Bruce Miles is awesome

[soapy]

It's a solid article. Accurately points out the poor spending regarding Jones, Rusch, and Perez (as well as rehashing old spending habits that have no contribution to this season - a bit of piling on, but relevant if you consider job security an issue).

 

It's a shame the decent moves Hendry made didn't get any recognition, but hey, times are bad, so only bad gets reported. Eyre and Howry have been very strong. Trusting and giving the young the players the nod all season without short hooks is another point worthy of praise.

 

As to the "luck" discussion, I think Baker is correct. Luck is a factor in baseball. And the Cubs have been snakebitten in a serious way the past two weeks. When a Cubs player hits a rocket, it's an out. When the opposing player hits a check swing mistake, it's a basehit.

 

But, where Baker is incorrect is that bad luck doesn't excuse poor play. And there has been plenty of that as well. It's well and good to point out that guys aren't finding holes, but there needs to be some actual accountability for the poor defense play, terrible baserunning, lack of throwing fundamentals, inability to sacrifice bunt or fly, etc.

 

I think it is a mistake for anyone to suggest there is no luck involved though.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting there is NO luck involved. But Hendry and Baker seem to chalk all their failures up to "bad luck". When the Cubs get swept it's because "we ran into them at a bad time". When a pitcher get's shelled it's becuase, "they were just hittin' em in the holes". When a mediocre (or bad) pitcher mows through a complete game shutout of the Cubs it's time to, "tip your cap".

[cubweiser03]

Dusty's act of blaming "The Baseball Gods" for the failures of getting hits or getting on base is getting old. When they were shut out 5 of 15 games they were not hittin the ball hard or working the AB to get on base. Whats the point of a leader (manager) if its up to the 'Gods' anyway. Lets just let Faith and Hope guide us to the WS.

[TheDude]

It's a solid article. Accurately points out the poor spending regarding Jones, Rusch, and Perez (as well as rehashing old spending habits that have no contribution to this season - a bit of piling on, but relevant if you consider job security an issue).

 

Bad moves from the past absolutely have contribution to the this season. To pretend otherwise is absolutely inaccurate. It's not piling on to show how past mistakes can have lasting effects.

 

Can you please explain to me how the Estes and Alfonseca signings of several seasons ago contribute to this season?

[TheDude]

I don't think anyone is suggesting there is NO luck involved. But Hendry and Baker seem to chalk all their failures up to "bad luck". When the Cubs get swept it's because "we ran into them at a bad time". When a pitcher get's shelled it's becuase, "they were just hittin' em in the holes". When a mediocre (or bad) pitcher mows through a complete game shutout of the Cubs it's time to, "tip your cap".

 

If you go back to the first page it was actually you that stated it was not luck. But it isn't my intent to disagree with you or argue. As I stated in my prior post, citing bad luck is fine but if that's all the manager is going to cite than he deserves all the criticism he gets. So we agree on this point.

[Banedon]

It's a solid article. Accurately points out the poor spending regarding Jones, Rusch, and Perez (as well as rehashing old spending habits that have no contribution to this season - a bit of piling on, but relevant if you consider job security an issue).

 

Bad moves from the past absolutely have contribution to the this season. To pretend otherwise is absolutely inaccurate. It's not piling on to show how past mistakes can have lasting effects.

 

Can you please explain to me how the Estes and Alfonseca signings of several seasons ago contribute to this season?

 

When you analyze a baseball players performance, don't you look at what he's done historically, and how that will trend out in the future? It's the same thing here. He's historically overspent, he overspent again this year, and he's probably going to do it again in the future.

[soapy]

I don't think anyone is suggesting there is NO luck involved. But Hendry and Baker seem to chalk all their failures up to "bad luck". When the Cubs get swept it's because "we ran into them at a bad time". When a pitcher get's shelled it's becuase, "they were just hittin' em in the holes". When a mediocre (or bad) pitcher mows through a complete game shutout of the Cubs it's time to, "tip your cap".

 

If you go back to the first page it was actually you that stated it was not luck. But it isn't my intent to disagree with you or argue. As I stated in my prior post, citing bad luck is fine but if that's all the manager is going to cite than he deserves all the criticism he gets. So we agree on this point.

 

I stated that pitch recognition is not luck. I also stated that BA, RBIs and things of that nature can partially be attributed to luck.

 

In either case, we both agree that there is some luck involved. But "luck" does not explain away 2006 thus far IMO.

[TheDude]

It's a solid article. Accurately points out the poor spending regarding Jones, Rusch, and Perez (as well as rehashing old spending habits that have no contribution to this season - a bit of piling on, but relevant if you consider job security an issue).

 

Bad moves from the past absolutely have contribution to the this season. To pretend otherwise is absolutely inaccurate. It's not piling on to show how past mistakes can have lasting effects.

 

Can you please explain to me how the Estes and Alfonseca signings of several seasons ago contribute to this season?

 

When you analyze a baseball players performance, don't you look at what he's done historically, and how that will trend out in the future? It's the same thing here. He's historically overspent, he overspent again this year, and he's probably going to do it again in the future.

 

I agree with your statement. But that doesn't answer the question.

[Banedon]

It's a solid article. Accurately points out the poor spending regarding Jones, Rusch, and Perez (as well as rehashing old spending habits that have no contribution to this season - a bit of piling on, but relevant if you consider job security an issue).

 

Bad moves from the past absolutely have contribution to the this season. To pretend otherwise is absolutely inaccurate. It's not piling on to show how past mistakes can have lasting effects.

 

Can you please explain to me how the Estes and Alfonseca signings of several seasons ago contribute to this season?

 

When you analyze a baseball players performance, don't you look at what he's done historically, and how that will trend out in the future? It's the same thing here. He's historically overspent, he overspent again this year, and he's probably going to do it again in the future.

 

I agree with your statement. But that doesn't answer the question.

 

The trend, not the individual signings affected this season.

[goonys evil twin]

It's a solid article. Accurately points out the poor spending regarding Jones, Rusch, and Perez (as well as rehashing old spending habits that have no contribution to this season - a bit of piling on, but relevant if you consider job security an issue).

 

Bad moves from the past absolutely have contribution to the this season. To pretend otherwise is absolutely inaccurate. It's not piling on to show how past mistakes can have lasting effects.

 

Can you please explain to me how the Estes and Alfonseca signings of several seasons ago contribute to this season?

 

Well, in many ways, the Estes signing led up to the Rusch signing, and the never ending belief that they must have a lefty, preferrably veteran, in the rotation no matter how crappy he was. Estes and Alf's $7m at the time had reverberating affects on other potential signings, ie, they couldn't afford other guys who could actually help the team. The Alf signing also increased the need later to overspend on the bullpen to eventually fix it. Giving him a raise for a terrible season upped the asking price for later relievers and increased the level of anxiety to fill that position later on, since he did so in such a poor way in the past.

 

Every signing has an effect down the road. Every dollar spent on some crappy veteran can't be spent on an actual productive player.

 

And that terrible track record of predictably disastrous signings absolutely belongs in the discussion of what Hendry has done wrong with this team. This didn't just happen out of nowhere. There is a pattern of terrible personel decisions that goes back a long way, each of which has an affect on any follow-up moves.

[TheDude]

Well, in many ways, the Estes signing led up to the Rusch signing, and the never ending belief that they must have a lefty, preferrably veteran, in the rotation no matter how crappy he was. Estes and Alf's $7m at the time had reverberating affects on other potential signings, ie, they couldn't afford other guys who could actually help the team. The Alf signing also increased the need later to overspend on the bullpen to eventually fix it. Giving him a raise for a terrible season upped the asking price for later relievers and increased the level of anxiety to fill that position later on, since he did so in such a poor way in the past.

 

Every signing has an effect down the road. Every dollar spent on some crappy veteran can't be spent on an actual productive player.

 

And that terrible track record of predictably disastrous signings absolutely belongs in the discussion of what Hendry has done wrong with this team. This didn't just happen out of nowhere. There is a pattern of terrible personel decisions that goes back a long way, each of which has an affect on any follow-up moves.

 

Thanks for the specifics. I'll concede the point as you explained it well. I thought you were going for a different angle originally, and without details it was worthy of a follow-up.

[mul21]

It's a solid article. Accurately points out the poor spending regarding Jones, Rusch, and Perez (as well as rehashing old spending habits that have no contribution to this season - a bit of piling on, but relevant if you consider job security an issue).

 

Bad moves from the past absolutely have contribution to the this season. To pretend otherwise is absolutely inaccurate. It's not piling on to show how past mistakes can have lasting effects.

 

Can you please explain to me how the Estes and Alfonseca signings of several seasons ago contribute to this season?

 

Dontrelle Willis is pitching for the Marlins still, isn't he?

[Pinktermite]

I think anyone in the Cubs minor league system that has an OBP over .300 and absolutely any pitcher with a greater than 2 to 1 k/walk ratio must be gotten rid of, traded, placed on waivers. After all, Baker and Hendry must want to purge themselves of all this "bad" science and logic. Geez. I about threw up when I heard Hendry's interview on the pre game yesterday. Where the hell is Uncle Lou and Billy Beane when you need him?

[Cubzfan64]

Why does Baker (and Hendry) insist on attributing everything to luck? It's not luck. It's called pitch recognition. Are the same guys at the top of the league every year in OBP and/or BA because of luck?

 

And the sad thing is that if we continue to follow the offensive strategies from the past 2 seasons, it will only be a matter of luck if we ever reach the playoffs.

[biittner77]

Bruce made a nice point (which has also been made by others on this board and elsewhere). Dusty continually laments about his pitchers giving up too many walks (because they so often come back to score) but absolutely refuses to acknowledge that his hitters take too few and that this adversely effects his team's ability to score runs. Not to mention the fact that it allows opposing pitchers to often go deep into ball games because their pitch count is so low. I don't have a problem with hitters swinging at pitches early in the count as long as it's a pitch they can drive (i.e. fastball right down the middle).

 

I've been watching a lot of little league games lately. It's funny how little league coaches understand the concept of making the opposing pitcher throw strikes but that concept completely elludes Dusty Baker. Then there's the idea of stealing bases when you know the other team's catcher has no chance of throwing anyone out.

[frostwyrm]

Every signing has an effect down the road. Every dollar spent on some crappy veteran can't be spent on an actual productive player.

 

I see at least one other person here understands the concept of opportunity cost.

[jacey]

In defending Hendry, the Alfonseca signing was out of necessity. There was no closer left to pursue and we needed one at the time. Did he overpay? Looking back, probably yes, but at the time, that was the going rate for those that had done the job before and again he was the only option left.

 

Same thing with Jacque Jones. Three yrs is outrageous but we needed another bat for RF and he was basically the only guy left that fit our needs. Too bad he hasn't been a bargain (so far). Probably overpaid for the guy, but I view his acquisition as a gamble that has not paid off yet for Hendry. Lets hope he catches fire and provides meaningful production the rest of the way.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

In defending Hendry, the Alfonseca signing was out of necessity. There was no closer left to pursue and we needed one at the time. Did he overpay? Looking back, probably yes, but at the time, that was the going rate for those that had done the job before and again he was the only option left.

 

Same thing with Jacque Jones. Three yrs is outrageous but we needed another bat for RF and he was basically the only guy left that fit our needs. Too bad he hasn't been a bargain (so far). Probably overpaid for the guy, but I view his acquisition as a gamble that has not paid off yet for Hendry. Lets hope he catches fire and provides meaningful production the rest of the way.

 

Wouldn't that fall under the heading of "poor planning"?

[goonys evil twin]

In defending Hendry, the Alfonseca signing was out of necessity. There was no closer left to pursue and we needed one at the time. Did he overpay? Looking back, probably yes, but at the time, that was the going rate for those that had done the job before and again he was the only option left..

 

That is not how you run a successful franchise.

 

1) Closers who have closed before are overvalued. Just because they were given the ball in the 9th and racked up saves doesn't mean they were good pitchers.

 

2) The trade was bad enough. But the signing was a year later, after Alf's bad first season with the club. Hendry panicked around arbitration time and overpaid to keep Alfonseca instead of letting him test the market.

 

3) That was not the going rate. Others, better relievers, got less than Alf got. Hendry set his own market and overpaid his own bad player. A trend that has continued throughout his time as GM.

[CubinNY]

Same thing with Jacque Jones. Three yrs is outrageous but we needed another bat for RF and he was basically the only guy left that fit our needs. Too bad he hasn't been a bargain (so far). Probably overpaid for the guy, but I view his acquisition as a gamble that has not paid off yet for Hendry. Lets hope he catches fire and provides meaningful production the rest of the way.

 

If it's a gamble, it like Hendry is a guy who makes $300/week and spends $50 on the lottery. It was stupid.

 

It was not a good signing, Jones is not a good player and he hasn't been for at least two years.

[soapy]

Same thing with Jacque Jones. Three yrs is outrageous but we needed another bat for RF and he was basically the only guy left that fit our needs. Too bad he hasn't been a bargain (so far). Probably overpaid for the guy, but I view his acquisition as a gamble that has not paid off yet for Hendry. Lets hope he catches fire and provides meaningful production the rest of the way.

 

But then Hendry is essentially hoping that Jones will do something he hasn't done in many years, provide meaningful production. I don't understand how one can expect, and really have any reasonable hope that's going to happen.

 

Honestly, I'd rather have seen Patterson or Burnitz in RF for one year then Jones (or Willson or Encarnacion) in RF for three. Saying the free agent market was thin doesn't justify significantly overpaying for what free agents were available. There were other alternatives to signing Jones to a terrible contract. Also, as others have pointed out, it shows a lack of forsight on the part of Hendry to be stuck with this outfield.

[wastra]

Same thing with Jacque Jones. Three yrs is outrageous but we needed another bat for RF and he was basically the only guy left that fit our needs. Too bad he hasn't been a bargain (so far). Probably overpaid for the guy, but I view his acquisition as a gamble that has not paid off yet for Hendry. Lets hope he catches fire and provides meaningful production the rest of the way.

 

Jacque Jones was the only guy left because of the debacle caused by the mad rush to dump Sosa for anyone with a pulse, and the subsequent unwillingness to shell out for a legit OF bat.

 

I've seen about 100 people say that the Jones singing wasn't that bad because there weren't many other RF options last year and I say that's a terribly short-sighted approach. We were desperate for a RFer because Hendry painfully mismanged the position on the roster since 2003. Not only have we not had a solid RFer for 3 years, we haven't had a particularly effective OUTFIELDER for about 3 years (acknowledging that Murton is still essentially a rookie). That's unforgiveable, and unfathomable.

 

 

And the Estes and Alfonseca signings aren't directly related to this year's team; they were given as examples of the real issues. They're symptoms of the greater problem that is this organization's baffling tendency to give overly-large contracts to/trade for underperforming players which has culminated this year in the signings of Perez, Rusch, Jones, Pierre, and more.

[BigbadB]

Every signing has an effect down the road. Every dollar spent on some crappy veteran can't be spent on an actual productive player.

 

I see at least one other person here understands the concept of opportunity cost.

 

The Furcal non-signing was a blessing. I was never in favor of signing him. I wasn't in favor of trading for Pierre. I always felt they had a quality lead off hitter in Todd Walker. Todd Walker and his 2.5m contract, plus his .350+ OBP is exactly what the doctor ordered. Not only does he get on base at a decent clip, but he provides some power to replace the speed he doesn't have. In a perfect world, Walker would have blazing speed to go with his other quality skills.

 

Murton was a viable #2 option last year, and he was a viable option in that spot this year. The kid has great plate presence. He can use the whole field, and he too has a bit of pop in his bat.

 

There was no need to go out and spend ridiculous amounts of money and minor league talent to improve the top of the order. The top two spots in the order could have been secured for less than 3m in salary.

 

.350/.350 OBP in the top two spots and you still have Nolasco, Pinto and Mitre to use to beef up the rest of the line up, preferably with guys who show the same kind of patience as Murton and Walker, yet have a bit more pop in their bats. Would the Dodgers have traded Milton Bradley to the Cubs for one, two or three of the aforementioned guys (Nolasco, Pinto and Mitre)? Would Hill and one of those guys get the job done? Williams? Would taking Derrek Lowe and his big salary have gotten the job done? Lowe could have then been used in the rotation or in trade to acquire a difference maker. Bradley is cheap and productive. He's good defensively, on the base paths, and offensively. There were many other guys available that the Cubs could have traded or signed that would have provided more depth and strength to the offense.

 

Not resigning Nomar was a huge mistake. Even if he missed a portion of the season, the offense he provides when he is healthy is definitely worth the 5m it would have costed to retain his services for one more year. He also provided protection in the event Cedeno wasn't ready to be an everyday SS yet, instead of having Neifi as the only option if Cedeno bombs. Nomar's willingness to switch positions made his value even more golden.

 

As much as I have always liked Aramis, he's no guarantee to play everyday, either. Nomar provided protection in case Aramis had to miss significant playing time. That was a known fact prior to the offseason. So, to say that it's hindsight to know Lee would get hurt and miss time providing the golden opportunity to stick Nomar at 1st is not accurate. We needed Nomar as protection at SS if Cedeno sucked, in RF if we couldn't find anyone better than Jacque Jones to sign, 3b in case Aramis' groin or hamstring flared up again, etc....

 

Defense was an issue last year. No doubt. The Cubs defense this year has actually been pretty good (if you only look at errors), yet the team sucks. Signing guys who can catch the ball is a horrible organizational philosophy. Signing guys who are aggressive at the plate is a horrible organizational philosophy.

 

Since the institution of this managerial group, they've made the playoffs one time, which was in 2003. That team made it to the playoffs behind a very healthy and successful pitching staff. The offense was mediocre that year. A better offense might have pushed that team even further. A better offense in 2004 might have helped overcome the injuries and ineffectiveness of the bullpen in 2004 and 2005. They have regressed so far offensively, there is no way they can count on this offense to win any games for them. The pitching staff now has to be perfect, or they will lose. It's painfully obvious to just about everyone watching this team that it takes strengths in offense, pitching, bullpen, bench and defense to win games. Sosa was horrible in RF in 2003 when the Cubs made the playoffs. HORRIBLE defensively. You don't need a gold glove at every position. Just look for places to improve where you can, but don't sacrifice offense to improve defense.

 

The 2006 team had a golden opportunity to change the hitting philosophy and go with a .350+ OBP at just about every position in the line up.

 

If you had Milton Bradley playing CF, Abreu or someone of his skills playing RF, Nomar sharing time in LF with Murton, then the loss of Derrek Lee at 1b for a quarter of the season isn't nearly as catastrophic as it turned out to be with John Mabry or Neifi Perez filling in in his abscence. Nomar moves to 1b and all is not lost.

 

Instead of having Freddy Bynum, Neifi Perez, Jerry Hairston and any other 2b I'm not thinking of, they could have gone with someone decent offensively on the bench. A Kevin Millar type. A guy you can stick out in the field somewhere and not lose a whole lot offensively.

 

Hendry put himself in this position, and for that he needs to go. I cannot sit here and root and cheer blindly for a horrible organizational philosophy.

 

Signing toolsy players with speed that can catch the ball ignores what really scores a lot of runs over the course of a long season. BASERUNNERS!

[sethuel1]

Every signing has an effect down the road. Every dollar spent on some crappy veteran can't be spent on an actual productive player.

 

I see at least one other person here understands the concept of opportunity cost.

 

BBB's excellent post!

 

Fantastic. I love you.

 

Also, well stated, Bruce.

[BigbadB]

Every signing has an effect down the road. Every dollar spent on some crappy veteran can't be spent on an actual productive player.

 

I see at least one other person here understands the concept of opportunity cost.

 

BBB's excellent post!

 

Fantastic. I love you.

 

Also, well stated, Bruce.

 

LOL! Thank you, twice. Once for the kudos and once for not quoting my novel. :D

[sethuel1]

Every signing has an effect down the road. Every dollar spent on some crappy veteran can't be spent on an actual productive player.

 

I see at least one other person here understands the concept of opportunity cost.

 

BBB's excellent post!

 

Fantastic. I love you.

 

Also, well stated, Bruce.

 

LOL! Thank you, twice. Once for the kudos and once for not quoting my novel. :D

 

i originally had, but then I realized how huge it was and edited it.