Chicago Tribune Live reports Hendry/Kenney to remain.

[jersey cubs fan]

The new guys usually back down after being attacked from multiple directions. Got to respect the resilience.

 

Hitler was resilient.

 

He wasn't particularly focused though, and while he pretty much rolled through the regular season, he pretty choked big time when the bright lights started to shine.

[Sammy Sofa]

The Cubs don't play Manny Ramirez every playoff series. It's also not like the Dodgers didn't have other good ideas. It's generally a bad idea to reguarly walk players at will if you're trying to win a game. Teams in the playoffs are there either because they're a really good team or they're a decent team that got hot. You don't want to give them more baserunners.

 

The path to the world series in 2009 will include the Dodgers, and Manny will likely be in the lineup. Walk him or be destroyed.

 

And once again, he's not the only dangerous hitter in their lineup. Walk more guys than you have to as often as possible and be destroyed by really stupid baseball.

 

 

Win the first game. Or the second. Or the third.

 

They can't win the first game. How do you stop the give-up afdter that?

 

Winning the 2nd game. Or the 3rd. It either happens or it doesn't.

 

 

This is a horrible idea. Why are you going to suddenly pull him out of the spot where he's been most effective over the entire season?

 

Because he isn't effective in the post season when you need your lead off man to get on? Do you want a guy with a .125 OBP getting the most AB's in the post season?

 

I want the players hitting where they've had the most success over the course of the season. Suddenly changing everything up after 6 months is beyond stupid.

 

You expect him to suddenly take over a new role in the playoffs, and another player to suddenly end up hitting #1 when they haven't been doing so all year?

 

Yeah, I do. The Cubs don't compete in the post season with Soriano at #1.

 

Sure they do. Soriano doing poorly doesn't make the whole team do poorly. You just hope he hits his one of his hot streaks at the right time.

 

 

So pep talks?

 

No. Focus, video and coaching.

 

So common sense stuff that they do anyway.

 

Why trade Dempster?

 

 

Because he's nowhere worth his contract. I'd use the money saved for bullpen help at the DL.

 

But as you said yourself you're not trading him without paying part of his contract, so you're not saving much money, so it's a moot suggestion to begin with.

[Sammy Sofa]

As for the gritty players comment, I never said I wanted a team of grit, but rather a team that executes simple baseball fundamentals when the big lights shine. The Cubs don't do that.

 

So cut the [expletive] and explain how you put a playoff team together.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The new guys usually back down after being attacked from multiple directions. Got to respect the resilience.

 

Hitler was resilient.

 

He wasn't particularly focused though, and while he pretty much rolled through the regular season, he pretty choked big time when the bright lights started to shine.

 

Plus Hitler didnt have the ability to blind his enemy with a barage of quoted posts.

[USSoccer]

This is a terrible response. Use some critical thinking.

 

It was the only response to your negative generalization of American sports. If such a damaging flaw exists, why engage in conversation on a baseball forum? Surely the more intelligent soccer forums would suit you and the superior European sports.

 

 

No one is saying that those teams were flukes, and all of those teams have one thing in common. With probably few exceptions, those teams romped over the regular season. Your argument is a worthless strawman.

 

"Strawman" accusations are a convenient out for someone who has no real response. Yes, those teams romped over the regular season, but they romped in the playoffs too. Why can't the Cubs?

 

What will be your response if the Cubs get swept again in the NLDS? Bad luck?

 

Like I said before, go ahead and construct your gritty team and put into place your vague motivational ploys and quasi-random changes, and make decisions based on form rather than class, and I'll stick with a team that won 97 games.

 

The team that won 97 games was completely humliated in every facet of the game.

 

As for the gritty players comment, I never said I wanted a team of grit, but rather a team that executes simple baseball fundamentals when the big lights shine. The Cubs don't do that.

 

You know, I was waiting for a "fundamentals" reference-and I'm not disappointed. Nor was I let down by the oh-so-subtle European sports jab.

 

The idea that pointing out that your argument is crap means I'm copping out has to be like a top 25 dumbest thought all time, and on a board that once featured baseball3.1415926, that's saying something. Yes, of course, pointing out your logical fallacy means I can't poke holes in your shoddy argument.

 

However, I'll try anyway. Take the example of the team most filled with fundamentally-gooey filling: The Minnesota Twins. Lord knows that when October rolls around, they simply blow everyone away with solid execution and good coaching, and win title after title.

 

Oh wait, no? Ok, how about the LA Angels. Solid fundamentals there. Not an overwhelming lineup. Tons of World Seri-wait, just one? Okay, scratch that.

 

 

And for the record, if we win 97 and lose again to a hot opponent, I'll tip my cap and call it a winter. It's a crapshoot. It's a 5 game series, and it's subject to random bounces, fluke errors, and lucky pitching performances. It happens.

 

So I'll echo MohoPen: Go ahead and explain how you would construct a team immune to the random chance that happens in a 5 game series.

[Andy]

The new guys usually back down after being attacked from multiple directions. Got to respect the resilience.

 

Hitler was resilient.

 

He wasn't particularly focused though, and while he pretty much rolled through the regular season, he pretty choked big time when the bright lights started to shine.

Thumbs-up to this post.

[Arnold Layne]

And once again, he's not the only dangerous hitter in their lineup. Walk more guys than you have to as often as possible and be destroyed by really stupid baseball.

 

Walking one guy like Manny is just fine. It's a shame what Ryan Dempster did in game 1 though.

 

 

Winning the 2nd game. Or the 3rd. It either happens or it doesn't.

 

It doesn't. Oh well.

 

 

I want the players hitting where they've had the most success over the course of the season. Suddenly changing everything up after 6 months is beyond stupid.

 

Doing the exact same thing and expecting different results is even more stupid.

 

 

Sure they do. Soriano doing poorly doesn't make the whole team do poorly. You just hope he hits his one of his hot streaks at the right time.

 

 

Yeah that's kind of my point. Maybe have a leadoff man in the post season who is a touch more consistent. I'd rather take the "hope" out of it and replace that with "likely". But we Cubs fans sure like our hope, don't we?

 

But as you said yourself you're not trading him without paying part of his contract, so you're not saving much money, so it's a moot suggestion to begin with.

 

 

...and that brings us back to why Hendry isn't a very good GM.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Arnold Layne

[SouthSideRyan]

Make it stop.

[Sammy Sofa]

And once again, he's not the only dangerous hitter in their lineup. Walk more guys than you have to as often as possible and be destroyed by really stupid baseball.

 

Walking one guy like Manny is just fine. It's a shame what Ryan Dempster did in game 1 though.

 

Repeatedly walking a guy over and over again in the middle of good hitters is not fine.

 

 

Winning the 2nd game. Or the 3rd. It either happens or it doesn't.

 

It doesn't. Oh well.

 

Exactly.

 

 

I want the players hitting where they've had the most success over the course of the season. Suddenly changing everything up after 6 months is beyond stupid.

 

Doing the exact same thing and expecting different results is even more stupid.

 

I really have to assume you're joking at this point. You honestly think doing the same thing, which has been a huge part of of the Cubs making the playoffs in the first place, is stupid? You actually think that teams should totally mix up their lineups when they hit the playoffs? Weren't you just going on about consistency in an earlier post? Make up your mind.

 

 

Sure they do. Soriano doing poorly doesn't make the whole team do poorly. You just hope he hits his one of his hot streaks at the right time.

 

 

Yeah that's kind of my point. Maybe have a leadoff man in the post season who is a touch more consistent. I'd rather take the "hope" out of it and replace that with "likely". But we Cubs fans sure like our hope, don't we?

 

Regardless of who is htiting leadoff you can only hope they do well in the short first round of the playoffs. Any player can go cold during that time. Granted, Soriano's streaks are more pronounced than a lot of players of his level, but it's ridiculous to act like playoff success hinges on him or anyone else batting leadoff. A team can still win with a cold leadoff hitter.

 

But as you said yourself you're not trading him without paying part of his contract, so you're not saving much money, so it's a moot suggestion to begin with.

 

 

...and that brings us back to why Hendry isn't a very good GM.

 

Not necessarily. If his recent good starts are any indication then having Dempster will be very valuable again and you won't want to trade him. Besides, you talk like freeing up his money would allow the Cubs to sign bullpen and bench players to help the team. Who are these mythical valuable insigned players (relievers especially) that all the other teams have somehow ignored?

[Arnold Layne]

Repeatedly walking a guy over and over again in the middle of good hitters is not fine.

 

 

Did you catch the series last year?

 

 

 

I really have to assume you're joking at this point. You honestly think doing the same thing, which has been a huge part of of the Cubs making the playoffs in the first place, is stupid?

 

 

Breaking new:

 

Making the playoffs is not good enough for a team going on 101 years with no world series ring.....

 

You have to *do something* when you get there. Just making it isn't good enough. The goal is a world series appearance and ultimately a ring.

 

 

You actually think that teams should totally mix up their lineups when they hit the playoffs? Weren't you just going on about consistency in an earlier post? Make up your mind.

 

Being consistent with Soriano at leadoff against superior RHP has been a recipe for disaster. Is Soriano a great regular season player? Yup. Is he a great post season player? no. He's brutal. He's worse than brutal. .125 OBP and sub .300 OPS. These are cold hard facts. You can choose to do something with that data, or ignore it.

 

It will be interesting to see how things work out if the Cubs make the playoffs again.

 

 

Regardless of who is htiting leadoff you can only hope they do well in the short first round of the playoffs. Any player can go cold during that time.

 

Yes, we know that it's 50/50, or in the Cubs case 0/100.

 

Heck, any ole' team can go 101 years without a championship. It's just luck of the draw. Building a good team has nothing to do with it. It's a crapshoot. The Cubs just had 101 years of bad luck. Maybe if I blow on this four leaf clover I can wish the Cubs into a world series of sugar rainbows and Ron Santo gee-wizzes.

 

 

Granted, Soriano's streaks are more pronounced than a lot of players of his level, but it's ridiculous to act like playoff success hinges on him or anyone else batting leadoff. A team can still win with a cold leadoff hitter.

 

The Cubs can't, and don't.

 

Not necessarily. If his recent good starts are any indication then having Dempster will be very valuable again and you won't want to trade him. Besides, you talk like freeing up his money would allow the Cubs to sign bullpen and bench players to help the team. Who are these mythical valuable insigned players (relievers especially) that all the other teams have somehow ignored?

 

That's the GM's job.

 

So let me get this straight, Mojo -

 

Your plan of action is nothing at all? how do the Cubs improve themselves enough to get to the world series? How do they overcome the psyche-crushing losses in back to back NLDS's? How do they get over that hump? Because that hump is there, wether you want to believe it or not.

[Andy]

Mojo's plan is to continue and build teams that win at least 85 games a year. Your plan is to build a team that plays well for a month.

 

A lot of teams play well for a month. Most of them don't make the playoffs.

[USSoccer]

 

Your plan of action is nothing at all? how do the Cubs improve themselves enough to get to the world series? How do they overcome the psyche-crushing losses in back to back NLDS's? How do they get over that hump? Because that hump is there, wether you want to believe it or not.

 

No, it isn't. There's no psychological hump that automatically stops the Cubs from being good once the postseason starts. That hump exists in the minds of ignorant fans who can't wrap their minds around the concept of sample size and probabilistic anomaly.

 

It's 6 games over 2 years.

[dew1679666265]

Who are these mythical valuable insigned players (relievers especially) that all the other teams have somehow ignored?

 

Not a reliever, but Ray Durham. I still don't get how he's unsigned.

 

That's not to disagree with anything you said, though.

[dew1679666265]

Sure they do. Soriano doing poorly doesn't make the whole team do poorly. You just hope he hits his one of his hot streaks at the right time.

 

Yeah that's kind of my point. Maybe have a leadoff man in the post season who is a touch more consistent. I'd rather take the "hope" out of it and replace that with "likely". But we Cubs fans sure like our hope, don't we?

 

Who can we get that will be better than Soriano in the leadoff spot? Who is out there and do we have the resources to bring that player in?

 

But as you said yourself you're not trading him without paying part of his contract, so you're not saving much money, so it's a moot suggestion to begin with.

 

...and that brings us back to why Hendry isn't a very good GM.

 

Dempster's peripherals (k/9, BB/9, etc) are still in line with what he did last year. He's gotten some bad breaks, but he should still be a valuable pitcher this season and, hopefully, beyond. Hendry made some poor moves this past offseason, but re-signing Dempster was far from the top.

[Sammy Sofa]

Who are these mythical valuable insigned players (relievers especially) that all the other teams have somehow ignored?

 

Not a reliever, but Ray Durham. I still don't get how he's unsigned.

 

That's not to disagree with anything you said, though.

 

Yeah, he was the glaring exception I was thinking of, but pretty much the only one. His idea of signing relivers as if there are good options waiting out there unsigned and that that's a wise way to spend salary was mostly what I took issue with.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

Your plan of action is nothing at all? how do the Cubs improve themselves enough to get to the world series? How do they overcome the psyche-crushing losses in back to back NLDS's? How do they get over that hump? Because that hump is there, wether you want to believe it or not.

 

No, it isn't. There's no psychological hump that automatically stops the Cubs from being good once the postseason starts. That hump exists in the minds of ignorant fans who can't wrap their minds around the concept of sample size and probabilistic anomaly.

 

It's 6 games over 2 years.

 

What makes his ideas even more ridiculous is he's now lumping in the last two seasons with the other 99 years that Cubs didn't win the WS as if they're ALL the result of this "choking attitude" or "failing mindset" or whatever the hell he thinks it is.

 

No doubt Arnold thinks that dropping ARod in the order or benching him in the playoffs would be a good idea since in recent years the limited sample size of his playoff numbers are pretty bad. That he wants to totally upset the Cubs lineup well beyond Lou's usually daily tinkering once the playoffs hit is something so overreactionary and nonsensical I can't wrap my head around it.

 

He also refuses to answer any direct questions about just what his lineup would be and how he would construct these "playoff teams" he keeps going on and on about. Arnold, you have access to all the same player data as everyone else...name the players the Cubs should be signing with Dempster's money. Put together a playoff team. Reconstruct the Cubs' current roster by your standards to be best suited for playoff victory.

[dew1679666265]

Who are these mythical valuable insigned players (relievers especially) that all the other teams have somehow ignored?

 

Not a reliever, but Ray Durham. I still don't get how he's unsigned.

 

That's not to disagree with anything you said, though.

 

Yeah, he was the glaring exception I was thinking of, but pretty much the only one. His idea of signing relivers as if there are good options waiting out there unsigned and that that's a wise way to spend salary was mostly what I took issue with.

 

Yeah, you could make an argument for Grudz being valuable, but his age probably hurts that too much.

 

I can't think of any relievers available to be signed. I'd be all for trading for a good one, but that uses up valuable resources we don't have much of.

[Arnold Layne]

Mojo's plan is to continue and build teams that win at least 85 games a year. Your plan is to build a team that plays well for a month.

 

A lot of teams play well for a month. Most of them don't make the playoffs.

 

 

Let's see what happens this year.

[USSoccer]

Mojo's plan is to continue and build teams that win at least 85 games a year. Your plan is to build a team that plays well for a month.

 

A lot of teams play well for a month. Most of them don't make the playoffs.

 

 

Let's see what happens this year.

 

If the board were a baseball season, you're 0-6 in terms of actually backing up your argument.

[Arnold Layne]

No, it isn't. There's no psychological hump that automatically stops the Cubs from being good once the postseason starts. That hump exists in the minds of ignorant fans who can't wrap their minds around the concept of sample size and probabilistic anomaly.

 

It's 6 games over 2 years.

 

 

Soccer, you really enjoy the insults, don't you?

 

That said, these are not robots out there. These are human beings. Human beings are constantly affected by emotion. Many slumps in baseball can be psychological. That's why we see many of the rituals all across baseball. If you don't think that consistently getting whipped in the post season will eventually have a negative impact on team psyche, you are not thinking very clearly.

 

Speaking of "probabilistic anomaly", how about 101 years? I guess that's just bad luck. The cubs just draw the crap side of the crapshoot for a century.

 

Go get 'em next time, boys. Adjustments are for hacks.

[Arnold Layne]

Mojo's plan is to continue and build teams that win at least 85 games a year. Your plan is to build a team that plays well for a month.

 

A lot of teams play well for a month. Most of them don't make the playoffs.

 

 

Let's see what happens this year.

 

If the board were a baseball season, you're 0-6 in terms of actually backing up your argument.

 

 

0-6 without competing for a single game and 101 are pretty excellent backups for my argument. The proof is in the results.

[Arnold Layne]

What makes his ideas even more ridiculous is he's now lumping in the last two seasons with the other 99 years that Cubs didn't win the WS as if they're ALL the result of this "choking attitude" or "failing mindset" or whatever the hell he thinks it is.

 

You don't think there is an aura of failure around an organization that hasn't won in 101 years? Please tell me you are pulling my leg.

 

 

 

He also refuses to answer any direct questions about just what his lineup would be and how he would construct these "playoff teams" he keeps going on and on about. Arnold, you have access to all the same player data as everyone else...name the players the Cubs should be signing with Dempster's money. Put together a playoff team. Reconstruct the Cubs' current roster by your standards to be best suited for playoff victory.

 

I'm still waiting for your suggestions. So far the only thing I have seen you do is critique rather than offering your own improvements. I will sincerely and willingly discuss your input if you care to offer any.

[Little Slide Rooter]

No, it isn't. There's no psychological hump that automatically stops the Cubs from being good once the postseason starts. That hump exists in the minds of ignorant fans who can't wrap their minds around the concept of sample size and probabilistic anomaly.

 

It's 6 games over 2 years.

 

 

Soccer, you really enjoy the insults, don't you?

 

That said, these are not robots out there. These are human beings. Human beings are constantly affected by emotion. Many slumps in baseball can be psychological. That's why we see many of the rituals all across baseball. If you don't think that consistently getting whipped in the post season will eventually have a negative impact on team psyche, you are not thinking very clearly.

 

Speaking of "probabilistic anomaly", how about 101 years? I guess that's just bad luck. The cubs just draw the crap side of the crapshoot for a century.

 

Go get 'em next time, boys. Adjustments are for hacks.

 

The 1910, 1934, 1952, 1969, 1983, 1996, and 2009 Cubs have about as much to do with one another as the 1988 Expos have to do with any of the afore mentioned Cubs teams.

[dew1679666265]

Speaking of "probabilistic anomaly", how about 101 years? I guess that's just bad luck. The cubs just draw the crap side of the crapshoot for a century.

 

There have been a whole lot of bad Cubs teams in those 100 years. That's the biggest reason we've gone a century without a World Series title. We've also made it to the NLCS in 2003 and the World Series in 1945 in that time span.

 

If this team were able to win 90+ games for 5 straight seasons, there's a good chance they'd win the World Series in at least one of those five years.

 

Just out of curiosity, why is it that the Braves won just one WS in 14 straight years of winning their division? Was it the fault of the players, or just that they hit a cold streak (or a superior team) in a short, critical moment?

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm still waiting for your suggestions. So far the only thing I have seen you do is critique rather than offering your own improvements. I will sincerely and willingly discuss your input if you care to offer any.

 

This is pointless. Your responses are nothing but empty rhetoric. Nobody here has suggested doing nothing. A team should always look to improve where possible before each season. That's common sense and what any of us expext. If a team has a very successful regular season that would dictate little needs to be improved. 3 playoff games don't negate how well the team did over 6 months. You seem to be implying that if a team tanks it in the playoffs like the Cubs did then they're hopeless and the team needs to be drastically reconfigured or blown up or God knows what. You really won't explain what you think needs to be done outside of talking about totally changing the lineup when the playoffs role around. You seem to think some kind of secret tactic needs to be unearthed that will allow the Cubs to win, like their losses the last two years can just be switched off if someone figures out the right formula. That's ridiculous...nobody can plan for playoff success. You go out there with the team that gave you all the regular season success and try to win. If you lose, you lose. That's it. That's what happens. You come back out there the next year with another team ideally built for success and go at it again. That's baseball.