Dusty and boo's coming

[CyHawk_Cub]

I love Dusty, I will definiately be cheering him. We would of had a Championship if he was still here.

Come on, Meph, it's not funny anymore.

 

:duel:

 

:checking finger nails: so, who is this "Dusty" you speak of? Why anyone would get excited (positively or negatively) over an opposing manager is beyond me. Dusty will be relevant only b/c idiot fans will make him so.

[RynoHawk23]

If we win the world series it will be with a completely different bunch of ballplayers (except wood who pitches 2 innings every 3 games if he's lucky). Dusty deserves absolutely no credit for anything accomplished in the future.

 

That's not what I said. Read and understand.

 

He changed the landscape/mindset of the franchise from "lovable losers" to one that doesn't accept losing as an option any more. We have the New York/Boston mindset we just don't have the championships - yet. Maybe the new owner will take the extra steps to do so. Even so, Dusty Baker was the manager of the 2003 team that changed Chicago's mind on what is acceptable. Whether you like it or not, whether he did it on his own merit or not, 2003 in my mind is when this franchise turned the corner and winning became the focus.

[CoolHandLuke]

If we win the world series it will be with a completely different bunch of ballplayers (except wood who pitches 2 innings every 3 games if he's lucky). Dusty deserves absolutely no credit for anything accomplished in the future.

 

That's not what I said. Read and understand.

 

He changed the landscape/mindset of the franchise from "lovable losers" to one that doesn't accept losing as an option any more. We have the New York/Boston mindset we just don't have the championships - yet. Maybe the new owner will take the extra steps to do so. Even so, Dusty Baker was the manager of the 2003 team that changed Chicago's mind on what is acceptable. Whether you like it or not, whether he did it on his own merit or not, 2003 in my mind is when this franchise turned the corner and winning became the focus.

 

This is a ridiculous idea. Do you seriously think that winning wasn't always something that was strived for by every front office/player/coach in cubs history? It's not like 2003 happened and they were like, "whoa, maybe winning should be a priority".

[bcl412]

If we win the world series it will be with a completely different bunch of ballplayers (except wood who pitches 2 innings every 3 games if he's lucky). Dusty deserves absolutely no credit for anything accomplished in the future.

 

That's not what I said. Read and understand.

 

He changed the landscape/mindset of the franchise from "lovable losers" to one that doesn't accept losing as an option any more. We have the New York/Boston mindset we just don't have the championships - yet. Maybe the new owner will take the extra steps to do so. Even so, Dusty Baker was the manager of the 2003 team that changed Chicago's mind on what is acceptable. Whether you like it or not, whether he did it on his own merit or not, 2003 in my mind is when this franchise turned the corner and winning became the focus.

 

This is a ridiculous idea. Do you seriously think that winning wasn't always something that was strived for by every front office/player/coach in cubs history? It's not like 2003 happened and they were like, "whoa, maybe winning should be a priority".

 

Not to mention the Cubs have been fairly successful since 1984, I know they have had bad seasons since then but they haven't gone through nearly what they went through from the 40's to the sixties and then from the sixties to the eighties. Also I think the term lovable losers is a myth because the Cubs only really become popular when they start winning. I know I only see people with Cubs apparel during and after a year when they have been successful.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I seem to recall that either Diamond Mind or Baseball Prospectus had an article in the offseason before Baker was hired arguing that the 2002 Cubs were one of the most statistically underperforming teams in history and that whomever took over the team would get an undeserved reputation for turning them around.

[Wes Mantooth]

Most likely that the Cubs won because even a blind squirrel finds a nut. Someone in the front office realized how much more money they could make by actually winning. Thus the commitment of more money to improve the team.

[RynoHawk23]

This is a ridiculous idea. Do you seriously think that winning wasn't always something that was strived for by every front office/player/coach in cubs history? It's not like 2003 happened and they were like, "whoa, maybe winning should be a priority".

 

From 1990 to 2002 you tell me where the commitment to winning was by the front office. Was it the signing of Henry Rodriguez? Or was it was that mid-season acquisition of Rick Aguilera? Was it letting Greg Maddux go over a few million dollars and some respect? How about the commitment to finding a great manager? Was it Jim Essian or Jim Lefebvre that is on your pedestal of great Cubs' managers?

 

Since 2003 we have spent money on premeire free agents, made significant in-season/off season trades, and hired the best managers available. All while the fans have put more emphasis on winning, to the point of running players/coaches/broadcasters out of town that weren't up to snuff or on board due the pressure of delivering the winning atmosphere that is craved.

 

I'd say that's a pretty big mindset change.

 

And I'm sorry, Dusty Baker is the person that delivered that change - whether he cultivated it himself or not. "In Dusty we Trusty" was a real thing for 2 years in Chicago.

[Keener98]

The only thing Dusty Baker deserves credit for is helping set this organization back 3+ years.

[CoolHandLuke]

This is a ridiculous idea. Do you seriously think that winning wasn't always something that was strived for by every front office/player/coach in cubs history? It's not like 2003 happened and they were like, "whoa, maybe winning should be a priority".

 

From 1990 to 2002 you tell me where the commitment to winning was by the front office. Was it the signing of Henry Rodriguez? Or was it was that mid-season acquisition of Rick Aguilera? Was it letting Greg Maddux go over a few million dollars and some respect? How about the commitment to finding a great manager? Was it Jim Essian or Jim Lefebvre that is on your pedestal of great Cubs' managers?

 

Since 2003 we have spent money on premeire free agents, made significant in-season/off season trades, and hired the best managers available. All while the fans have put more emphasis on winning, to the point of running players/coaches/broadcasters out of town that weren't up to snuff or on board due the pressure of delivering the winning atmosphere that is craved.

 

I'd say that's a pretty big mindset change.

 

And I'm sorry, Dusty Baker is the person that delivered that change - whether he cultivated it himself or not. "In Dusty we Trusty" was a real thing for 2 years in Chicago.

 

You don't think that maybe it was just an utter lack of direction, among other terrible traits, by the front office?

 

Ed Lynch wasn't sitting at his desk saying to himself "shucks, we are the lovable losers! I am just going to sign crappy old players because losing is perfectly acceptable!" If you really think that, then I don't think we are going to get anywhere with this argument.

 

Lovable losers is just something made up by the media and propegated by the typical moron fan to account for a franchise that has been terribly ran for over a half century. The cubs were not bad because of the phrase, they were given the phrase because they were so often bad.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

How about the commitment to finding a great manager?

 

How quickly you've forgotten that Don Baylor was considered the "it" manager of the offseason the Cubs hired him. He was a high-profile signing.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And I'm sorry, Dusty Baker is the person that delivered that change - whether he cultivated it himself or not. "In Dusty we Trusty" was a real thing for 2 years in Chicago.

 

That doesn't even really make sense. He didn't "cultivate" or "deliver" it. He was here because of it.

 

Misguided though they were, the Cubs thought he was a great manager and were willing to pay a high cost to get him. He didn't create the "want to win," he was a result of it.

[SouthSideRyan]

Clearly Jim Lefebvre rid us of the Lovable Losers tag because he was manager when the Cubs signed Sandberg to the biggest contract in baseball history. Or Don Baylor for going out and getting Moises Alou. AND he got us to trade for Fred McGriff!!

 

I like how the Aguilera trade is talked as a sign the Cubs weren't committed to winning. Aguilera had an ERA of 1.27 at the time and was coming off of a season where he saved 38 games. Henry Rodriguez coming off of seasons where he piled up some HR totals. Rod Beck who'd been a great closer for the Giants.

 

The Cubs weren't not trying to win, they were just a very stupid organization.

[rocket]

haha. marty brenneman and jeff brantley acted disgusted when corey patterson was booed when he came to the plate.

[SouthSideRyan]

haha. marty brenneman and jeff brantley acted disgusted when corey patterson was booed when he came to the plate.

 

I'd boo two guys in that sentence. The other one is Corey Patterson.

[RynoHawk23]

Maybe I've mistated what I'm trying to say. I'm not necessarily crediting Dusty Baker. I'm just saying that that was the point in Cubs baseball history that the landscape changed - in my opinion. And like it or not he is associated with that event.

 

But, I think you are being very unfair to Dusty in general. He does deserve some credit for the 2003 season. He wasn't idly standing by and had a largely mediocre team. 2004 is when the team was stacked and didn't come through.

[NCCubFan]

Walks help. They do help. But you aren't going to walk across the plate. You're going to hit across the plate. That's the school I come from."

It's called hitting, not walking. Have you ever seen a Top 10 Walking?

[Careless]

I seem to recall that either Diamond Mind or Baseball Prospectus had an article in the offseason before Baker was hired arguing that the 2002 Cubs were one of the most statistically underperforming teams in history and that whomever took over the team would get an undeserved reputation for turning them around.

 

The 2002 Cubs were 7 or 8 games under their pythagorean, and the 2003 Cubs were a bit over.The Dustyites were happy to claim those wins as his influence, before 2005 happened.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I seem to recall that either Diamond Mind or Baseball Prospectus had an article in the offseason before Baker was hired arguing that the 2002 Cubs were one of the most statistically underperforming teams in history and that whomever took over the team would get an undeserved reputation for turning them around.

 

The 2002 Cubs were 7 or 8 games under their pythagorean, and the 2003 Cubs were a bit over.The Dustyites were happy to claim those wins as his influence, before 2005 happened.

 

It went even beyond that. Something about total bases and OBP compared to runs scored, and how they were many runs below what would be expected.

[TBone]

Dusty single-handedly put this organization behind by about five years. Some say he's not responsible for Prior's issues, and I disagree wholeheartedly. He pitched that dude into the ground. Can you imagine had he limited a young pitchers pitch count, the likelihood that Prior wouldn't have walked and we had him and Z as the 1-2 punch? Had we won the series in 04, I wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on in my complaints. However, we didn't even make the playoffs in 04 and we wound up minus 2 of the top 3 or 4 pitchers this organization's brought up in my lifetime. I still blame Rigs for Woody's issues, but maybe they go back further than that. Irregardless, Dusty's a horrible manager. In 2004, I believe Moises Alou was picked off of second 3 times in the last month and a half, but he's a "player's manager" and never got on the guys. Dude, Moises has no speed...why's he getting off 2nd that much with no speed on a fly ball? That's not the only thing Dusty didn't discipline, and the organization is none the better for the lack of discipline shown in Dusty's regime. Those type of mental errors are inexcusable down the stretch for a team that's contending for the playoffs. There comes a point where you've got to discipline the players, including when they're complaining about what the guys on the TV are saying about them. Absolutely horrible managing.

 

Yes, 2003 was the year that Cubs fans actually expected more and started booing later when the team underperformed, but the stage was set by 84, 89, and 98. We as fans had had tastes of the playoffs and 2003 was just another playoff year until we actually won a series and wound up being up 3-1 in the NLCS. If it was the other way around and we were down 3-1, the fans likely wouldn't react to an underperforming Cubs team the way they do today. Nonetheless, it shouldn't matter. An underperforming team is an underperforming team. The true fans of the team (not the corporate sponsors or the people with no emotional attachment to the team) would not have cared and likely still don't to much of an extent. However, the fans that do care, such as those that frequent this board would still be disappointed and upset when a Cubs team underperforms. It's only a person who has no pride in themself, the things they care about, or who really don't care about a team that underperforms who don't let underperforming get to them.

 

In other words, I liked Dusty in 03 and when he was signed. By October of 04 I hated him and wanted him out. He sucks. Period.

 

T

[biittner77]

Maybe I've mistated what I'm trying to say. I'm not necessarily crediting Dusty Baker. I'm just saying that that was the point in Cubs baseball history that the landscape changed - in my opinion. And like it or not he is associated with that event.

 

But, I think you are being very unfair to Dusty in general. He does deserve some credit for the 2003 season. He wasn't idly standing by and had a largely mediocre team. 2004 is when the team was stacked and didn't come through.

 

1984 is when things changed. Before 84 you could walk up and get a ticket to any game any time of the season. Before 84 the ushers almost encouraged people to trade up so the stands wouldn't look as empty on TV.

 

The 84 team didn't barely win, they dominated. They gave Cub fans a taste of winning and things really haven't been the same since. There was nothing "loveable" about the teams of the early 90s.

 

If you want to say that '98 was the turnaround year I could see that point too.

[cheapseats]

 

is dusty a bad person?

 

How do you feel about people that cheat on their taxes?

[cheapseats]

haha. marty brenneman and jeff brantley acted disgusted when corey patterson was booed when he came to the plate.

 

I'd boo two guys in that sentence. The other one is Corey Patterson.

 

If I could fight one person, living or dead, I'd fight Marty Brenneman.

[rocket]

haha. marty brenneman and jeff brantley acted disgusted when corey patterson was booed when he came to the plate.

 

I'd boo two guys in that sentence. The other one is Corey Patterson.

 

If I could fight one person, living or dead, I'd fight Marty Brenneman.

 

you'd have an easier time with joe nuxhall