Lou suspended! (4 games)

[Outshined_One]

The Cubs have been on, as Wojo put it, some sort of double-secret probation with MLB's umpires for at least three years. Frankly it's pissing me off.

 

I think Wojo would be on my list of "10 members of the sports media I'd like to see shipped off to Uzbekistan without a return ticket". Whatever his experience in Chicago was, he absolutely despises the Cubs and Bears. The man goes out of his way to rip on them whenever possible. Now that he's a mouthpiece on ESPN, it only makes him even more insufferable.

[BigbadB]

Personally, I think they should suspend the whole team for the rest of the year, maybe longer.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Personally, I think they should suspend the whole team for the rest of the year, maybe longer.

 

I could go for that.

[Bruno7481]

I'm not all that upset with Piniella's suspension. It's not like he's been helping us win ballgames.

 

The Piniella experiment has been a disaster thus far.

 

How much blame does Lou get for the team's struggles? 30%? 50%? The team has sucked all around, not just Lou.

 

I would say much less than 30%. But that's not the point. It's not like the Cubs are missing anything without him on the bench.

 

Agreed, and sadly that can be said for quite a few managers in MLB.

[Banedon]

I'm not all that upset with Piniella's suspension. It's not like he's been helping us win ballgames.

 

The Piniella experiment has been a disaster thus far.

 

How much blame does Lou get for the team's struggles? 30%? 50%? The team has sucked all around, not just Lou.

 

I would say much less than 30%. But that's not the point. It's not like the Cubs are missing anything without him on the bench.

 

Agreed, and sadly that can be said for quite a few managers in MLB.

 

Is there any reason that we shouldn't expect the Cubs to get one of the managers that actually bring something to the team though? Just because a lot of MLB managers suck, doesn't mean we should be content that ours does too.

[USSoccer]

I'm not all that upset with Piniella's suspension. It's not like he's been helping us win ballgames.

 

The Piniella experiment has been a disaster thus far.

 

How much blame does Lou get for the team's struggles? 30%? 50%? The team has sucked all around, not just Lou.

 

I would blame him for most of the bullpen's issues. He's put terrible relievers in the worst possible positions, and the team has suffered because of it.

[Bruno7481]

I'm not all that upset with Piniella's suspension. It's not like he's been helping us win ballgames.

 

The Piniella experiment has been a disaster thus far.

 

How much blame does Lou get for the team's struggles? 30%? 50%? The team has sucked all around, not just Lou.

 

I would say much less than 30%. But that's not the point. It's not like the Cubs are missing anything without him on the bench.

 

Agreed, and sadly that can be said for quite a few managers in MLB.

 

Is there any reason that we shouldn't expect the Cubs to get one of the managers that actually bring something to the team though? Just because a lot of MLB managers suck, doesn't mean we should be content that ours does too.

 

I'm not content at all. Who do you suggest? No matter who is managing this team, there is always going to be a % of people who complain regardless.

[jersey cubs fan]

No matter who is managing this team, there is always going to be a % of people who complain regardless.

 

If the team was winning, that % would be microscopic.

[Banedon]

I'm not all that upset with Piniella's suspension. It's not like he's been helping us win ballgames.

 

The Piniella experiment has been a disaster thus far.

 

How much blame does Lou get for the team's struggles? 30%? 50%? The team has sucked all around, not just Lou.

 

I would say much less than 30%. But that's not the point. It's not like the Cubs are missing anything without him on the bench.

 

Agreed, and sadly that can be said for quite a few managers in MLB.

 

Is there any reason that we shouldn't expect the Cubs to get one of the managers that actually bring something to the team though? Just because a lot of MLB managers suck, doesn't mean we should be content that ours does too.

 

I'm not content at all. Who do you suggest? No matter who is managing this team, there is always going to be a % of people who complain regardless.

 

Suggestions have been made ad nauseum since somewhere in the middle of the Baker reign. We never got in on the Fredi Gonzalez discussions. There was no indication that we ever even asked Larry Dierker if he'd be interested in managing again. There was no indication that Bobby Valentine was ever contacted or looked at.

 

I can understand if you talk to someone and it doesn't work out, but these were 3 guys that Hendry never even sniffed at. His Piniella love was too strong.

[Bruno7481]

No matter who is managing this team, there is always going to be a % of people who complain regardless.

 

If the team was winning, that % would be microscopic.

 

Yeah, nobody was complaining in 2003. I agree to an extent, but there is always going to be people upset.

 

In 2003 it was Wood/Prior pitch counts, and probably rightfully so. But I still feel a good majority of those folks would have complained had Baker shut them down.

 

"Those people" refer to nobody specifc, just trying to think back to the general themes of discussion from that year.

[frostwyrm]

I think MLB was taking into account Lou's statement that he didn't care if he was really out, he was going to get himself thrown out regardless. Lou has handled the past 2 weeks with about as little amount of poise and professionalism as you can. Going ballistic the day after the brawl was ridiculously predictable, just like a lot of beanball wars are predictable.

 

I agree you can't have a manager openly admitting he went into a game with the premeditated intent to cause an ugly scene and get ejected. It's arrogant and unprofessional. If a manager purposely does this stuff to fire up his team he should do everybody the courtesty of at least pretending it wasn't premeditated.

[cubfan1955]

Wait...so MLB has already made their decision? So what's the point of Lou being given his chance to defend himself later today?

[Banedon]

Wait...so MLB has already made their decision? So what's the point of Lou being given his chance to defend himself later today?

 

To get it reduced, which won't happen...manager suspensions almost never get reduced.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Wait...so MLB has already made their decision? So what's the point of Lou being given his chance to defend himself later today?

 

Lou gets a chance to appeal his case, but I doubt what he says makes any difference in the penalty handed out.

[jersey cubs fan]

No matter who is managing this team, there is always going to be a % of people who complain regardless.

 

If the team was winning, that % would be microscopic.

 

Yeah, nobody was complaining in 2003. I agree to an extent, but there is always going to be people upset.

 

In 2003 it was Wood/Prior pitch counts, and probably rightfully so. But I still feel a good majority of those folks would have complained had Baker shut them down.

 

"Those people" refer to nobody specifc, just trying to think back to the general themes of discussion from that year.

 

They weren't really winning all that much in 2003. They won 88 games. It was a slightly above average season. I'm talking about if they had a good manager and the team was looking like a solid 95-100 win team. That's winning.

[jersey cubs fan]

Wait...so MLB has already made their decision? So what's the point of Lou being given his chance to defend himself later today?

 

To get it reduced, which won't happen...manager suspensions almost never get reduced.

 

I thought the meeting was to determine the length, and that people are just speculating it's going to be 5.

[Bruno7481]

No matter who is managing this team, there is always going to be a % of people who complain regardless.

 

If the team was winning, that % would be microscopic.

 

Yeah, nobody was complaining in 2003. I agree to an extent, but there is always going to be people upset.

 

In 2003 it was Wood/Prior pitch counts, and probably rightfully so. But I still feel a good majority of those folks would have complained had Baker shut them down.

 

"Those people" refer to nobody specifc, just trying to think back to the general themes of discussion from that year.

 

They weren't really winning all that much in 2003. They won 88 games. It was a slightly above average season. I'm talking about if they had a good manager and the team was looking like a solid 95-100 win team. That's winning.

 

Hey, its the Cubs, 2003 was the best I could do. I'd have to go pretty far back to find a 95-100 win Cub team.

 

8-)

[98navigator]

who cares? he's a terrible coach

Who is a terrible coach?

 

Clearly I'm talking about Bryan Murray of the Ottawa Senators.

 

Clearly you are not talking about Lou because he isn't a coach. He is a manager.

 

his title is manager, he is a coach

 

Call any minor league or major league manager a coach and see what kind of reaction you get.

 

this is ridiculous

 

 

No, it's true. It's taboo to call a manager "coach." It's not that big of a deal for the purposes of a message board, but should not be done in their presence (especially if you expect their cooperation).

[Banedon]

No matter who is managing this team, there is always going to be a % of people who complain regardless.

 

If the team was winning, that % would be microscopic.

 

Yeah, nobody was complaining in 2003. I agree to an extent, but there is always going to be people upset.

 

In 2003 it was Wood/Prior pitch counts, and probably rightfully so. But I still feel a good majority of those folks would have complained had Baker shut them down.

 

"Those people" refer to nobody specifc, just trying to think back to the general themes of discussion from that year.

 

They weren't really winning all that much in 2003. They won 88 games. It was a slightly above average season. I'm talking about if they had a good manager and the team was looking like a solid 95-100 win team. That's winning.

 

Hey, its the Cubs, 2003 was the best I could do. I'd have to go pretty far back to find a 95-100 win Cub team.

 

8-)

 

You'd have to go pretty far back to find a good manager as well... :wink:

[cubfan1955]

Wait...so MLB has already made their decision? So what's the point of Lou being given his chance to defend himself later today?

 

To get it reduced, which won't happen...manager suspensions almost never get reduced.

 

I thought the meeting was to determine the length, and that people are just speculating it's going to be 5.

That's what I thought too and now after reading that article I'm pretty sure it's just speculation by Dave van Dyck that it is 5 games. I think it will probably be 3...but it won't surprise me if it's 5.

[Banedon]

Wait...so MLB has already made their decision? So what's the point of Lou being given his chance to defend himself later today?

 

To get it reduced, which won't happen...manager suspensions almost never get reduced.

 

I thought the meeting was to determine the length, and that people are just speculating it's going to be 5.

 

The article I linked made it seem like this was more of an appeal...and that in that way it was determining length. I suspect Piniella and the Cubs already knew it was 5. But who knows.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

who cares? he's a terrible coach

Who is a terrible coach?

 

Clearly I'm talking about Bryan Murray of the Ottawa Senators.

 

Clearly you are not talking about Lou because he isn't a coach. He is a manager.

 

his title is manager, he is a coach

 

Call any minor league or major league manager a coach and see what kind of reaction you get.

 

this is ridiculous

 

 

No, it's true. It's taboo to call a manager "coach." It's not that big of a deal for the purposes of a message board, but should not be done in their presence (especially if you expect their cooperation).

 

once again, nobody's talking about calling him coach to his face

[CubinNY]

No matter who is managing this team, there is always going to be a % of people who complain regardless.

 

If the team was winning, that % would be microscopic.

 

Yeah, nobody was complaining in 2003. I agree to an extent, but there is always going to be people upset.

 

In 2003 it was Wood/Prior pitch counts, and probably rightfully so. But I still feel a good majority of those folks would have complained had Baker shut them down.

 

"Those people" refer to nobody specifc, just trying to think back to the general themes of discussion from that year.

 

My opinon is that no manager (or coach) could have done well with this team. Lou has managed to take a poorly contructed team and get less than would be expected. What was expected by me was an around .500 team.

[jjgman21]

watching the channel 7 mid-day news and heard this gem

 

you can't treat people like that and kick dirt on an umpire an official or whatever. lou comes out and says 'I was gonna come out and argue whether he was safe or out or whatever.' I mean it was all over the paper. so it was premeditated, so he knew what he was doing and he got what he wanted.

 

and umpires can treat people like that? umpires can't go shoving players and/or managers either, but you sure seemed to violate that one. umpires also "can't" make calls with regard to the uniform like you have done for 35 years now either there Bruce.

 

nevermind the thing Lou said immediately following that which was 'he looked safe from the dugout.' Bruce, you have a great future at Fox News.

 

another interesting aside from the report

 

we've sold more Lou Piniella jerseys since they hired him with the Cubs then they did with Dusty Baker in four years.

[transplanted_suburbanite]

Oh, so total Piniella jersey sales = 1.

 

another interesting aside from the report

 

we've sold more Lou Piniella jerseys since they hired him with the Cubs then they did with Dusty Baker in four years.