Bruce Miles dissects the MacPhail era

[Guest]

i can't stress enough how the cubs being sold does not necessarily mean it will be a good thing

 

my thoughts exactly.

[Soul]

i can't stress enough how the cubs being sold does not necessarily mean it will be a good thing

 

my thoughts exactly.

 

I agree in principle, but I struggle to conceive of how a new owner could perform much worse than the Trib in terms of on-field performance of the ballclub under their tenure.

 

The Trib has definitely done a fantastic job at preserving the Cub history, making Wrigley one of the most sought-after sports destinations in the world, and generally promoting the team nationwide. I'd sacrifice a good portion of that for a Championship though.

[Guest]

they couldn't do worse but they could do just as bad. and they could handicap the team even further by cutting payroll.

[AI]

Payroll is not the problem. The Cubs spend enough money to win. They just don't spend it wisely.

[CuseCubFan69]

95 to 100 million a year should be more than enough to build a winning team. But, I think what also matters is how much money the Trib is allowing for scouting and development.

[TheDude]

95 to 100 million a year should be more than enough to build a winning team. But, I think what also matters is how much money the Trib is allowing for scouting and development.

 

The Marlins almost showed us it's possible to break .500, technically a winning team, with a 14 million dollar team.

[CuseCubFan69]

95 to 100 million a year should be more than enough to build a winning team. But, I think what also matters is how much money the Trib is allowing for scouting and development.

 

The Marlins almost showed us it's possible to break .500, technically a winning team, with a 14 million dollar team.

 

I may be wrong but I think they also may put a lot of money into their system though. And...I think Florida is the exception not the rule. Look at KC, Pitt and Tampa, they are always near the bottom in payroll and the standings every year.

[Laura]

Phil Rogers Blasts MacPhail

 

The Cubs are finishing up a horrific season, arguably their most disappointing since 1969. His boss, Tribune Co., is facing its own set of unpleasant issues. And because of the labor talks, MacPhail is being forced to take his eye off the ball—that is, the on-field product at Clark and Addison, as well as at every minor-league stadium where farm teams play.

 

MacPhail's attention has been diverted for a variety of reasons since the day in 2002 he promoted Jim Hendry to general manager, delegating responsibility for the Cubs' manager and 40-man roster. As president, MacPhail dealt with Don Fehr, falling concrete, city officials and roof-toppers, all the while hoping that power pitching and an increased payroll would give the Cubs the consistent success they lacked in his first 10 years on the job.

 

Oops.

 

The question is—how does MacPhail, a baseball man hired to build a strong organization from the ground up, continue to avoid accountability for an operation that—with the exception of September and October 2003—has borne very little fruit? How can Baker, a guy who won three National League Manager of the Year Awards in San Francisco, bear all the blame for the Cubs spending almost as much money as the Pittsburgh Pirates and Milwaukee Brewers combined and winning fewer games than both?

 

Perhaps it didn't make a difference, but the club shouldn't have allowed Baker to return for '06 without job security. That's the wrong message to send, especially for a franchise with such chronic instability. I said it then and I'll say it now: The time to change managers or extend Baker was last fall. Yet MacPhail allowed that issue to bubble just under the surface into spring training and then into the season. It is Hendry's call on Baker, according to MacPhail, but Hendry couldn't resolve anything until he had his own extension, which didn't come until March. ,,,

 

But that's the problem with the Cubs. They never seem to build—at least not on a foundation more solid than the arms of Prior and Wood. MacPhail was hired as a builder of a baseball team, not an expander of bleachers nor an advisor of labor lawyers. He has done a good job for his company, yes, but what about the fans?

 

What has he built?

 

Time to clean house.

[CuseCubFan69]

Wow...I agree with Rogers. I'm going to go take a shower now, I feel so dirty.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

That is one of the few times I've actually liked a Phil Rogers article. See, Phil. It isn't hard to write a good article if you put yur mind to it.

[ToupeeOnFire]

For all of the nonsense Phil Rogers writes, he occasionally pulls out a column like this one. Nicely done.

[daske17]

It's like the Alzheimer's patient that has a sudden moment of lucidity. It makes you yearn for more of it.

[FergieJ31]

Agreed - very nice article. The only silly thing he wrote was that this year is "arguably their most disappointing since 1969". Huh? Does Phil not remember 2004? The realistic pre-season expectations of that team were so much higher than this year's team.

[Guest]

Really? I didn't think that article was particularly good. Why hire a GM if that GM can't handle the job might be a better question. Wasn't Hendry promoted specifically so MacPhail could be team president? I agree with some of his points but thought the article was pretty weak.

[CuseCubFan69]

Really? I didn't think that article was particularly good. Why hire a GM if that GM can't handle the job might be a better question. Wasn't Hendry promoted specifically so MacPhail could be team president? I agree with some of his points but thought the article was pretty weak.

 

The thing is for me is that I don't ever remember agreeing with anything Rogers has had to write.

[goonys evil twin]

I take issue with his insinuation that the reason the Cubs are flailing is because Andy is not there to lead. He completely ignores the possibility that they are making wrong decisions based on wrong philosophies. It's simply wrong to try and paint the Cubs problems on a lost Jim Hendry out on his own without the genius of Andy to make things right.

 

I like that he says you have to question leadership above Baker. I don't like that he thinks a good move would have been to extend Baker earlier. It's a cop-out really. He fails to talk about the real problems about this team. The Cubs aren't going to suddenly get really good if Andy starts paying more attention to the team. Andy's fingerprints are all over this failing franchise.

 

Call for him to demand changes. Call for him to re-evaluate their methods and adopt new standards. But don't pretend that absentee presidency is the reason the team sucks.

[Guest]

I take issue with his insinuation that the reason the Cubs are flailing is because Andy is not there to lead. He completely ignores the possibility that they are making wrong decisions based on wrong philosophies. It's simply wrong to try and paint the Cubs problems on a lost Jim Hendry out on his own without the genius of Andy to make things right.

 

I like that he says you have to question leadership above Baker. I don't like that he thinks a good move would have been to extend Baker earlier. It's a cop-out really. He fails to talk about the real problems about this team. The Cubs aren't going to suddenly get really good if Andy starts paying more attention to the team. Andy's fingerprints are all over this failing franchise.

 

Call for him to demand changes. Call for him to re-evaluate their methods and adopt new standards. But don't pretend that absentee presidency is the reason the team sucks.

 

its a dusty apologist article at heart. the poor jim was struggling theme just makes me think MacPhail hired the wrong guy. which I already thought.

[ToupeeOnFire]

Agreed - very nice article. The only silly thing he wrote was that this year is "arguably their most disappointing since 1969". Huh? Does Phil not remember 2004? The realistic pre-season expectations of that team were so much higher than this year's team.

 

Or 1977, when the team was in first place and 20 games above .500 at the beginning of August only to collapse and finish in 4th with an 81-81 record.

 

Or 1985, the year after the team came to within a game of the World Series. On June 11th they were 35-19 and 4 games up in the division. They then proceeded to lose 13 games in a row. They bounced back a little after that, winning 6 of their next 8, but then the entire starting pitching staff seemingly got hurt and the Cubs eventually limped to a dissapointing 77-85 record. As a kid, it was like being punched in the stomach after recovering from a kick in the groin 8 months earlier. Welcome to the life of being a Cubs fan!

[goonys evil twin]

Why hire a GM if that GM can't handle the job might be a better question. Wasn't Hendry promoted specifically so MacPhail could be team president?

 

Exactly. He was already team president. He briefly took the GM reins when grooming Hendry. But the president's role is not the day to day on field operations of the ballclub (manager) or personel decisions (gm). As president he is responsible for bigger picture things, like hiring the guys who make personel decisions, meeting with the league, dealing with CBA activity, dealing with the stadium, bleachers and all the rest. Rogers is basically criticizing Andy for paying attention to the things he's supposed to pay attention to and delegating baseball decisions to the people who are supposed to make baseball decisions.

 

Players play, coaches coach, and owners own.

 

To add to that, GM's manage the ball club and presidents preside.

[wastra]

I take issue with his insinuation that the reason the Cubs are flailing is because Andy is not there to lead. He completely ignores the possibility that they are making wrong decisions based on wrong philosophies. It's simply wrong to try and paint the Cubs problems on a lost Jim Hendry out on his own without the genius of Andy to make things right.

 

I like that he says you have to question leadership above Baker. I don't like that he thinks a good move would have been to extend Baker earlier. It's a cop-out really. He fails to talk about the real problems about this team. The Cubs aren't going to suddenly get really good if Andy starts paying more attention to the team. Andy's fingerprints are all over this failing franchise.

 

Call for him to demand changes. Call for him to re-evaluate their methods and adopt new standards. But don't pretend that absentee presidency is the reason the team sucks.

 

 

To be fair, he didn't call for them to extend Baker, he said not making a decision either way is symptomatic of the lack of top-down leadership the Cubs suffer from. I think he's right. If Bake was "the Man", he should have been extended. If he wasn't, he should have been fired. Not deciding just added to the circus around this team in the same way that the President of the company not telling his on-field manager and color commentary to act like adults shows a lack of overall direction.

 

Basically, he's saying MacPhail lacks direction. Hendry seems to blow with the wind- whatever wins the past world series is what he rushes out to sign to free agent contracts. Speedy team wins? Sign fast guys. Good defensive team wins? Sign "guys who can catch." it's no different in any other decision this organization makes, including the manager's job. It's all short-term and short-sighted without any cohesiveness or consistancy.

 

That's an organizational failing moreso than an operational one, and that's squarely on MacPhail's shoulders as Prez.

 

 

Changing philosophy to rely moreo n actual meaningful stats instead of "can catch" or "athlete" is more operational- i.e. Hendry's department as GM. And while I agree with you that he should have told Jim years ago to learn what OBP was, that's more a case of "bad hire" than ongoing problems with Andy's role as prez, becausde to do anything else would be to take the reins of the GM and do that job himself. He's not supposed to be doign that part of the job, he's supposed to hire (and extend in a timely manner, when necessary) the right people. Again, he shows a lack of leadership in that role, too.

[wastra]

To be more concise, I think the singularly biggest failuer of MacPhail's tenure has been that they don't REQUIRE more in terms of on-field success from anyone from the GM on down to the towell boys.

[ToupeeOnFire]

I take issue with his insinuation that the reason the Cubs are flailing is because Andy is not there to lead. He completely ignores the possibility that they are making wrong decisions based on wrong philosophies. It's simply wrong to try and paint the Cubs problems on a lost Jim Hendry out on his own without the genius of Andy to make things right.

 

I like that he says you have to question leadership above Baker. I don't like that he thinks a good move would have been to extend Baker earlier. It's a cop-out really. He fails to talk about the real problems about this team. The Cubs aren't going to suddenly get really good if Andy starts paying more attention to the team. Andy's fingerprints are all over this failing franchise.

 

Call for him to demand changes. Call for him to re-evaluate their methods and adopt new standards. But don't pretend that absentee presidency is the reason the team sucks.

Oh, I agree; but asking for specific criticisms of that sort is probably asking a little too much from Rogers. I am just glad that the front office is taking some well-deserved heat. Sure it's a false dichotomy, MacPhail attending to non-on the field things does not preclude him attending to the team. But while MacPhail is off doing whatever, this team festers and rots and it doesn't seem there is any urgency to do anything about it. Ultimately the buck stops with him, and if he is satisfied the way things have been run, then he is part of the problem.

 

So while the specifics of some of Roger's criticisms are dubious, he is dead right on his target.

 

But you are right, Rogers comes perilously close to calling for the head of Jim Hendry, only to stop short and ask, 'where was Andy?' That's BS.

[beowulf28]

So let's examine rumors:

 

Girardi reportedly won't return to the Marlins, Girardi to the Cubs is a distinct possibility. (I don't have an opinion of Girardi either way, but I know a lot of Cub fans will be clamoring for him. I'll just be happy to be rid of Dusty and hope for the best.)

 

Major shake-up at the Tribune, Cubs could be put up for sale.

 

MacPhail rumored to be given the boot? If MacPhail is ousted, I don't see how Hendry survives. Is this rumor somehow related to the Tribune shake-up; is this part of the smoke to that particular fire?

 

Me (rocking back and forth in a fetal position):

 

I refuse to get my hopes up.

I refuse to get my hopes up.

Can only lead to disappointment, been burned before...

I refuse to get my hopes up.

 

:lol:

 

I gotta agree with you. It's hard to get my hopes up even after hearing this myself. I heard Murph say that MacPhail (that's F-A-I-L) would be gone in one or two weeks, I think he said. Yet, rumors are just that, until they're proven. He also said that Baker and the coaching staff would be gone--or at least most of the coaching staff--but that Hendry would be back.

 

I think if Hendry doesn't get fired, he'd be on a very short leash.

[beowulf28]

If the Cubs were sold, it would probably be too late for a front office shake up. I have a feeling we will be stuck with Hendry for another year.

 

If the Cubs were sold, wouldn't the new ownership want to start fresh; totally new? Why would you want the same people in charge who were responsible for the failure in the first place?

 

BTW, we may not be hoping for the Donald as the new owner--if there was to be a new owner. He's apparently been running his casinos into the ground financially, and 2 billion dollars in debt, according to MSN.com's money section. Mark Cuban, anyone?

[Laura]

I take issue with his insinuation that the reason the Cubs are flailing is because Andy is not there to lead. He completely ignores the possibility that they are making wrong decisions based on wrong philosophies. It's simply wrong to try and paint the Cubs problems on a lost Jim Hendry out on his own without the genius of Andy to make things right.

 

I like that he says you have to question leadership above Baker. I don't like that he thinks a good move would have been to extend Baker earlier. It's a cop-out really. He fails to talk about the real problems about this team. The Cubs aren't going to suddenly get really good if Andy starts paying more attention to the team. Andy's fingerprints are all over this failing franchise.

 

Call for him to demand changes. Call for him to re-evaluate their methods and adopt new standards. But don't pretend that absentee presidency is the reason the team sucks.

 

Rogers doesn't use the best examples, but he does lay the Cubs' problems at the feet of dysfunctional management and it's clear he believes the blame for the organizational failure should lie with MacPhail. That makes sense to me unless you take the next step and say the problem also lies with ownership, which I also believe, but it may be a bit much for a Tribune writer to say so.

 

I understand and agree with what you're saying about the failure of organizational philosophy, but at this juncture, the two failures (organizational & philosophical) go hand-in-hand. There's no evidence that the people in charge are willing to consider "new" philosophies, so as long as they are in charge, I'm not expecting much other than the flukish playoff appearance once every decade or so. Corporate ownership is conservative and I find it hard to believe that MacPhail/Hendry would hire replacements who embrace different approaches than they themselves hold.

 

Rogers isn't saying that he wanted Dusty extended -- he says that the decision needed to be made this past off-season: "I said it then and I'll say it now: The time to change managers or extend Baker was last fall." I don't read this as an apology for Dusty any more than I'll read the celebrations here if Dusty leaves to be apologies for the dismal job that the front office has done. If anything, it's an apology for Tribune ownership, which I suppose should be expected given the source.

 

At least he's not blaming Cubs fans' racism for this mess. I view that as progress.