Thoughts on an old cronie of Selig buying the Cubs?

[Soul]

i just don't want steve stone anywhere near our front office. whoever keeps him out of a position of power is alright by me.

 

I never considered Stone a serious GM option, but yeah I'm also not keen on him being our GM, because he's never done it before. We need someone who knows what he's doing, not a deadbeat like Ed Lynch, and not a rookie like Hendry was (and still is by many people's reckoning).

 

Just my 2 cents. I'd still like to see Stone back in the booth at some point, I always enjoyed his color commentary.

 

I don't understand why people think first-time GMs are a bad idea. There's enough retread GMs out there to convince me I'd be more than happy with a guy who has never done it before.

 

Theo Epstein was a first-time GM and brought a title to Boston. That should convince anyone that a first-time GM is no worse than an old veteran. Really, why should our attitude about GMs be any different than players. Just because a guy has experience doesn't mean that he doesn't suck.

 

Because we've been down that road before and have proven we can't pick a rook who has a clue.

 

Who's "we"? New ownership means different people making those decisions.

 

Are you sure McDonough will be fired when the team is sold?

[jersey cubs fan]

Because we've been down that road before and have proven we can't pick a rook who has a clue.

 

And they've proven they can't pick retreads either. If the Cubs get Billy Beane, John Schuerholz or Mark Shapiro, great, but I don't see a large pool of available GMs who are screaming "I am the man that will get the job done in Chicago!" What the Cubs have proven is that doing it the old fashioned way isn't going to bring a championship. They don't need a baseball lifer or a former GM. They need a person who can be a competent GM that won't ignore the problem areas that need to be fixed, rookie or no rookie.

[RegulusBlue]

Because we've been down that road before and have proven we can't pick a rook who has a clue.

 

And they've proven they can't pick retreads either. If the Cubs get Billy Beane, John Schuerholz or Mark Shapiro, great, but I don't see a large pool of available GMs who are screaming "I am the man that will get the job done in Chicago!" What the Cubs have proven is that doing it the old fashioned way isn't going to bring a championship. They don't need a baseball lifer or a former GM. They need a person who can be a competent GM that won't ignore the problem areas that need to be fixed, rookie or no rookie.

 

D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-DEPODESTA

[Transmogrified Tiger]

i just don't want steve stone anywhere near our front office. whoever keeps him out of a position of power is alright by me.

 

I never considered Stone a serious GM option, but yeah I'm also not keen on him being our GM, because he's never done it before. We need someone who knows what he's doing, not a deadbeat like Ed Lynch, and not a rookie like Hendry was (and still is by many people's reckoning).

 

Just my 2 cents. I'd still like to see Stone back in the booth at some point, I always enjoyed his color commentary.

 

I don't understand why people think first-time GMs are a bad idea. There's enough retread GMs out there to convince me I'd be more than happy with a guy who has never done it before.

 

Theo Epstein was a first-time GM and brought a title to Boston. That should convince anyone that a first-time GM is no worse than an old veteran. Really, why should our attitude about GMs be any different than players. Just because a guy has experience doesn't mean that he doesn't suck.

 

Because we've been down that road before and have proven we can't pick a rook who has a clue.

 

Who's "we"? New ownership means different people making those decisions.

 

Are you sure McDonough will be fired when the team is sold?

 

Maybe, maybe not. McDonough has never picked a GM, so that's not relevant to what you were saying.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Chris Antonetti for GM, plz.

[Amazing_Grace]

i just don't want steve stone anywhere near our front office. whoever keeps him out of a position of power is alright by me.

 

I never considered Stone a serious GM option, but yeah I'm also not keen on him being our GM, because he's never done it before. We need someone who knows what he's doing, not a deadbeat like Ed Lynch, and not a rookie like Hendry was (and still is by many people's reckoning).

 

Just my 2 cents. I'd still like to see Stone back in the booth at some point, I always enjoyed his color commentary.

 

I don't understand why people think first-time GMs are a bad idea. There's enough retread GMs out there to convince me I'd be more than happy with a guy who has never done it before.

 

Theo Epstein was a first-time GM and brought a title to Boston. That should convince anyone that a first-time GM is no worse than an old veteran. Really, why should our attitude about GMs be any different than players. Just because a guy has experience doesn't mean that he doesn't suck.

 

Because we've been down that road before and have proven we can't pick a rook who has a clue.

 

Who's "we"? New ownership means different people making those decisions.

 

Exactly, the new ownership will have a lot to do with the direction the team takes, starting with who they choose for team president and GM.

[Soul]

i just don't want steve stone anywhere near our front office. whoever keeps him out of a position of power is alright by me.

 

I never considered Stone a serious GM option, but yeah I'm also not keen on him being our GM, because he's never done it before. We need someone who knows what he's doing, not a deadbeat like Ed Lynch, and not a rookie like Hendry was (and still is by many people's reckoning).

 

Just my 2 cents. I'd still like to see Stone back in the booth at some point, I always enjoyed his color commentary.

 

I don't understand why people think first-time GMs are a bad idea. There's enough retread GMs out there to convince me I'd be more than happy with a guy who has never done it before.

 

Theo Epstein was a first-time GM and brought a title to Boston. That should convince anyone that a first-time GM is no worse than an old veteran. Really, why should our attitude about GMs be any different than players. Just because a guy has experience doesn't mean that he doesn't suck.

 

Because we've been down that road before and have proven we can't pick a rook who has a clue.

 

Who's "we"? New ownership means different people making those decisions.

 

Are you sure McDonough will be fired when the team is sold?

 

Maybe, maybe not. McDonough has never picked a GM, so that's not relevant to what you were saying.

 

The relevance is that he's still a product of the same old Cubs, which hasn't picked a solid GM since Dallas Green.