Lou Retiring today

[Tyrant]

Getting fed up with managerial decisions is a time-honored baseball fan tradition. I can't remember a manager who didn't have a core group of fans who simply point out every boneheaded decision he makes. It just happens. The next Cub manager -- same thing, there will be a "Sandberg dumb moves" thread, guaranteed. Or insert the next Cub managers' name.

 

Yep, that's pretty much how I feel. Lou made some dumb decisions, but I think he was the best manager the Cubs have had in a long, long time. And I think he'll probably be the best manager they have for a while too.

 

People will eventually get tired of any manager. There are Braves fans who are tired of Bobby Cox. Even success doesn't insulate a manager against eventual criticism - it's just the way the job (and fandom) works.

[dew1679666265]

Damn people, why would anyone care if Lou wants to retire now to spend time with his mom? She's 90 years old and obviously not in good health and i for one applaud him doing it; can you imagine any head football coach doing this?

 

I understand it, but I do not applaud him for it. I cannot imagine a competent football organization conducting operations in this manner, and I wish the Chicago Cubs were not run like a beer league team.

 

Do you think he would have resigned from a first place ballclub? Would he have quit in August 2008 if an immediate family member had taken ill?

 

Charlie Manuel.

 

I really don't think a manager resigning from a bad team when he was going to retire at the end of the season anyway is something that wouldn't happen in any organization. Lou retiring like this says more about this particular Cubs team rather than an overall statement on how the Cubs are run.

 

The team sucks and he was retiring anyway. I don't see any issue with this at all. In fact, I wouldn't have a problem with a manager from a first place team going to be with an ill family member (especially gravely ill).

[J.R.]

For Lou's sake, and for the benefit of the ballclub, he should have gone home when he announced his retirement. Management should have insisted. You could have had a clean break, a controlled decent for the team, and perhaps a "Lou Piniella Day" or something to properly pay tribute to the man down the line.

 

Instead, we had the absolute disgrace of the past month. There was no reason at all for Piniella to sit through that, to go through the on-again, off-again stints in the dugout, no reason for the front office to look as clueless as it has.

 

The handling of the end of the Lou Piniella era is a travesty on par with the organization's biggest historical blunders.

[Soul]

Damn people, why would anyone care if Lou wants to retire now to spend time with his mom? She's 90 years old and obviously not in good health and i for one applaud him doing it; can you imagine any head football coach doing this?

 

I understand it, but I do not applaud him for it. I cannot imagine a competent football organization conducting operations in this manner, and I wish the Chicago Cubs were not run like a beer league team.

 

Do you think he would have resigned from a first place ballclub? Would he have quit in August 2008 if an immediate family member had taken ill?

 

Charlie Manuel.

 

I really don't think a manager resigning from a bad team when he was going to retire at the end of the season anyway is something that wouldn't happen in any organization. Lou retiring like this says more about this particular Cubs team rather than an overall statement on how the Cubs are run.

 

The team sucks and he was retiring anyway. I don't see any issue with this at all. In fact, I wouldn't have a problem with a manager from a first place team going to be with an ill family member (especially gravely ill).

 

I see no problem with it. In fact, I called for this a couple weeks back.

 

Lou doesn't need to be here. We don't need him to be here. Yes, it's because we suck. What do people want? The team blows, that's an inescapable reality. Yes, if we were a contender he wouldn't leave. So what? We're not.

[jersey cubs fan]

The handling of the end of the Lou Piniella era is a travesty on par with the organization's biggest historical blunders.

 

I don't think this comes close to equalling the blundering this organization has accomplished.

[Sammy Sofa]

The handling of the end of the Lou Piniella era is a travesty on par with the organization's biggest historical blunders.

 

I don't think this comes close to equalling the blundering this organization has accomplished.

 

No kidding. I can't believe that J.R. is rating it as highly as the Ricketts' trip to Africa, which seemingly rocked his faith in humanity.

[dew1679666265]

For Lou's sake, and for the benefit of the ballclub, he should have gone home when he announced his retirement. Management should have insisted. You could have had a clean break, a controlled decent for the team, and perhaps a "Lou Piniella Day" or something to properly pay tribute to the man down the line.

 

Instead, we had the absolute disgrace of the past month. There was no reason at all for Piniella to sit through that, to go through the on-again, off-again stints in the dugout, no reason for the front office to look as clueless as it has.

 

The handling of the end of the Lou Piniella era is a travesty on par with the organization's biggest historical blunders.

 

Should the organization have forced Lou to retire at that point? Because he didn't want to retire at that point. They could have fired him or forced him to retire then, but that would have left a black eye for the organization because they forced a long-time, popular manager to leave before he was ready – they forced him into retirement, it would be reported.

 

Should Lou have gone ahead and retired then? Sure, I guess. But there's no way the organization would have looked good if he had wanted to stay on and they wouldn't allow it.

[dew1679666265]

Seriously, if someone wants to summarize the Sandberg argument in a new thread, it may be worth stickying the thing.

 

I went ahead and made the thread if you or a mod wants to sticky it.

[J.R.]

My personal hyperbole aside, these situations are all hallmarks of a poorly-run organization.

 

A world-class operation as promised by Mr. Ricketts does not handle problems with the same ham-fisted tactics time and time again.

[dew1679666265]

My personal hyperbole aside, these situations are all hallmarks of a poorly-run organization.

 

A world-class operation as promised by Mr. Ricketts does not handle problems with the same ham-fisted tactics time and time again.

 

What could the Cubs have done differently that doesn't make the organization look bad?

[J.R.]

Should the organization have forced Lou to retire at that point? Because he didn't want to retire at that point. They could have fired him or forced him to retire then, but that would have left a black eye for the organization because they forced a long-time, popular manager to leave before he was ready – they forced him into retirement, it would be reported.

 

It is all too clear now that Lou was indeed "ready." The reporting would have portrayed an organization under control, and not one in a constant state of chaos as we've seen since July 20.

 

Should Lou have gone ahead and retired then? Sure, I guess. But there's no way the organization would have looked good if he had wanted to stay on and they wouldn't allow it.

 

Lou is not a sacred cow. He's been fired before, and the Cubs have sent many baseball lifers out on the street over the decades.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's really all irrelevant nonsense that we're focusing on/happening because the team sucks so bad. Blowing this up (an old man retiring early on a really, really bad team to be with his dying mother) to be some kind of embarssing "black eye" for the organization is so ridiculously, shirt-tearingly, streaked-emo-guyliner-wearing melodramatic. Edited August 23, 2010 by Sammy Sofa

[jersey cubs fan]

Should the organization have forced Lou to retire at that point? Because he didn't want to retire at that point. They could have fired him or forced him to retire then, but that would have left a black eye for the organization because they forced a long-time, popular manager to leave before he was ready – they forced him into retirement, it would be reported.

 

It is all too clear now that Lou was indeed "ready." The reporting would have portrayed an organization under control, and not one in a constant state of chaos as we've seen since July 20.

 

Should Lou have gone ahead and retired then? Sure, I guess. But there's no way the organization would have looked good if he had wanted to stay on and they wouldn't allow it.

 

Lou is not a sacred cow. He's been fired before, and the Cubs have sent many baseball lifers out on the street over the decades.

 

So your opinion is that after Lou took a couple days off to visit his very sick mother, the Cubs should have fired him to avoid a potential free fall from a team poised to lose 88 into a team poised to lose 95?

[jersey cubs fan]

Speaking of the free fall. Does anybody else think Hendry decided Trammel shouldn't be a candidate based on the team's performance in that handful of games he managed for them?

[Sammy Sofa]

Speaking of the free fall. Does anybody else think Hendry decided Trammel shouldn't be a candidate based on the team's performance in that handful of games he managed for them?

 

Ideally I want to say no, but that seems like such a Hendry thing to do.

[J.R.]

So your opinion is that after Lou took a couple days off to visit his very sick mother, the Cubs should have fired him to avoid a potential free fall from a team poised to lose 88 into a team poised to lose 95?

 

No. The losses became irrelevant a long time ago.

[dew1679666265]

Should the organization have forced Lou to retire at that point? Because he didn't want to retire at that point. They could have fired him or forced him to retire then, but that would have left a black eye for the organization because they forced a long-time, popular manager to leave before he was ready – they forced him into retirement, it would be reported.

 

It is all too clear now that Lou was indeed "ready." The reporting would have portrayed an organization under control, and not one in a constant state of chaos as we've seen since July 20.

 

Should Lou have gone ahead and retired then? Sure, I guess. But there's no way the organization would have looked good if he had wanted to stay on and they wouldn't allow it.

 

Lou is not a sacred cow. He's been fired before, and the Cubs have sent many baseball lifers out on the street over the decades.

 

But you're complaining because the Cubs couldn't put together a "Lou Piniella Day" and have a clean break. There's no clean break or Lou Piniella Day if you fire the man shortly after he took a couple days off to be with his gravely ill 90 year old mother. It makes the organization look heartless and cold and comes off as really bad for the Cubs – especially since we suck anyway and Lou had announced his retirement.

 

I just don't see how this year is any more embarrassing than any other 80-90 loss season and for any other reason than that we're an 80-90 loss team. The manager of a team announced his retirement from an awful team, discovered his sick mother was only getting worse and chose to make his retirement immediate rather than waiting til the end of the year so that he could be with his mother. I see nothing in that scenario that looks bad for the Cubs, other than that we suck this year.

[dew1679666265]

So your opinion is that after Lou took a couple days off to visit his very sick mother, the Cubs should have fired him to avoid a potential free fall from a team poised to lose 88 into a team poised to lose 95?

 

No. The losses became irrelevant a long time ago.

 

I really don't see what problem you have here.

[98navigator]

Speaking of the free fall. Does anybody else think Hendry decided Trammel shouldn't be a candidate based on the team's performance in that handful of games he managed for them?

 

Trammell's comments then, and now, are odd to me. He never said he wanted the job and seemed content to be the bench coach. Maybe he was doing it out of respect for Lou but IMO a leader would have made his feelings known...

[J.R.]

It's strictly an issue of organizational control. Management has to have the prescience to see this coming.

[Sammy Sofa]

To see that his mother was going to be dying? That's...interesting.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's strictly an issue of organizational control. Management has to have the prescience to see this coming.

 

So they should have had the team doctors checking Mrs. Piniella's charts?

[soapy]

Speaking of the free fall. Does anybody else think Hendry decided Trammel shouldn't be a candidate based on the team's performance in that handful of games he managed for them?

 

I really hope not, but I wondered the same thing during yesterday's broadcast. When Len mentioned that Trammel won't be a candidate, he started talking about how poorly they played while he was managing during Lou's absence. He was doing it trying to defend Trammel, but I couldn't help but wonder if he heard from Hendry or someone else that it was a factor.

[ConstableRabbit]

Or maybe, instead of something trivial like a 5 game stretch of play, there's something about Trammel that we don't know that's removed him from contention.

[J.R.]

To see that his mother was going to be dying? That's...interesting.

 

When a competitive zealot like Piniella decides to step away from the team on multiple occasions, yeah, I think you can easily deduce that his heart is at home and that's where he needs to be.