R.I.P. Felix Pie's Career (2001-April 20, 2008)

[Tracer Bullet]

Man, there are a lot of horrible arguments to defend Lou/Hendry. The Cubs have a good record, Lou and Hendry try hard, rabble rabble rabble.

Seriously. When people start defending them by citing good intentions and accusing you of overlooking said intentions, it makes me want to throw up

 

it's b/c you're arrogant.

[TheDude]

Man, there are a lot of horrible arguments to defend Lou/Hendry. The Cubs have a good record, Lou and Hendry try hard, rabble rabble rabble.

 

For me, it's not a defense of Hendry. It's a moderate view that doesn't cry about Pie's career being forever ruined at age 22. I prefer to see Pie, not Edmonds, and I disagree with the move. But I also recognize that the situation is of little significance overall, and that is where I'm coming from. My argument is really that this is a pea-shooter dent in Hendry's reputation, not a shotgun blast.

 

And do you know why record matters? Because it's the number one argument against Hendry and any thread whose topic is more or less 'should Hendry be replaced?' or 'I hate Hendry and here is why'. Inevitably, folks cite the budget he has to work with and the net results in w/l. I agree with this approach, though I also put weight in post-season appearances regardless of record.

 

The reason record serves as a 'defense' for Hendry, is that it cannot simultaneously be the primary measure of a GM when it supports an argument, but also meaningless when it does not. The team he constructed for 2008 right now, and likely the rest of the season, is very good. And the record will reflect this.

 

So, assuming the season plays out according to trend, the complaints over the management of Pie will remain small and petty in the overall scheme of the 2008 season and the regular season results. Honestly, with regards to 2008, what do you think the projected Win Share differential of Pie/Johnson vs. Edmonds/Johnson? Substantial? I doubt it.

[TheDude]

As long as the team continues to win, the petty and overblown complaints will remain petty and overblown; particularly since Lou has proven to be a manager that will play anyone that delivers for him. The role players with the playing time right now likely play themselves back into role players, at which time Lou probably gives a kid a shot again.

That's pretty faulty logic. Actually it is really faulty.

 

A GM and a manager's job is to put their team in the best position to win. If one doesn't look at the underlying reasons why they are winning, and more importantly refuses to question the basic assumptions of a strategy, winning will not long last. As fans it doesn't matter what we think, but when the numbers even out, what Hendry and Lou have done will matter.

 

Hendry and Lou has been extremely lucky that this division is populated with some of the worst decision makers in baseball.

 

You state it's faulty logic then build your own strawman argument to support the point. The role players are not the "underlying reasons" this team is winning. I don't believe they are even in the top 5 reasons and I never stated anything in my post to make it seem like that was case.

 

So it does you no good to use that as your one supporting point to why my logic is faulty.

 

This team wins because the 3-6 spots in the lineup are good; sustained and dependable good. It wins because the ace is a reliable stud. It wins because the bullpen has a show-stopping lead holder in Marmol. It wins because of depth: a 30-40 HR guy like Soriano isn't even considered in the top two hitters on the team. It wins because middle starters are good enough to put out quality outtings most of the time.

 

Role players come and go on every team. When they are hot, they earn playing time. When they are not, managers usually let a battle ensue, often including a young guy that has potential in that battle. If the young guy gets a chance and performs, he plays more.

 

If you're going to claim my role player logic is faulty, you need a much better argument. And make sure the point you're debunking is one I actually made, and not one you created for me.

Strawman :stickman:

 

You need to look it up lol. Wikipedia has a nice entry.

 

The context of my original post was role players and whether or not their playing time is meaningful for a winning team. You attacked that claim, then gave no supporting evidence, stating only that winning doesn't last if built on poor strategy and a throw away comment about luck.

 

I can only assume, remaining in the context of my claim (because you gave no other context), that you attributed the current winning to a faulty strategy of overusing the current role players and not allowing the kids a chance to play, and that you believe that strategy will not hold up, and lead to less winning. You gave me no other way to interpret your post relative to mine, and since you were specifically attacking my statement, I have to assume your points are in my context. So I addressed your attack using the only tidbit you left out there. I used your terminology and remained on point to it. Not even close to a straw man.

[jersey cubs fan]

Man, there are a lot of horrible arguments to defend Lou/Hendry. The Cubs have a good record, Lou and Hendry try hard, rabble rabble rabble.

 

For me, it's not a defense of Hendry. It's a moderate view that doesn't cry about Pie's career being forever ruined at age 22. I prefer to see Pie, not Edmonds, and I disagree with the move. But I also recognize that the situation is of little significance overall,

 

Individually it's of little significant, but it represents what they've been about in the past and what they will likely continue to be about in the future - the conventional wisdom that proven veterans are better than unproven kids. It also represents how horribly short-sighted they are, how little of a chance they are willing to give kids a chance to work through struggles, how much they demand immediate impact when that's unrealistic, etc.

[CubinNY]

As long as the team continues to win, the petty and overblown complaints will remain petty and overblown; particularly since Lou has proven to be a manager that will play anyone that delivers for him. The role players with the playing time right now likely play themselves back into role players, at which time Lou probably gives a kid a shot again.

That's pretty faulty logic. Actually it is really faulty.

 

A GM and a manager's job is to put their team in the best position to win. If one doesn't look at the underlying reasons why they are winning, and more importantly refuses to question the basic assumptions of a strategy, winning will not long last. As fans it doesn't matter what we think, but when the numbers even out, what Hendry and Lou have done will matter.

 

Hendry and Lou has been extremely lucky that this division is populated with some of the worst decision makers in baseball.

 

You state it's faulty logic then build your own strawman argument to support the point. The role players are not the "underlying reasons" this team is winning. I don't believe they are even in the top 5 reasons and I never stated anything in my post to make it seem like that was case.

 

So it does you no good to use that as your one supporting point to why my logic is faulty.

 

This team wins because the 3-6 spots in the lineup are good; sustained and dependable good. It wins because the ace is a reliable stud. It wins because the bullpen has a show-stopping lead holder in Marmol. It wins because of depth: a 30-40 HR guy like Soriano isn't even considered in the top two hitters on the team. It wins because middle starters are good enough to put out quality outtings most of the time.

 

Role players come and go on every team. When they are hot, they earn playing time. When they are not, managers usually let a battle ensue, often including a young guy that has potential in that battle. If the young guy gets a chance and performs, he plays more.

 

If you're going to claim my role player logic is faulty, you need a much better argument. And make sure the point you're debunking is one I actually made, and not one you created for me.

Strawman :stickman:

 

You need to look it up lol. Wikipedia has a nice entry.

 

The context of my original post was role players and whether or not their playing time is meaningful for a winning team. You attacked that claim, then gave no supporting evidence, stating only that winning doesn't last if built on poor strategy and a throw away comment about luck.

 

I can only assume, remaining in the context of my claim (because you gave no other context), that you attributed the current winning to a faulty strategy of overusing the current role players and not allowing the kids a chance to play, and that you believe that strategy will not hold up, and lead to less winning. You gave me no other way to interpret your post relative to mine, and since you were specifically attacking my statement, I have to assume your points are in my context. So I addressed your attack using the only tidbit you left out there. I used your terminology and remained on point to it. Not even close to a straw man.

lol :stickman:

 

No "Dude". The only context of your "claim" is this: "Don't question winning".

[TheDude]

No "Dude". The only context of your "claim" is this: "Don't question winning".

Back to back 'I know you are but what I am' one liners from you pretty much concedes the argument. Wish I could even say well played, but it wasn't.

[Tracer Bullet]

No "Dude". The only context of your "claim" is this: "Don't question winning".

Back to back 'I know you are but what I am' one liners from you pretty much concedes the argument. Wish I could even say well played, but it wasn't.

 

I'm still waiting for your response to my post...

[C.C.]

Today's chat:

 

Drew (Chicago, IL): Why do people assume at bats equals improvement? Pie is having his swing changed because he is unable to hit MLB pitching with his current approach. Should the Cubs have a guy practice his new swing at the MLB level when he's never had success there to begin with?

 

SportsNation Rob Neyer: (12:30 PM ET ) Really? They tried the same thing with Corey Patterson a few years ago. That worked out real nicely.

 

 

Jack (Chicago): Yeah Rob, but Corey Patterson sucks. Maybe Pie does too, but you are blaming the entire organization?

 

SportsNation Rob Neyer: (12:36 PM ET ) I'm saying that taking a guy who's been successful in the minors and trying to change his swing usually doesn't work. There's nothing wrong with Pie that time and experience wouldn't cure, and if they try to change his swing they're just going to mess him up.

[Soul]

I thought Neyer was being sarcastic with CPatt comment, but he wasn't.

 

It might not help to keep Pie in the minors to change his swing. But it didn't work to keep CPatt at the major leagues and give him at bats, either.

 

So I guess there's no way that will work.

[Tracer Bullet]

I thought Neyer was being sarcastic with CPatt comment, but he wasn't.

 

It might not help to keep Pie in the minors to change his swing. But it didn't work to keep CPatt at the major leagues and give him at bats, either.

 

So I guess there's no way that will work.

 

Well, you could not mess with a guy's swing when he's had success at all levels. CPatt didn't have as much success in the minors, but Pie's had quite a bit, especially after making adjustments at each level. I'm not sure why Lou's hell bent on changing things with young players that have had success in the minors. If you have to make an adjustment to how you're being pitched, that's one thing. But sounds like they're making big changes to Pie's swing.

[jersey cubs fan]

I thought Neyer was being sarcastic with CPatt comment, but he wasn't.

 

It might not help to keep Pie in the minors to change his swing. But it didn't work to keep CPatt at the major leagues and give him at bats, either.

 

So I guess there's no way that will work.

 

Right before they called him up somebody, Dusty or Hendry, said they were not going to give Corey the yo-yo treatment, but that is exactly what they did. They did all sorts of things like make him sit for days at a time for no good reason, then get sent to AAA to work on slapping the ball and being a bunter.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hopefully this will go better than attempting to "fix" the not needing to be fixed Rich Hill.

[CubColtPacer]

I thought Neyer was being sarcastic with CPatt comment, but he wasn't.

 

It might not help to keep Pie in the minors to change his swing. But it didn't work to keep CPatt at the major leagues and give him at bats, either.

 

So I guess there's no way that will work.

 

Right before they called him up somebody, Dusty or Hendry, said they were not going to give Corey the yo-yo treatment, but that is exactly what they did. They did all sorts of things like make him sit for days at a time for no good reason, then get sent to AAA to work on slapping the ball and being a bunter.

 

Patterson started 72 out of the first 79 games in 2005. I'd hardly call that jerking him around. His line after July 2nd of that year when he lost his job: .236/.274/.387 in 305 AB's. I don't agree with what they had him work on in the minor leagues, and believe that was a mistake. But I don't think they gave him the yo-yo treatment. They also didn't start him as much as I'd like after he came back, but he did start 37 out of the 50 games. Baylor and the injury were the worst things to happen to Patterson. He got a fair shot in 05.

 

And, btw, fixing Pie's swing this early is a mistake, no matter how bad he looked. They're taking a huge gamble before even seeing how well he can adjust on his own.

Edited May 27, 2008 by CubColtPacer

[RynoRules]

I more or less agree with Neyer on this one: If they had at least let him try it for a while at this level they'd have a better argument that something needs to change.

 

On the other hand, I also understand that they want to win now and feel like they need better production in CF to do so. I'd bet that the only reason Reed Johnson is still here is that he has no minor league options, and Edmonds - unless he really turns it around - will be gone by the ASB.

[Tracer Bullet]

I more or less agree with Neyer on this one: If they had at least let him try it for a while at this level they'd have a better argument that something needs to change.

 

On the other hand, I also understand that they want to win now and feel like they need better production in CF to do so. I'd bet that the only reason Reed Johnson is still here is that he has no minor league options, and Edmonds - unless he really turns it around - will be gone by the ASB.

 

I don't understand your 2nd paragraph. You think if Johnson had options and Edmonds sucks for a few more weeks, they'd get rid of both and what, put Fukudome there full time? Seems unlikely. Johnson's here for the season. He'd had to start sucking something awful to at least not start in CF against LHP and spell Soriano occasionally. They clearly thought Edmonds had something left, though I'm not sure what the scouts saw in SD that made them think that. If Edmonds gets cut, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hendry go out and get another veteran CF.

 

But this doesn't make any sense to me. The team is going great offensively while getting nothing from CF against RHP. As many posters have said many times, now is a great time to let a young guy develop while giving you stellar defense in CF.

[Sammy Sofa]

But this doesn't make any sense to me. The team is going great offensively while getting nothing from CF against RHP. As many posters have said many times, now is a great time to let a young guy develop while giving you stellar defense in CF.

 

I can only assume at this point that it makes TOO much sense for Lou and Hendry. It's such an obvious move that they automatically don't trust it, and kind of fear it.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Sammy Sofa

[Tracer Bullet]

But this doesn't make any sense to me. The team is going great offensively while getting nothing from CF against RHP. As many posters have said many times, now is a great time to let a young guy develop while giving you stellar defense in CF.

 

I can only assume at this point that it makes TOO much sense for Lou and Hendry. It's such an obvious movi that they automatically don't trust it, and kind of fear it.

 

I never thought of that, but that's the most likely explanation. It's too good to be true - we can't possibly have a great offense with a young guy struggling to adjust to the majors, so it must not be possible, even though logic dictates that our total offense wouldn't suffer if your replaced a horribly-performing vet with a less-horribly-performing young player.

[Sammy Sofa]

But this doesn't make any sense to me. The team is going great offensively while getting nothing from CF against RHP. As many posters have said many times, now is a great time to let a young guy develop while giving you stellar defense in CF.

 

I can only assume at this point that it makes TOO much sense for Lou and Hendry. It's such an obvious move that they automatically don't trust it, and kind of fear it.

 

I never thought of that, but that's the most likely explanation. It's too good to be true - we can't possibly have a great offense with a young guy struggling to adjust to the majors, so it must not be possible, even though logic dictates that our total offense wouldn't suffer if your replaced a horribly-performing vet with a less-horribly-performing young player.

 

I'm ultimately at a loss to explain it. I don't think they're stupid men...surely they can look at stats and see that Felix so far this year would at least match the horrible performances they've gotten from Edmonds and Johnson against RHP. Why is it tolerated out of veterans, but it's completely unacceptable and treated as if it's "hurting the team" if it's a kid learning the ropes who has shown after he adjusts he succeeds at every level so far?

 

There's asbolutely no logical excuse.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Sammy Sofa

[jersey cubs fan]

I thought Neyer was being sarcastic with CPatt comment, but he wasn't.

 

It might not help to keep Pie in the minors to change his swing. But it didn't work to keep CPatt at the major leagues and give him at bats, either.

 

So I guess there's no way that will work.

 

Right before they called him up somebody, Dusty or Hendry, said they were not going to give Corey the yo-yo treatment, but that is exactly what they did. They did all sorts of things like make him sit for days at a time for no good reason, then get sent to AAA to work on slapping the ball and being a bunter.

 

Patterson started 72 out of the first 79 games in 2005. I'd hardly call that jerking him around. His line after July 2nd of that year when he lost his job: .236/.274/.387 in 305 AB's. I don't agree with what they had him work on in the minor leagues, and believe that was a mistake. But I don't think they gave him the yo-yo treatment. They also didn't start him as much as I'd like after he came back, but he did start 37 out of the 50 games. Baylor and the injury were the worst things to happen to Patterson. He got a fair shot in 05.

 

And, btw, fixing Pie's swing this early is a mistake, no matter how bad he looked. They're taking a huge gamble before even seeing how well he can adjust on his own.

 

That's nice, but Corey was first called up to the majors in 2000. He went back to AAA in 2001, then got called up where he platooned for a while and then more or less turned into a pinch hitter for 2 months.

[CubColtPacer]

I thought Neyer was being sarcastic with CPatt comment, but he wasn't.

 

It might not help to keep Pie in the minors to change his swing. But it didn't work to keep CPatt at the major leagues and give him at bats, either.

 

So I guess there's no way that will work.

 

Right before they called him up somebody, Dusty or Hendry, said they were not going to give Corey the yo-yo treatment, but that is exactly what they did. They did all sorts of things like make him sit for days at a time for no good reason, then get sent to AAA to work on slapping the ball and being a bunter.

 

Patterson started 72 out of the first 79 games in 2005. I'd hardly call that jerking him around. His line after July 2nd of that year when he lost his job: .236/.274/.387 in 305 AB's. I don't agree with what they had him work on in the minor leagues, and believe that was a mistake. But I don't think they gave him the yo-yo treatment. They also didn't start him as much as I'd like after he came back, but he did start 37 out of the 50 games. Baylor and the injury were the worst things to happen to Patterson. He got a fair shot in 05.

 

And, btw, fixing Pie's swing this early is a mistake, no matter how bad he looked. They're taking a huge gamble before even seeing how well he can adjust on his own.

 

That's nice, but Corey was first called up to the majors in 2000. He went back to AAA in 2001, then got called up where he platooned for a while and then more or less turned into a pinch hitter for 2 months.

 

The names you mentioned were Dusty and Hendry. I would agree that Patterson was yo-yo'd back in 2000-2001, but you said that Dusty and Hendry did it, and neither of them were in the key decision maker spots back then. Did you mean Baylor and MacPhail?

[JGalt73]

But this doesn't make any sense to me. The team is going great offensively while getting nothing from CF against RHP. As many posters have said many times, now is a great time to let a young guy develop while giving you stellar defense in CF.

 

I can only assume at this point that it makes TOO much sense for Lou and Hendry. It's such an obvious move that they automatically don't trust it, and kind of fear it.

 

I never thought of that, but that's the most likely explanation. It's too good to be true - we can't possibly have a great offense with a young guy struggling to adjust to the majors, so it must not be possible, even though logic dictates that our total offense wouldn't suffer if your replaced a horribly-performing vet with a less-horribly-performing young player.

 

I'm ultimately at a loss to explain it. I don't think they're stupid men...surely they can look at stats and see that Felix so far this year would at least match the horrible performances they've gotten from Edmonds and Johnson against RHP. Why is it tolerated out of veterans, but it's completely unacceptable ad treated as if it's "hurting the team" if it's a kid learning the ropes who has shown after he adjusts he succeeds at every level so far?

 

There's asbolutely no logical excuse.

 

I wonder what it is that we are all missing? Is there a hidden (to outsiders) character/work ethic issue - hence the need to play up Sam Fuld as a viable option, bring in Reed Johnson, sign Edmonds? Or is all of this really an innate Cub management distrust of Pie's skills? If they really distrust his skills, then it would seem logical to trade him to a team that believes in him while his value is high. Or do the Cubs really not buy into minor league stats? Is Hendry hoping that winning now with Soto (and Theriot) absolves his bigger player development failures? I am at a complete loss with the Pie saga, and as it seems, so are many others.

[jersey cubs fan]

I thought Neyer was being sarcastic with CPatt comment, but he wasn't.

 

It might not help to keep Pie in the minors to change his swing. But it didn't work to keep CPatt at the major leagues and give him at bats, either.

 

So I guess there's no way that will work.

 

Right before they called him up somebody, Dusty or Hendry, said they were not going to give Corey the yo-yo treatment, but that is exactly what they did. They did all sorts of things like make him sit for days at a time for no good reason, then get sent to AAA to work on slapping the ball and being a bunter.

 

Patterson started 72 out of the first 79 games in 2005. I'd hardly call that jerking him around. His line after July 2nd of that year when he lost his job: .236/.274/.387 in 305 AB's. I don't agree with what they had him work on in the minor leagues, and believe that was a mistake. But I don't think they gave him the yo-yo treatment. They also didn't start him as much as I'd like after he came back, but he did start 37 out of the 50 games. Baylor and the injury were the worst things to happen to Patterson. He got a fair shot in 05.

 

And, btw, fixing Pie's swing this early is a mistake, no matter how bad he looked. They're taking a huge gamble before even seeing how well he can adjust on his own.

 

That's nice, but Corey was first called up to the majors in 2000. He went back to AAA in 2001, then got called up where he platooned for a while and then more or less turned into a pinch hitter for 2 months.

 

The names you mentioned were Dusty and Hendry. I would agree that Patterson was yo-yo'd back in 2000-2001, but you said that Dusty and Hendry did it, and neither of them were in the key decision maker spots back then. Did you mean Baylor and MacPhail?

 

I don't recall who said it actually. I meant Baylor or Hendry. Andy was the key decision maker, but Hendry was heavily involved and quoted. I just know somebody specifically referred to "yoyo treatment" when Corey was first called up. When he was drafted I believe it was Andy who essentially said, "he's a fast centerfielder but he's not a leadoff hitter. We think of him as a middle of the order run producer."

[Tracer Bullet]

I thought Neyer was being sarcastic with CPatt comment, but he wasn't.

 

It might not help to keep Pie in the minors to change his swing. But it didn't work to keep CPatt at the major leagues and give him at bats, either.

 

So I guess there's no way that will work.

 

Right before they called him up somebody, Dusty or Hendry, said they were not going to give Corey the yo-yo treatment, but that is exactly what they did. They did all sorts of things like make him sit for days at a time for no good reason, then get sent to AAA to work on slapping the ball and being a bunter.

 

Patterson started 72 out of the first 79 games in 2005. I'd hardly call that jerking him around. His line after July 2nd of that year when he lost his job: .236/.274/.387 in 305 AB's. I don't agree with what they had him work on in the minor leagues, and believe that was a mistake. But I don't think they gave him the yo-yo treatment. They also didn't start him as much as I'd like after he came back, but he did start 37 out of the 50 games. Baylor and the injury were the worst things to happen to Patterson. He got a fair shot in 05.

 

And, btw, fixing Pie's swing this early is a mistake, no matter how bad he looked. They're taking a huge gamble before even seeing how well he can adjust on his own.

 

That's nice, but Corey was first called up to the majors in 2000. He went back to AAA in 2001, then got called up where he platooned for a while and then more or less turned into a pinch hitter for 2 months.

 

The names you mentioned were Dusty and Hendry. I would agree that Patterson was yo-yo'd back in 2000-2001, but you said that Dusty and Hendry did it, and neither of them were in the key decision maker spots back then. Did you mean Baylor and MacPhail?

 

I don't recall who said it actually. I meant Baylor or Hendry. Andy was the key decision maker, but Hendry was heavily involved and quoted. I just know somebody specifically referred to "yoyo treatment" when Corey was first called up. When he was drafted I believe it was Andy who essentially said, "he's a fast centerfielder but he's not a leadoff hitter. We think of him as a middle of the order run producer."

 

I remembered that too. Google turns up this quote in a Feb 2001 article about Corey. But I'm not paying to get the whole article.

 

I just don't want the yo-yo to happen," Baylor said

 

link

[RynoRules]

I more or less agree with Neyer on this one: If they had at least let him try it for a while at this level they'd have a better argument that something needs to change.

 

On the other hand, I also understand that they want to win now and feel like they need better production in CF to do so. I'd bet that the only reason Reed Johnson is still here is that he has no minor league options, and Edmonds - unless he really turns it around - will be gone by the ASB.

 

I don't understand your 2nd paragraph. You think if Johnson had options and Edmonds sucks for a few more weeks, they'd get rid of both and what, put Fukudome there full time? Seems unlikely. Johnson's here for the season. He'd had to start sucking something awful to at least not start in CF against LHP and spell Soriano occasionally. They clearly thought Edmonds had something left, though I'm not sure what the scouts saw in SD that made them think that. If Edmonds gets cut, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hendry go out and get another veteran CF.

 

But this doesn't make any sense to me. The team is going great offensively while getting nothing from CF against RHP. As many posters have said many times, now is a great time to let a young guy develop while giving you stellar defense in CF.

 

I more or less agree. I wasn't defending the logic so much as I was playing devil's advocate. I think they overreacted. What I thik we need more is another SP.

[Lefty]

I thought Neyer was being sarcastic with CPatt comment, but he wasn't.

 

It might not help to keep Pie in the minors to change his swing. But it didn't work to keep CPatt at the major leagues and give him at bats, either.

 

So I guess there's no way that will work.

 

Well, you could not mess with a guy's swing when he's had success at all levels. CPatt didn't have as much success in the minors, but Pie's had quite a bit, especially after making adjustments at each level. I'm not sure why Lou's hell bent on changing things with young players that have had success in the minors. If you have to make an adjustment to how you're being pitched, that's one thing. But sounds like they're making big changes to Pie's swing.

 

..which may be proven by his abysmal start in Iowa. I mean in nearly a thousand PAs at Iowa he was hitting over .300 with power. This has to be the biggest slump of his minor league career.