Dusty safe -- for now

[frostwyrm]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

Don't you remember Dusty saying "you got to reward the guys who got you here" as a pretext for playing Neifi Perez everyday after the Cubs were out of the race last year? This is not the right manager for a retooling period. Every day he remains he hurts our chances in 2007.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

I wonder if the entire point of Hendry's comments was simply to let the fans know that the Cubs performance this year wasn't/isn't acceptable and that he will address it, but not with a knee-jerk reaction that has no measurable gains. Maybe this the 6-month approach to 2007.

 

I don't want Baker back, or any of his staff. But I just don't see what an interim staff at this point gains the ballclub.

 

I certainly don't see how a lack of firing now equates to an extension. That kind of talk smells like sour grapes.

 

It's not an attempt to salvage the season, it's a message to everyone involved with this organization that the failures of the staff will not be tolerated.

 

I would think Cub fans should be in favor of Baker's return this year and even possibly an extention for next season.

 

The longer Hendry stands by Baker the more he jeopardizes his own job. Granted he did receive the two year extention, but if the Cubs continue to flounder this year and again next season then Hendry's job has to be in question even though there would be a remaining season on his contract.

 

Worse comes to worse for Cubs' fans.....Hendry is around for the entire two year extention. He'll bring in another "old school" manager not unlike Baker and the Cubs will continue playing grizzled veterans. Unless Hendry changes his own baseball philosophy, the Cubs will continue to lose At that point, his services wouldn't/shouldn't be retained.

 

Point being.....I would think a Cubs' fan could deal with a couple more years of failure if there was a chance for a regime change. If it got to this point a lot is on MacPhail's lap to hire the correct GM. But, I would think gambling on MacPhail in this regard would be better than gambling on the Cubs to win with Hendry as GM.

[Caryatid]

Firing the manager right now makes a huge difference in regards to next year and '08.

 

Baker will do his best to try and win with the veteran guys here-if he's interested in saving his job, he will do whatever he thinks will win him the most games, and that entails playing veterans. An interim coach, having no interest in "saving his job," will do whatever management wants long-term. If that means playing Murton 7 days a week, that's what he'll do.

 

Regardless of what you think of the youth on this team (Murton, Hill, Guzman, et. al.), for this team to be successful in '07 and '08, they need to find out what they have. If they decide, after seeing Murton in 162 games, that he doesn't have the power to play LF consistently, then so be it. But only by putting him out there with no pressure will the Cubs find out if he has something he can offer. The same with Hill, Marshall, Marmol, Guzman. These guys need to get their lumps now, so the Cubs can see which ones show the most potential. They need to have their Maroth/Bonderman year.

 

Keeping Baker now, only to fire him at the end of the year, is shortsighted and stupid. But then again, this is Jim Hendry we're talking about.

[fromthestretch]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

Yep...playing time for younger guys to see what you have, instead of playing older guys because they're your "horses".

 

I don't buy that argument. Dusty has been playing the "younger guys" to see what they have. Unfortunately, they were not quite ready to be played.

 

Tell that to Angel Guzman, who essentially was a spectator for two weeks during his last call-up.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

Yep...playing time for younger guys to see what you have, instead of playing older guys because they're your "horses".

 

I don't buy that argument. Dusty has been playing the "younger guys" to see what they have. Unfortunately, they were not quite ready to be played.

 

Tell that to Angel Guzman, who essentially was a spectator for two weeks during his last call-up.

 

Oh come on, it wasn't two weeks. It was longer.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

Yep...playing time for younger guys to see what you have, instead of playing older guys because they're your "horses".

 

I don't buy that argument. Dusty has been playing the "younger guys" to see what they have. Unfortunately, they were not quite ready to be played.

 

Tell that to Angel Guzman, who essentially was a spectator for two weeks during his last call-up.

 

Oh come on, it wasn't two weeks. It was longer.

 

You could probably add Restovich and Theriot to that list for the periods they were up on the major league squad. If Dusty doesn't want to play them keep them in triple A.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

1. Youngsters like Murton, Theriot, Guzman and Hill could be played more regularly - especially before the call-ups in September - to get a better read on their abilities.

2. Dusty won't get a chance to finish what he and Joey Cora have valiantly tried to do to Z's arm.

3. The interim manager might be the best candidate for the job and could be hired beyond this season.

[abuck1220]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

Yep...playing time for younger guys to see what you have, instead of playing older guys because they're your "horses".

 

I don't buy that argument. Dusty has been playing the "younger guys" to see what they have. Unfortunately, they were not quite ready to be played.

 

i'd say marmol and marshall have given prior, wood, maddux and rusch a run for their money, production-wise.

[goonys evil twin]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

Yep...playing time for younger guys to see what you have, instead of playing older guys because they're your "horses".

 

I don't buy that argument. Dusty has been playing the "younger guys" to see what they have. Unfortunately, they were not quite ready to be played.

 

i'd say marmol and marshall have given prior, wood, maddux and rusch a run for their money, production-wise.

 

Hill and Guzman gave Rusch a run for his money.

[dalgreen]

I don't understand the "play the kids" talk. What makes you think HIll, Guzman, Murton, Marmol, etc are in the Cubs' long-term plans? Weren't Nolasco and Sisco supposed to be in our future plan, too? I'm glad some of you seem to know what Hendry wants to do because I sure don't. These guys should be given opportunities (maybe not Hill, who I still think will be a AAAA pitcher --hope I'm wrong), but I'm not sold on Hendry being a future-oriented guy.

[Chocolate Milk]

2. Dusty won't get a chance to finish what he and Joey Cora have valiantly tried to do to Z's arm.

 

What he said.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I don't understand the "play the kids" talk. What makes you think HIll, Guzman, Murton, Marmol, etc are in the Cubs' long-term plans? Weren't Nolasco and Sisco supposed to be in our future plan, too? I'm glad some of you seem to know what Hendry wants to do because I sure don't. These guys should be given opportunities (maybe not Hill, who I still think will be a AAAA pitcher --hope I'm wrong), but I'm not sold on Hendry being a future-oriented guy.

 

It's what the Cubs *should* do. I think we all agree on that, since the season is lost.

[abuck1220]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

Yep...playing time for younger guys to see what you have, instead of playing older guys because they're your "horses".

 

I don't buy that argument. Dusty has been playing the "younger guys" to see what they have. Unfortunately, they were not quite ready to be played.

 

i'd say marmol and marshall have given prior, wood, maddux and rusch a run for their money, production-wise.

 

Hill and Guzman gave Rusch a run for his money.

 

ok, you take rusch, i'll take hill and guzman and whoever has a more productive hand five years from now gets $50 cyber bucks.

 

 

my point is, it's foolish for dusty to continue throwing the kids under the bus when marshall and marmol, who have been far from spectacular, have been no worse than prior, maddux or rusch.

[goonys evil twin]

ok, you take rusch, i'll take hill and guzman and whoever has a more productive hand five years from now gets $50 cyber bucks.

 

 

my point is, it's foolish for dusty to continue throwing the kids under the bus when marshall and marmol, who have been far from spectacular, have been no worse than prior, maddux or rusch.

 

Uhh, I hope you realize I wasn't trying to argue against your point. I don't want Rusch.

[CUBZ99]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

Yep...playing time for younger guys to see what you have, instead of playing older guys because they're your "horses".

 

I don't buy that argument. Dusty has been playing the "younger guys" to see what they have. Unfortunately, they were not quite ready to be played.

 

Tell that to Angel Guzman, who essentially was a spectator for two weeks during his last call-up.

 

Angel Guzman of the 5+ ERA? It was fairly obvious in his time with the club that he is rusty and still has some work to do in the minors.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

Yep...playing time for younger guys to see what you have, instead of playing older guys because they're your "horses".

 

I don't buy that argument. Dusty has been playing the "younger guys" to see what they have. Unfortunately, they were not quite ready to be played.

 

Tell that to Angel Guzman, who essentially was a spectator for two weeks during his last call-up.

 

Angel Guzman of the 5+ ERA? It was fairly obvious in his time with the club that he is rusty and still has some work to do in the minors.

 

Angel Guzman of the 5.1 IP, 3 H, 1 R performance against the Tigers who ended up collecting dust in the bullpen for 18 days before finally being sent back to Des Moines in favor of Glendon Rusch of the nearly 8 ERA.

[CUBZ99]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

Yep...playing time for younger guys to see what you have, instead of playing older guys because they're your "horses".

 

I don't buy that argument. Dusty has been playing the "younger guys" to see what they have. Unfortunately, they were not quite ready to be played.

 

i'd say marmol and marshall have given prior, wood, maddux and rusch a run for their money, production-wise.

 

Hill and Guzman gave Rusch a run for his money.

 

That is like saying a SS gave Neifi a run for his money.

[CUBZ99]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

Yep...playing time for younger guys to see what you have, instead of playing older guys because they're your "horses".

 

I don't buy that argument. Dusty has been playing the "younger guys" to see what they have. Unfortunately, they were not quite ready to be played.

 

Tell that to Angel Guzman, who essentially was a spectator for two weeks during his last call-up.

 

Angel Guzman of the 5+ ERA? It was fairly obvious in his time with the club that he is rusty and still has some work to do in the minors.

 

Angel Guzman of the 5.1 IP, 3 H, 1 R performance against the Tigers who ended up collecting dust in the bullpen for 18 days before finally being sent back to Des Moines in favor of Glendon Rusch of the nearly 8 ERA.

 

Rusch was headed to the bullpen when he was called back up. Who would you rather have as your hardly used long man Rusch or Guzman? Most people would have rather seen Guzman getting regular starts than pitching in the bullpen once a week(or in Guzman's case 2 1/2 weeks).

[fiver]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

Yep...playing time for younger guys to see what you have, instead of playing older guys because they're your "horses".

 

I don't buy that argument. Dusty has been playing the "younger guys" to see what they have. Unfortunately, they were not quite ready to be played.

 

i'd say marmol and marshall have given prior, wood, maddux and rusch a run for their money, production-wise.

 

Hill and Guzman gave Rusch a run for his money.

 

That is like saying a SS gave Neifi a run for his money.

 

 

precisely. Nothing is gained by going with the veteran in these instances. That was Goony's point.

[NCCubFan]

Angel Guzman of the 5+ ERA? It was fairly obvious in his time with the club that he is rusty and still has some work to do in the minors.

Marshall's ERA is nearly 5 (and was over 5 for awhile). Marmol's is over 4, and at one time was near or over 5. Young pitchers are inconsistent. They have excellent games, and they have stinkers (that's true for veterans as well, just to a lesser extent). Guzman has definitely had some stinkers, but he's shown promise too. The objective should be to let them get their stinkers in this year and be ready to contribute more consistently next year.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

Yep...playing time for younger guys to see what you have, instead of playing older guys because they're your "horses".

 

I don't buy that argument. Dusty has been playing the "younger guys" to see what they have. Unfortunately, they were not quite ready to be played.

 

Tell that to Angel Guzman, who essentially was a spectator for two weeks during his last call-up.

 

Angel Guzman of the 5+ ERA? It was fairly obvious in his time with the club that he is rusty and still has some work to do in the minors.

 

His first promotion was ill-timed, in my opinion. He was much more ready for his second promotion, but it was pointless to have him go up just to be the long reliever used once every 2 weeks. But the strangest thing of all is he had a dominant outing relieving Rusch (as IPT pointed out), and then sat on the bench for the next 18 days. So Gooz shows steady improvement and then isn't used for 18 days.

[CUBZ99]

Here is the thing - what is to be gained by firing Dusty Baker right now? Anything?

 

Yep...playing time for younger guys to see what you have, instead of playing older guys because they're your "horses".

 

I don't buy that argument. Dusty has been playing the "younger guys" to see what they have. Unfortunately, they were not quite ready to be played.

 

i'd say marmol and marshall have given prior, wood, maddux and rusch a run for their money, production-wise.

 

Hill and Guzman gave Rusch a run for his money.

 

That is like saying a SS gave Neifi a run for his money.

 

 

precisely. Nothing is gained by going with the veteran in these instances. That was Goony's point.

 

Which is a terrible point. It is acceptable to play horrible rookies, but not to play horrible veterans? I think it is unacceptable to play either. Just because a player is a "younger player" does not mean he deserves to play everyday. Most of the Cubs young players were not ready to step up this year and have proven as much. And the players he points out as holding their own are putting up less than stellar numbers. To say that they are better than Glendon Rusch or Neifi Perez does nothing to make them worthy of playing time.

[halplm]

you guys are using the fatal mistake of using logic to try and understand this team.

 

you have to think like DUSTY!

[Caryatid]

 

Angel Guzman of the 5+ ERA? It was fairly obvious in his time with the club that he is rusty and still has some work to do in the minors.

 

This time of year, with a team this far out of the race is no time to be saying "is veteran player X's stats slightly better than young player Y's?" This time of year is not about stats. Its about finding out what you have.

 

There's a simple question that should be asked about every player on this team right now. The answer will tell you if that player should be playing or sitting/traded. The question is "the next time the Cubs challenge for a division or (dare I say) World Series title, will this player be a part of the mix?" If the answer is no, get rid of them immediately. If the answer is "maybe," then you absolutely owe it to the organization to see if that answer will be yes or no.

[Caryatid]

Which is a terrible point. It is acceptable to play horrible rookies, but not to play horrible veterans? I think it is unacceptable to play either. Just because a player is a "younger player" does not mean he deserves to play everyday. Most of the Cubs young players were not ready to step up this year and have proven as much. And the players he points out as holding their own are putting up less than stellar numbers. To say that they are better than Glendon Rusch or Neifi Perez does nothing to make them worthy of playing time.

 

A terrible young player has the opportunity to get better. A terrible old player just costs a lot and doesn't get better. But that's not the point.

 

The point is this season is beyond "deserving a chance to play." Immediate productivity means absolutely nothing right now. The season is at the research and development point-find out if the players that may be able to help you down the road can show enough to warrant spending significant time on them.