Bruce Miles is awesome

[Caryatid]

 

That's good in theory, but can you rattle off a list of free agents the Cubs have spent over $10 mil. per year on??

 

The only Cub who ever got over $15 million was Sosa and it took a few 60+ homer seasons for that. This organization is in love with the $3-9 million free agent. They never go out and get a Vlad, Colon, Tejada, Manny, Pedro, Mussina, etc....

 

Then that's a problem with Hendry and MacPhail, not the Tribune. While 7 years at 17 million was crazy for Beltran, 13-14 per year for 5 on Tejada was certainly reasonable.

[CubfaninCA]

Hendry wanted beltran, but that wasn't happening til Sosa's $17 million was cleared & the Trib wouldn't have done 7 and $119m either. Both New York teams, Anaheim and Boston dominate free agency. The Trib has the ability to cause they pull in tons of revenue, but decline to do so.

Both Hendry and MacPhail said several times afterwards that they had no interest whatsoever in a contract that long, let alone for that much.

 

both good trib men.

 

the bottom line is that the trib hired these guys to "mismanage" $100 million. the buck stops w/ the trib. giving the trib a continual pass is equivalent to blaming everyone except bush when things go wrong.

 

if i got a dollar for every time i've heard it's someone elses fault, not bush.... :lol:

What part did the Tribune Co. have in Hendry's hiring? And if they had a say in his promotion to GM, I doubt it was significant.

 

But what does that have to do with them not going crazy in the FA market and committing $17 million a year to a single player for 7 years? Hendry did want Beltran, but was not willing to go that far. And that was the right decision.

 

MacPhail has his job cause of the trib. he hired hendry right...

[goonys evil twin]

That's good in theory, but can you rattle off a list of free agents the Cubs have spent over $10 mil. per year on??

 

The only Cub who ever got over $15 million was Sosa and it took a few 60+ homer seasons for that. This organization is in love with the $3-9 million free agent. They never go out and get a Vlad, Colon, Tejada, Manny, Pedro, Mussina, etc....

 

That speaks more to the way Andy and Jim hand out the money than how much money the Tribune lets them spend.

[Caryatid]

I'm as frustrated as everyone else, but I'm getting tired of all of the posters who are now criticizing Hendry by using 20/20 hindsight. People would rather have Burnitz, Patterson, Nomar, etc. rather than their replacements. Let's be honest, everyone would have ripped Hendry for keeping Patterson, Burnitz, and Nomar. Look at the posts from last year talking about those "bums" Patterson and Burnitz, and the always-injured Nomar. Nomar had no position to play on the Cubs and anyone who suggests he could play RF or SS is kidding themselves. (Of course, using our 20/20 hindsight we would know that Lee was going to get injured and Nomar could play 1B.) As for the 3-year contract for Jones, I think that has been explained many times. He had to match the other offer, but I don't think there is any way Jones is going to be a Cub for 3 years. He will be traded at some point with the Cubs eating part of his salary. I can imagine the howls of protest that would follow Hendry trading Prior or Zambrano for the big bat that they need. (Of course, using 20/20 hindsight, we would know Prior would be injured.) Many people wanted Hendry to sign Furcal, but imagine the protests when he gives Furcal 4yrs. @ $13 million per year and Furcal stinks. Anyone who blames Hendry for not getting Giles is ignoring all of the evidence that Giles refused to leave SD. Finally, none of us know exactly what the other teams wanted when Hendry asked about Kearns, Dunn, Tejada, Abreu, Craig Wilson, etc. The bottom line is that Hendry has his faults as a GM, but the job looks a whole lot easier sitting at our computers and using 20/20 hindsight.

 

Actually, I (along with a number of other posters) said that keeping Patterson was a better option than trading for Pierre, and that Nomar for a year was a decent option. And quite a few advocated for Prior for Tejada. This isn't about hindsight-people have been saying these things since October.

 

Nomar would have been fine in RF-certainly no worse (from a throwing standpoint) than Jones. There are very few logical arguments why he wouldn't be.

[Jon]

Hendry wanted beltran, but that wasn't happening til Sosa's $17 million was cleared & the Trib wouldn't have done 7 and $119m either. Both New York teams, Anaheim and Boston dominate free agency. The Trib has the ability to cause they pull in tons of revenue, but decline to do so.

Both Hendry and MacPhail said several times afterwards that they had no interest whatsoever in a contract that long, let alone for that much.

 

both good trib men.

 

the bottom line is that the trib hired these guys to "mismanage" $100 million. the buck stops w/ the trib. giving the trib a continual pass is equivalent to blaming everyone except bush when things go wrong.

 

if i got a dollar for every time i've heard it's someone elses fault, not bush.... :lol:

What part did the Tribune Co. have in Hendry's hiring? And if they had a say in his promotion to GM, I doubt it was significant.

 

But what does that have to do with them not going crazy in the FA market and committing $17 million a year to a single player for 7 years? Hendry did want Beltran, but was not willing to go that far. And that was the right decision.

 

MacPhail has his job cause of the trib. he hired hendry right...

And he hired Gary Hughes, but that doesn't make him a Trib guy, either.

 

The Tribune Co. is not involved in daily baseball operations. That's why they brought in MacPhail to fill a spot that desperately needed filling. The Tribune Co.'s only job is to fund the organization.

[goonys evil twin]

 

The Tribune Co. is not involved in daily baseball operations. That's why they brought in MacPhail to fill a spot that desperately needed filling. The Tribune Co.'s only job is to fund the organization.

 

Exactly. They hired a guy that by all accounts was a fantastic candidate for the job and gave him plenty of resources to do the job right. It wasn't until the past couple years that his style proved to be a problem for further improvement of the team. Going forward, I would hope the Tribune would put greater pressure on Andy to win more games. But up until very recently I'm not sure there's much of a legitimate gripe about how they've let Andy do his job.

[Backtobanks]

I'm as frustrated as everyone else, but I'm getting tired of all of the posters who are now criticizing Hendry by using 20/20 hindsight. People would rather have Burnitz, Patterson, Nomar, etc. rather than their replacements. Let's be honest, everyone would have ripped Hendry for keeping Patterson, Burnitz, and Nomar.

 

This is just not at all true.

 

The hindsight accusation is completely bogus. Many people were up in arms about these moves long before they were made. Many said they would much rather have Burnitz for 1 year than Jones for 3. Many said they would rather have Patterson for relatively cheap than Jones or Pierre for a lot. Many said they wanted Nomar back at the cheap deal he was supposedly willing to sign.

 

You're dead wrong on this, dead wrong.

 

And then everyone would have criticized Hendry for bringing back the same team that was lousy last year. Again, I'm not defending everything that Hendry has done, I just want to emphasize that being a GM is much easier sitting at our computers than it is really making the deals.

[YearofDaCubs]

MacPhail has stated that he would never pay top dollar money for the top FA's available. When I hear that I think to myself, "and people wonder why we are always signing the mediocre players." That is the type of philosophy you do not want your organization to have.

[Backtobanks]

I'm as frustrated as everyone else, but I'm getting tired of all of the posters who are now criticizing Hendry by using 20/20 hindsight. People would rather have Burnitz, Patterson, Nomar, etc. rather than their replacements. Let's be honest, everyone would have ripped Hendry for keeping Patterson, Burnitz, and Nomar. Look at the posts from last year talking about those "bums" Patterson and Burnitz, and the always-injured Nomar. Nomar had no position to play on the Cubs and anyone who suggests he could play RF or SS is kidding themselves. (Of course, using our 20/20 hindsight we would know that Lee was going to get injured and Nomar could play 1B.) As for the 3-year contract for Jones, I think that has been explained many times. He had to match the other offer, but I don't think there is any way Jones is going to be a Cub for 3 years. He will be traded at some point with the Cubs eating part of his salary. I can imagine the howls of protest that would follow Hendry trading Prior or Zambrano for the big bat that they need. (Of course, using 20/20 hindsight, we would know Prior would be injured.) Many people wanted Hendry to sign Furcal, but imagine the protests when he gives Furcal 4yrs. @ $13 million per year and Furcal stinks. Anyone who blames Hendry for not getting Giles is ignoring all of the evidence that Giles refused to leave SD. Finally, none of us know exactly what the other teams wanted when Hendry asked about Kearns, Dunn, Tejada, Abreu, Craig Wilson, etc. The bottom line is that Hendry has his faults as a GM, but the job looks a whole lot easier sitting at our computers and using 20/20 hindsight.

 

Actually, I (along with a number of other posters) said that keeping Patterson was a better option than trading for Pierre, and that Nomar for a year was a decent option. And quite a few advocated for Prior for Tejada. This isn't about hindsight-people have been saying these things since October.

 

Nomar would have been fine in RF-certainly no worse (from a throwing standpoint) than Jones. There are very few logical arguments why he wouldn't be.

 

There is no way that anyone could possibly think Nomar could do as well as Jones in throwing from RF unless you use hindsight to look at Jones' problems this year, which proves my point. Jones was noted for having a very good arm while Nomar makes Pierre look good.

[goonys evil twin]

And then everyone would have criticized Hendry for bringing back the same team that was lousy last year. Again, I'm not defending everything that Hendry has done, I just want to emphasize that being a GM is much easier sitting at our computers than it is really making the deals.

 

No, we wanted some people back, with improvements elsewhere. Burnitz to Jones isn't an improvement. The bench was not improved. The starting rotation could and should have been addressed better.

 

I'm not saying the job is easy. I am saying Hendry has done a lousy job.

[Caryatid]

I'm as frustrated as everyone else, but I'm getting tired of all of the posters who are now criticizing Hendry by using 20/20 hindsight. People would rather have Burnitz, Patterson, Nomar, etc. rather than their replacements. Let's be honest, everyone would have ripped Hendry for keeping Patterson, Burnitz, and Nomar.

 

This is just not at all true.

 

The hindsight accusation is completely bogus. Many people were up in arms about these moves long before they were made. Many said they would much rather have Burnitz for 1 year than Jones for 3. Many said they would rather have Patterson for relatively cheap than Jones or Pierre for a lot. Many said they wanted Nomar back at the cheap deal he was supposedly willing to sign.

 

You're dead wrong on this, dead wrong.

 

And then everyone would have criticized Hendry for bringing back the same team that was lousy last year. Again, I'm not defending everything that Hendry has done, I just want to emphasize that being a GM is much easier sitting at our computers than it is really making the deals.

 

No, "they" wouldn't. I'm not sure who you're arguing against, here. There are plenty of people who were against the moves that were made WHEN THEY WERE MADE, and would not have complained about those moves had they done them. Its as simple as that.

[Shavo]

I'm as frustrated as everyone else, but I'm getting tired of all of the posters who are now criticizing Hendry by using 20/20 hindsight. People would rather have Burnitz, Patterson, Nomar, etc. rather than their replacements. Let's be honest, everyone would have ripped Hendry for keeping Patterson, Burnitz, and Nomar. Look at the posts from last year talking about those "bums" Patterson and Burnitz, and the always-injured Nomar. Nomar had no position to play on the Cubs and anyone who suggests he could play RF or SS is kidding themselves. (Of course, using our 20/20 hindsight we would know that Lee was going to get injured and Nomar could play 1B.) As for the 3-year contract for Jones, I think that has been explained many times. He had to match the other offer, but I don't think there is any way Jones is going to be a Cub for 3 years. He will be traded at some point with the Cubs eating part of his salary. I can imagine the howls of protest that would follow Hendry trading Prior or Zambrano for the big bat that they need. (Of course, using 20/20 hindsight, we would know Prior would be injured.) Many people wanted Hendry to sign Furcal, but imagine the protests when he gives Furcal 4yrs. @ $13 million per year and Furcal stinks. Anyone who blames Hendry for not getting Giles is ignoring all of the evidence that Giles refused to leave SD. Finally, none of us know exactly what the other teams wanted when Hendry asked about Kearns, Dunn, Tejada, Abreu, Craig Wilson, etc. The bottom line is that Hendry has his faults as a GM, but the job looks a whole lot easier sitting at our computers and using 20/20 hindsight.

 

Actually, I (along with a number of other posters) said that keeping Patterson was a better option than trading for Pierre, and that Nomar for a year was a decent option. And quite a few advocated for Prior for Tejada. This isn't about hindsight-people have been saying these things since October.

 

Nomar would have been fine in RF-certainly no worse (from a throwing standpoint) than Jones. There are very few logical arguments why he wouldn't be.

 

There is no way that anyone could possibly think Nomar could do as well as Jones in throwing from RF unless you use hindsight to look at Jones' problems this year, which proves my point. Jones was noted for having a very good arm while Nomar makes Pierre look good.

]

 

This is true.

[Caryatid]

I'm as frustrated as everyone else, but I'm getting tired of all of the posters who are now criticizing Hendry by using 20/20 hindsight. People would rather have Burnitz, Patterson, Nomar, etc. rather than their replacements. Let's be honest, everyone would have ripped Hendry for keeping Patterson, Burnitz, and Nomar. Look at the posts from last year talking about those "bums" Patterson and Burnitz, and the always-injured Nomar. Nomar had no position to play on the Cubs and anyone who suggests he could play RF or SS is kidding themselves. (Of course, using our 20/20 hindsight we would know that Lee was going to get injured and Nomar could play 1B.) As for the 3-year contract for Jones, I think that has been explained many times. He had to match the other offer, but I don't think there is any way Jones is going to be a Cub for 3 years. He will be traded at some point with the Cubs eating part of his salary. I can imagine the howls of protest that would follow Hendry trading Prior or Zambrano for the big bat that they need. (Of course, using 20/20 hindsight, we would know Prior would be injured.) Many people wanted Hendry to sign Furcal, but imagine the protests when he gives Furcal 4yrs. @ $13 million per year and Furcal stinks. Anyone who blames Hendry for not getting Giles is ignoring all of the evidence that Giles refused to leave SD. Finally, none of us know exactly what the other teams wanted when Hendry asked about Kearns, Dunn, Tejada, Abreu, Craig Wilson, etc. The bottom line is that Hendry has his faults as a GM, but the job looks a whole lot easier sitting at our computers and using 20/20 hindsight.

 

Actually, I (along with a number of other posters) said that keeping Patterson was a better option than trading for Pierre, and that Nomar for a year was a decent option. And quite a few advocated for Prior for Tejada. This isn't about hindsight-people have been saying these things since October.

 

Nomar would have been fine in RF-certainly no worse (from a throwing standpoint) than Jones. There are very few logical arguments why he wouldn't be.

 

There is no way that anyone could possibly think Nomar could do as well as Jones in throwing from RF unless you use hindsight to look at Jones' problems this year, which proves my point. Jones was noted for having a very good arm while Nomar makes Pierre look good.

 

Why not? Anyone who watched Jones last year and in years prior knew that his "good defense" reputation was more about his range and had little to do with his arm. Aside from that, Garciaparra has a shortstop/3B arm, which, while it wouldn't be completely terrific, would have certainly been sufficient. Its actually a fairly logical assumption.

[Roast]

I know I'm kinda late on the boat here, but,

 

GREAT article, bruce.

[BigbadB]

This is true.

 

Why is this true? Nomar has a very strong arm. And I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see him in the LA outfield at some point.

[CuseCubFan69]

Well done, Mr. Miles.

 

Those quotes by Baker make me nuts. More freakin' excuses - its just bad luck. Accountability I say!

 

If Baker had any accountability, he never would have been in trouble with the IRS...

 

I've missed your humor.

 

I can see Bruce sending out the boy scouts to deliver the Herold papers like in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and them getting beat up by the Trib and Sun.

Edited May 18, 2006 by CuseCubFan69

[BigbadB]

And then everyone would have criticized Hendry for bringing back the same team that was lousy last year. Again, I'm not defending everything that Hendry has done, I just want to emphasize that being a GM is much easier sitting at our computers than it is really making the deals.

 

I wouldn't have criticized Hendry for hanging onto Walker, Nomar and Patterson. Patterson as a 4th or 5th outfielder is actually not bad.

 

But, with retaining these guys comes adding other pieces to make the whole team better. A guy like Abreu. Heck, just trade for Shawn Green and the team is better.

 

Sure, it's easy for us to sit here and analyze how easy the job should be, but I don't think any of us really wants to be sitting here analyzing every move. What we would rather be doing is cheering for a good ball team and admiring how well of a job Hendry did of assembling the team and how well Dusty is managing the club. But, that's not happening. Not even close.

[georgiacubfan]

Long term lurker and seldom a poster.

 

Going back to 2003 (and I thought this at the time) winning the division and getting as close to the World Series as the Cubs did was probably detrimental to the team's long term success for the following reasons:

 

1. It provided apparent nearly immediate validation of Dusty as a manager and Dusty's philosophy of extensive use of "proven veterans" like Lenny F. Harris in inappropriate roles. Other examples were the $ spent on Estes and Alfonseca who we won in spite of rather than because of. This also provided apparent validation of Hendry as a GM considering his trade for Aramis close to the deadline.

2. It led everyone to believe we were a lot closer to being a contending team than we actually were and resulted in an organizational shift toward acquisitions of Dusty's "type of player" and away from the emphasis on the farm system that had positioned the team for success by the middle of the decade.

3. They achieved the post-season by overuse of the team's young pitching staff which was, as BBB pointed out, the primary reason that the team made the playoffs to start with.

4. In Hendry's mind, everything bad that has happened since is the result of bad luck or bad bounces (or curses or what have you). Surely the manager can't be the problem since he was able to win in 2003 with less talent going into that year than any year since.

 

IMO the team continues to pay the price for the success it had in 2003. Meanwhile, it has become apparent that the architects of that team in reality are total incompetents with no clue on how to construct a team.

[CubfaninCA]

 

The Tribune Co. is not involved in daily baseball operations. That's why they brought in MacPhail to fill a spot that desperately needed filling. The Tribune Co.'s only job is to fund the organization.

 

Exactly. They hired a guy that by all accounts was a fantastic candidate for the job and gave him plenty of resources to do the job right. It wasn't until the past couple years that his style proved to be a problem for further improvement of the team. Going forward, I would hope the Tribune would put greater pressure on Andy to win more games. But up until very recently I'm not sure there's much of a legitimate gripe about how they've let Andy do his job.

 

so they brought in MacPhail, yet they take little blame when he's supposedly failing??

 

quite frankly i don't understand such logic. i guess if they take no blame for MacPhail, then hendry takes no blame for baker. hendry doesn't manage the team, and baker had a really good win percentage when he was hired.

 

perhaps a long standing defence of the trib is starting to fall apart?

[Jon]

 

The Tribune Co. is not involved in daily baseball operations. That's why they brought in MacPhail to fill a spot that desperately needed filling. The Tribune Co.'s only job is to fund the organization.

 

Exactly. They hired a guy that by all accounts was a fantastic candidate for the job and gave him plenty of resources to do the job right. It wasn't until the past couple years that his style proved to be a problem for further improvement of the team. Going forward, I would hope the Tribune would put greater pressure on Andy to win more games. But up until very recently I'm not sure there's much of a legitimate gripe about how they've let Andy do his job.

 

so they brought in MacPhail, yet they take little blame when he's supposedly failing??

 

quite frankly i don't understand such logic. i guess if they take no blame for MacPhail, then hendry takes no blame for baker. hendry doesn't manage the team, and baker had a really good win percentage when he was hired.

 

perhaps a long standing defence of the trib is starting to fall apart?

Well, for one, he's not failing by much. And you can't compare the Trib keeping MacPhail with MacPhail keeping Hendry or Hendry keeping Baker. The Tribune Co. hired MacPhail because they didn't have the people who knew baseball and knew how to run an organization. The term of a president of a team should be significantly longer than a GM or manager because they're being judged by owners, who really only can look at long term results. If they're not up to standard, the president will eventually be replaced.

 

Presidents, and especially ones like MacPhail, know what the GM is doing and have more knowledge to evaluate a GM. They don't get as long of a leash as a president, though. Likewise, a GM has even more ability to evaluate a manager, but usually has an even shorter fuse with managers.

 

And considering Dusty's incompetency has been far more obvious than even Hendry's shortcomings, I don't see how it's a fair comparison.

[CubfaninCA]

as for nomar, when nomar starts playing 2b, ss,lf or rf regualry, then the nomarists can crow all they want.

[Chris]

as for nomar, when nomar starts playing 2b, ss,lf or rf regualry, then the nomarists can crow all they want.

 

Nomarists?

[CubfaninCA]

as for nomar, when nomar starts playing 2b, ss,lf or rf regualry, then the nomarists can crow all they want.

 

Nomarists?

 

Nomarxists better? :o

[Sammy Sofa]

We're "Nomasexuals" and proud of it!

[BigSlick]

Baker was asked how the Cubs could better get on base: taking more pitches or swinging at better pitches or both.

 

“I think swinging at better pitches is probably one of them,” Baker said. “But also, you’ve got to find some holes, too. We’ve hit some balls hard during this period of time.

 

“Again, when things aren’t going well, when you take a pitch, it’s a strike. When you swing at it, it’s not a good pitch to hit.”

 

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? No.

 

Because whenever Baker walked in his day, it was luck.

 

It doesn't seem like it:

 

MLB Totals: 19 years 2039 7117 964 1981 320 23 242 1013 137 73 762 926 30 52 27 85 157 .278 .347 .432 779

 

His career OBP was 69 points higher than his batting average. I somehow doubt this was luck...still...

 

Why does he have such a stupid philosophy, i just don't get it.