got on the Sox bandwagon in '83 but '84 ended most of that. Even in '83 people were saying "Yeah that's great about the Sox but what would happen if the Cubs got good?"

 

As far as not being old enough to remember, I'm 38. I remember the Sox coming very close to moving to Tampa Bay and would have if the Mayor wasn't a fan. Now if the Sox were popular in the '70s that's something I couldn't say

[Master Shake]

Why not give Steve Stone a try as skipper?

[BeerHere]

Why not give Steve Stone a try as skipper?

 

The horse is dead

[Banedon]

Why not give Steve Stone a try as skipper?

 

I don't think that Kerry Wood and Steve Stone in the same clubhouse is a recipie for success.

[Master Shake]

Why not give Steve Stone a try as skipper?

 

I don't think that Kerry Wood and Steve Stone in the same clubhouse is a recipie for success.

 

Good point.

 

Still, it seems to me (mind you I'm often wrong) that Stone has a good mind for the game.

[Banedon]

Why not give Steve Stone a try as skipper?

 

I don't think that Kerry Wood and Steve Stone in the same clubhouse is a recipie for success.

 

Good point.

 

Still, it seems to me (mind you I'm often wrong) that Stone has a good mind for the game.

 

Stone has always expressed an interest in being a GM more than a manager.