National grumblings about Baker's future

[RynoRules]

 

 

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

 

Great point about the move to TB. I am old enough to remember and forgot. Reinsdorf definitely had a foot out the door. And there was also a time when the Sox had no t.v. contract, and WGN came in and scooped them up (back when the vast majority of Cubs games were during the day). .

[BeerHere]

The scrutiny of managing the Cubs in a city like Chicago requires that the person be tough as well as a good tactition. Finding someone willing to do it isn't the problem. Finding the right combination of stern, effective and "modern" approach is much more difficult. We should have gone after Girardi when we had the chance.

[Master Shake]

The scrutiny of managing the Cubs in a city like Chicago requires that the person be tough as well as a good tactition. Finding someone willing to do it isn't the problem. Finding the right combination of stern, effective and "modern" approach is much more difficult. We should have gone after Girardi when we had the chance.

 

No argument on Girardi.

 

I find I can't root against the Marlins even when we play them, because I have respect for Joe.

[Rooftop Bum]

I have always been a Cub fan. But the past 2.5 seasons have been very frustrating. It just seems like the team underachieves a lot nowadays. I know some of that has been due to injuries. But a lot of it has been stupidity as well. From Zambrano's odd behavior, Dusty boneheaded decisions, terrible fundamental baseball, the dissapointment of Prior and Wood, fans booing players, weird offseason moves and non-moves. The supposed good players that do come here like Nomar, Hawkins and Pierre don't really pan out. It just gets tiring. It seems like if all Hendry would do is bring in super stars somehow this team will find a way to fail eventually.

 

The teams in the past were bad of course but at least they maintained some sort of appeal. The team now really does not have a good appeal any longer besides Wrigley itself of course. Harry is gone. Stone is gone. Sosa is gone (yeah he was a goof his last season). The great rotation is now in effect gone with the injuries and will likely not return to greatness. It's kind of lame nowadays really and embarrassing being a Cubs fan. Especially when all the rivals are doing well like St Louis, Houson, and now even Milwaukee is not to bad.

 

The White Sox on the other hand over achieve and win a World Series. It looks like they are headed to another playoffs. They are gaining much more popularity in the city. Sure much of it is bandwagoners. But you have to admit they are gaining some momentum.

 

However, all it would take is one solid playoff year by the Cubs to bring the good vibes back to the Cubs. But it ain't gonna happen this year and I doubt it will next season unless some awesome moves happen shortly.

[Soul]

I always thought the White Sox were underacheivers for years. Then they got Ozzie.

 

 

Fire Baker. Today.

[Irrelevant Dude]

So anyway, if Baker were to get fired, who would be the interim coach?

Jody Davis??? :D

[goonys evil twin]

The scrutiny of managing the Cubs in a city like Chicago requires that the person be tough as well as a good tactition. Finding someone willing to do it isn't the problem. Finding the right combination of stern, effective and "modern" approach is much more difficult. We should have gone after Girardi when we had the chance.

 

No argument on Girardi.

 

I find I can't root against the Marlins even when we play them, because I have respect for Joe.

 

I'd argue pretty strongly against the idea that Girardi could or would utilize a more modern approach. I see him more of a "play it the right way" kind of guy, which often means sac bunts and all sorts of other conventional wisdom type theories.

[wastra]

For much of the past 3 years, I blamed the Cubs struggles on Baker and bad luck, primarily.

 

I was well aware of short comings on the roster, and risky gambles with signings/trades.

 

But when last offseason began progressing, I knew where the problem lay. It's Jim Hendry. The guy changes his "philosophy" every offseason. One year, he wants athletes. The next, it's lefty power. The next year, it's "team" guys. Last offseason, it was "guys who can catch."

 

He artificially created a market for guys like Rusch and Perez when there was no market for them, thereby forcing himself to pay them about twice what they're worth. For the second straight year, he settled on a terrible right fielder, and this time locked the team into the guy for THREE YEARS. He continued after the center fielder/leadoff guy he'd been fantasizing about for 3 years, despite the fact that the guy had an awful leadoff season last year and throws the ball about as hard as a 3 year old girl. All this weakened our farm system and tied our hands financially. That's not even including the previous 2 years of roster bungling where we lost a couple of our better prospects to RULE FRICKIN FIVE.

 

I have no misconception that Baker is a good manager. He isn't. He's terrible (which is another Hendry failing), but at this point, our season is squarely on Hendry's shoulders. We haven't improved our lineup for 3 years. In fact, we've got consistantly worse. We haven't improved our rotation for three years. In fact, it's got worse.

 

It was clear last winter that this team was heading for a gut check. In response to a 3rd straight miserable failure of an offseason, Hendry got an extension. And THAT signing is the reason we'll stink again next year.

[wade]

So anyway, if Baker were to get fired, who would be the interim coach?

Jody Davis??? :D

 

Talk about self-promoting! :D

[LoneStarCubFan]

 

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.

 

 

It's bigger now, but up until the last year or so that wasn't the case and the Cubs outdrew the Sox nearly every year since the the Trib has owned the team.

 

Fairweather fans are one thing, that number will fluctuate depending on who is doing well but I don't think there's any doubt that the Cubs have a bigger "diehard" fan base in Chicago than the Sox can ever hope to have.

 

As someone else pointed out, other than '83, the Cubs have pretty much owned Chicago since 1969. So much so that Veeck almost sold the Sox to an out-of-town buyer and Reinsdorf had to threaten to move to Tampa in order to get the city to build that abortion they play in now.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Reinsdorf had to threaten to move to Tampa in order to get the city to build that abortion they play in now.

 

Eh? :?

[cheapseats]

I always thought the White Sox were underacheivers for years. Then they got Ozzie.

 

 

Fire Baker. Today.

 

In all fairness, there's a lot that Ozzie gets wrong. He still calls for way too many sac bunts, for example.

 

He does handle his pitching staff pretty well. He lets his starters work themselves out of jams but he does monitor pitch counts. Don Cooper, of course, deserves much praise for his work with Sox pitchers.

[David]

Reinsdorf had to threaten to move to Tampa in order to get the city to build that abortion they play in now.

 

Eh? :?

 

What's the "Eh?" about? :?:

[BeerHere]

For much of the past 3 years, I blamed the Cubs struggles on Baker and bad luck, primarily.

 

I was well aware of short comings on the roster, and risky gambles with signings/trades.

 

But when last offseason began progressing, I knew where the problem lay. It's Jim Hendry. The guy changes his "philosophy" every offseason. One year, he wants athletes. The next, it's lefty power. The next year, it's "team" guys. Last offseason, it was "guys who can catch."

 

He artificially created a market for guys like Rusch and Perez when there was no market for them, thereby forcing himself to pay them about twice what they're worth. For the second straight year, he settled on a terrible right fielder, and this time locked the team into the guy for THREE YEARS. He continued after the center fielder/leadoff guy he'd been fantasizing about for 3 years, despite the fact that the guy had an awful leadoff season last year and throws the ball about as hard as a 3 year old girl. All this weakened our farm system and tied our hands financially. That's not even including the previous 2 years of roster bungling where we lost a couple of our better prospects to RULE FRICKIN FIVE.

 

I have no misconception that Baker is a good manager. He isn't. He's terrible (which is another Hendry failing), but at this point, our season is squarely on Hendry's shoulders. We haven't improved our lineup for 3 years. In fact, we've got consistantly worse. We haven't improved our rotation for three years. In fact, it's got worse.

 

It was clear last winter that this team was heading for a gut check. In response to a 3rd straight miserable failure of an offseason, Hendry got an extension. And THAT signing is the reason we'll stink again next year.

 

I generally agree with Wastra, but on this I have to disagree.

 

Hendry coveted Baker from day 1 in his tenure. He brought in his guy to manage the team. I believe (admittedly a guess on my part) that Hendry is just fabricating the team that Dusty wants. Dusty wants a veteran lineup, he gets it. Dusty wants a speedy lineup, he gets it. With a few notable exceptions (Murton/Cedeno) Baker has gotten the rosters he's asked for. The exceptions were the guys that Hendry feels strongly in favor of.

 

No question on the rule 5 goofs, I completely agree.

 

Jones has picked it up lately (a little) but that signing fits the Baker mold perfectly - speedy veteran with good fundamentals, poor plate discipline and a decent glove. To me that is a Baker signing more than Hendry. I honestly believe that Hendry believes in Dusty so strongly that he'll deliver the roster that he asks for, with a very few exceptions. Look at how things have changed regarding young players - the knock has always been that Baker won't play kids. It's was only when Hendry stepped in and forced Murton and Cedeno into the lineup that they played consistently.

 

I don't mean to put all the blame on Dusty, and Hendry certainly does deserve some shots, but most of the failures are Dusty forcing Corey to hit leadoff, and putting Neifi in the 2 hole, or sac bunting unecessarily. It starts with Dusty. I think Hendry is beginning to see this which is why Dusty hasn't been signed to an extension.

 

By the end of the year I honestly think we'll be looking for a new manager.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Reinsdorf had to threaten to move to Tampa in order to get the city to build that abortion they play in now.

 

Eh? :?

 

What's the "Eh?" about? :?:

 

They play in an abortion?

[David]

Reinsdorf had to threaten to move to Tampa in order to get the city to build that abortion they play in now.

 

Eh? :?

 

What's the "Eh?" about? :?:

 

They play in an abortion?

 

Yup. :wink:

 

a·bor·tion

 

5. Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.

[goonys evil twin]

Fairweather fans are one thing, that number will fluctuate depending on who is doing well but I don't think there's any doubt that the Cubs have a bigger "diehard" fan base in Chicago than the Sox can ever hope to have.

 

I think the Cubs clearly still own the town, but it can change. Last year's success bred a whole bunch of 5, 6 and 7 year old White Sox fans. A few more years of great White Sox success up against more Cubs suckitude could breed a new generation of young Sox fans that outnumber Cubs fans. I don't think you'd see the results in the next couple years, but over time it will happen. When those pre-teens get into their late teens, and have some disposable income of their own, they will make a difference. It used to be that team success played a small part in allegiances, because both teams sucked. The White Sox had some success in '83, then the Cubs had some in '84. The Cubs had '89 but the Sox came back in '93. The Cubs had '98 then the Sox had '00. Limited success went back and forth during this time and there was no way for one team to build up loyalties over the other based on success. The Cubs had 2003, but the Sox completely eclipsed that in 2005. If they go deep in the playoffs again this year, and stay relatively successful for the next couple years, and the Cubs stay in mediocrity land, then the Sox could seize the mantle from the Cubs.

[wastra]

For much of the past 3 years, I blamed the Cubs struggles on Baker and bad luck, primarily.

 

I was well aware of short comings on the roster, and risky gambles with signings/trades.

 

But when last offseason began progressing, I knew where the problem lay. It's Jim Hendry. The guy changes his "philosophy" every offseason. One year, he wants athletes. The next, it's lefty power. The next year, it's "team" guys. Last offseason, it was "guys who can catch."

 

He artificially created a market for guys like Rusch and Perez when there was no market for them, thereby forcing himself to pay them about twice what they're worth. For the second straight year, he settled on a terrible right fielder, and this time locked the team into the guy for THREE YEARS. He continued after the center fielder/leadoff guy he'd been fantasizing about for 3 years, despite the fact that the guy had an awful leadoff season last year and throws the ball about as hard as a 3 year old girl. All this weakened our farm system and tied our hands financially. That's not even including the previous 2 years of roster bungling where we lost a couple of our better prospects to RULE FRICKIN FIVE.

 

I have no misconception that Baker is a good manager. He isn't. He's terrible (which is another Hendry failing), but at this point, our season is squarely on Hendry's shoulders. We haven't improved our lineup for 3 years. In fact, we've got consistantly worse. We haven't improved our rotation for three years. In fact, it's got worse.

 

It was clear last winter that this team was heading for a gut check. In response to a 3rd straight miserable failure of an offseason, Hendry got an extension. And THAT signing is the reason we'll stink again next year.

 

I generally agree with Wastra, but on this I have to disagree.

 

Hendry coveted Baker from day 1 in his tenure. He brought in his guy to manage the team. I believe (admittedly a guess on my part) that Hendry is just fabricating the team that Dusty wants. Dusty wants a veteran lineup, he gets it. Dusty wants a speedy lineup, he gets it. With a few notable exceptions (Murton/Cedeno) Baker has gotten the rosters he's asked for. The exceptions were the guys that Hendry feels strongly in favor of.

 

No question on the rule 5 goofs, I completely agree.

 

Jones has picked it up lately (a little) but that signing fits the Baker mold perfectly - speedy veteran with good fundamentals, poor plate discipline and a decent glove. To me that is a Baker signing more than Hendry. I honestly believe that Hendry believes in Dusty so strongly that he'll deliver the roster that he asks for, with a very few exceptions. Look at how things have changed regarding young players - the knock has always been that Baker won't play kids. It's was only when Hendry stepped in and forced Murton and Cedeno into the lineup that they played consistently.

 

I don't mean to put all the blame on Dusty, and Hendry certainly does deserve some shots, but most of the failures are Dusty forcing Corey to hit leadoff, and putting Neifi in the 2 hole, or sac bunting unecessarily. It starts with Dusty. I think Hendry is beginning to see this which is why Dusty hasn't been signed to an extension.

 

By the end of the year I honestly think we'll be looking for a new manager.

 

 

As I said, Dusty is a poor manager, and the fact that he IS our manager is Jim's failing. I was just sayign that I don't think the level of sucktitude of THIS year's team is really all that much Dusty's fault compared to Hendry. And if Dusty is pulling the strings on personnel decisions so completely behind the scenes, then again Hendry has failed miserably as GM.

 

If Dusty's making those decisions, then he's obviously terrible, but I have no reason to believe that. Hendry has never shown the ability to assemble and manage an effective roster, there's no reason to think the only thing holding him back is Dusty. Dusty is a problem, but he's a lesser problem than Hendry, who is the reason Dusty is here in the first place. I would prefer that the Cubs fire Hendry today, and hire a new GM quickly, who in turn fires Baker.

[oldstyle81]

I agree with J.R. The anti-Dusty sentiment has been around for quit some time. The anti-Hendry sentiment is now seriously building for the first time, IMO.

 

well every year since 2003 the team has gotten considerably worse, anyone else would be fired

 

then again only with the cubs can you get considerably worse and get a extension

[Soul]

For much of the past 3 years, I blamed the Cubs struggles on Baker and bad luck, primarily.

 

I was well aware of short comings on the roster, and risky gambles with signings/trades.

 

But when last offseason began progressing, I knew where the problem lay. It's Jim Hendry. The guy changes his "philosophy" every offseason. One year, he wants athletes. The next, it's lefty power. The next year, it's "team" guys. Last offseason, it was "guys who can catch."

 

He artificially created a market for guys like Rusch and Perez when there was no market for them, thereby forcing himself to pay them about twice what they're worth. For the second straight year, he settled on a terrible right fielder, and this time locked the team into the guy for THREE YEARS. He continued after the center fielder/leadoff guy he'd been fantasizing about for 3 years, despite the fact that the guy had an awful leadoff season last year and throws the ball about as hard as a 3 year old girl. All this weakened our farm system and tied our hands financially. That's not even including the previous 2 years of roster bungling where we lost a couple of our better prospects to RULE FRICKIN FIVE.

 

I have no misconception that Baker is a good manager. He isn't. He's terrible (which is another Hendry failing), but at this point, our season is squarely on Hendry's shoulders. We haven't improved our lineup for 3 years. In fact, we've got consistantly worse. We haven't improved our rotation for three years. In fact, it's got worse.

 

It was clear last winter that this team was heading for a gut check. In response to a 3rd straight miserable failure of an offseason, Hendry got an extension. And THAT signing is the reason we'll stink again next year.

 

I generally agree with Wastra, but on this I have to disagree.

 

Hendry coveted Baker from day 1 in his tenure. He brought in his guy to manage the team. I believe (admittedly a guess on my part) that Hendry is just fabricating the team that Dusty wants. Dusty wants a veteran lineup, he gets it. Dusty wants a speedy lineup, he gets it. With a few notable exceptions (Murton/Cedeno) Baker has gotten the rosters he's asked for. The exceptions were the guys that Hendry feels strongly in favor of.

 

No question on the rule 5 goofs, I completely agree.

 

Jones has picked it up lately (a little) but that signing fits the Baker mold perfectly - speedy veteran with good fundamentals, poor plate discipline and a decent glove. To me that is a Baker signing more than Hendry. I honestly believe that Hendry believes in Dusty so strongly that he'll deliver the roster that he asks for, with a very few exceptions. Look at how things have changed regarding young players - the knock has always been that Baker won't play kids. It's was only when Hendry stepped in and forced Murton and Cedeno into the lineup that they played consistently.

 

I don't mean to put all the blame on Dusty, and Hendry certainly does deserve some shots, but most of the failures are Dusty forcing Corey to hit leadoff, and putting Neifi in the 2 hole, or sac bunting unecessarily. It starts with Dusty. I think Hendry is beginning to see this which is why Dusty hasn't been signed to an extension.

 

By the end of the year I honestly think we'll be looking for a new manager.

 

 

As I said, Dusty is a poor manager, and the fact that he IS our manager is Jim's failing. I was just sayign that I don't think the level of sucktitude of THIS year's team is really all that much Dusty's fault compared to Hendry. And if Dusty is pulling the strings on personnel decisions so completely behind the scenes, then again Hendry has failed miserably as GM.

 

If Dusty's making those decisions, then he's obviously terrible, but I have no reason to believe that. Hendry has never shown the ability to assemble and manage an effective roster, there's no reason to think the only thing holding him back is Dusty. Dusty is a problem, but he's a lesser problem than Hendry, who is the reason Dusty is here in the first place. I would prefer that the Cubs fire Hendry today, and hire a new GM quickly, who in turn fires Baker.

 

Well, yeah. But Hendry's extended I figure dump Baker. Better than nothing. Maybe Hendry will hit on his next choice.

 

We know Baker's bad so there's no reason to want/expect him to stay. Unless Hendry decides to continue the charade, in which case we're just screwed.

[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.

 

 

 

 

Fairweather fans are one thing, that number will fluctuate depending on who is doing well but I don't think there's any doubt that the Cubs have a bigger "diehard" fan base in Chicago than the Sox can ever hope to have.

 

 

I don't know that I agree.

 

There's no doubt the Cubs have a larger national fan base than the Sox. That's due in large part to the decision of the Sox not to go with WGN in the late 1970's. WGN reached a national cable audience in the 1980's, and many people outside of Chicago became Cubs fans during that time.

 

But the Cubs didn't start averaging 30,000+ at home games until 1998, the year Sammy hit 66 homers and the Cubs made the playoffs. Where were all the diehard Cubs fans before then? A lot of people jumped on the bandwagon during that season.

 

The Sox average attendance in 1980-1984 was 22% higher than the Cubs attendance during that time period. Comparing the capacities of the stadiums doesn't make much difference since neither team averaged near capacity.

 

The Sox also averaged more fans during the first half of the 1990's. It was much closer than the gap in the early 80's, but the Sox did draw more fans.

 

The Sox dominated the Cubs in attendance during the 1950's and 1960's. It wasn't until the Cubs put contending teams on the field in 1968 and 1969 that their attendance overtook the White Sox.

 

If you look at the yearly attendance figures, it's pretty clear that in the past, Chicago has gone out and supported winning teams.

 

I'm not saying the Sox are going to overtake the Cubs in Chicago this year or the next, but many here believe that it could never happen despite the fact that history shows its possibility.

 

If the Cubs want to maintain their grasp on the city of Chicago, they need to put a competitive team on the field. Right now they're not doing that. I can't believe Hendry got extended, but since he's not on the chopping block, we might as well start with Dusty.

[BeerHere]

Anyone that doesn't believe that the sox are primed to take over the city is fooling themselves. I'd bet that they draw more fans this year than the Cubs. Albeit fairwaether fans, but fans none the less.

 

The bottom line: The Cubs need to act.

[LoneStarCubFan]

Anyone that doesn't believe that the sox are primed to take over the city is fooling themselves. I'd bet that they draw more fans this year than the Cubs. Albeit fairwaether fans, but fans none the less.

 

The bottom line: The Cubs need to act.

 

They should draw more fans. Problem for them is, they usually don't. Even when the Cubs suck. Like they do now.

[mhuber92211]

What's wrong with Chris Spier for interim manager?

[circlechange]

Anyone that doesn't believe that the sox are primed to take over the city is fooling themselves. I'd bet that they draw more fans this year than the Cubs. Albeit fairwaether fans, but fans none the less.

 

The bottom line: The Cubs need to act.

There is no way that happens this year. Cubs are averaging 39,000/game, Sox 32,400/game. Most Cubs tickets are already sold, I don't think the Sox could get to the level that the Cubs are at AND make up the difference that we've already seen through the first 1/5 of the season. And I mean: I wouldn't be surprised if it's not even mathematically possible, not to mention the unlikelihood of that happening.