Patterson and Dubois sent to AAA

[Derwood]

The question we should really be asking is Has Baker been handed the tools to get the job done. If you say yes then he needs to go. If you say no then Baker needs to stay and the front office needs to go.

Baker has been given the tools to get it done in the past two years, but unfortunately they were not the tools that he wanted. Ergo he has NOT used them so he has NOT gotten it done.

 

Or....he DID use them and they failed (LaTroy Hawkins anyone)?

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

The question we should really be asking is Has Baker been handed the tools to get the job done. If you say yes then he needs to go. If you say no then Baker needs to stay and the front office needs to go.

Baker has been given the tools to get it done in the past two years, but unfortunately they were not the tools that he wanted. Ergo he has NOT used them so he has NOT gotten it done.

 

Or....he DID use them and they failed (LaTroy Hawkins anyone)?

 

I think LaTroy was MISused. He clearly wasn't a closer, and the Cubs tried it anyway.

[biittner77]

The question we should really be asking is Has Baker been handed the tools to get the job done. If you say yes then he needs to go. If you say no then Baker needs to stay and the front office needs to go.

Baker has been given the tools to get it done in the past two years, but unfortunately they were not the tools that he wanted. Ergo he has NOT used them so he has NOT gotten it done.

 

Or....he DID use them and they failed (LaTroy Hawkins anyone)?

 

I think LaTroy was MISused. He clearly wasn't a closer, and the Cubs tried it anyway.

 

Off the top of my head:

Mark Bellhorn- best as a leadoff hitter, Baker hit him 6th

Lenny Harris- best as a bench player, Baker had him start

Corey Patterson- not a leadoff hitter, Baker had him lead off

Jerry Hairston- Best as a leadoff hitter, Baker used him there sparingly

LaTroy Hawkins- Effective set up man, Baker used him as a closer

Kyle Farnsworth- Effective if not used 3 days in a row, Baker ran him out there as often as possible

Mike Remlinger- More effective against RH hitters, Baker used him as a loogy

Neifi Perez- Career averages suggest he's bottom of the order material, Baker has him lead off

Chad Fox- recovering from surgery must not be used too often, Baker pitched him 3 days in a row.

Shawn Estes- generally ineffective, Baker continued to start him even as he got hit very very hard.

[ManCrushOnNomar]

The question we should really be asking is Has Baker been handed the tools to get the job done. If you say yes then he needs to go. If you say no then Baker needs to stay and the front office needs to go.

Baker has been given the tools to get it done in the past two years, but unfortunately they were not the tools that he wanted. Ergo he has NOT used them so he has NOT gotten it done.

 

Or....he DID use them and they failed (LaTroy Hawkins anyone)?

 

I think LaTroy was MISused. He clearly wasn't a closer, and the Cubs tried it anyway.

 

Off the top of my head:

Mark Bellhorn- best as a leadoff hitter, Baker hit him 6th

Lenny Harris- best as a bench player, Baker had him start

Corey Patterson- not a leadoff hitter, Baker had him lead off

Jerry Hairston- Best as a leadoff hitter, Baker used him there sparingly

LaTroy Hawkins- Effective set up man, Baker used him as a closer

Kyle Farnsworth- Effective if not used 3 days in a row, Baker ran him out there as often as possible

Mike Remlinger- More effective against RH hitters, Baker used him as a loogy

Neifi Perez- Career averages suggest he's bottom of the order material, Baker has him lead off

Chad Fox- recovering from surgery must not be used too often, Baker pitched him 3 days in a row.

Shawn Estes- generally ineffective, Baker continued to start him even as he got hit very very hard.

Great post.

 

Also Jason Dubois - hit right handers better in AAA, yet platooned against only lefties.

[XZero771679666304]

The question we should really be asking is Has Baker been handed the tools to get the job done. If you say yes then he needs to go. If you say no then Baker needs to stay and the front office needs to go.

Baker has been given the tools to get it done in the past two years, but unfortunately they were not the tools that he wanted. Ergo he has NOT used them so he has NOT gotten it done.

 

Or....he DID use them and they failed (LaTroy Hawkins anyone)?

 

I think LaTroy was MISused. He clearly wasn't a closer, and the Cubs tried it anyway.

 

Off the top of my head:

Mark Bellhorn- best as a leadoff hitter, Baker hit him 6th

Lenny Harris- best as a bench player, Baker had him start

Corey Patterson- not a leadoff hitter, Baker had him lead off

Jerry Hairston- Best as a leadoff hitter, Baker used him there sparingly

LaTroy Hawkins- Effective set up man, Baker used him as a closer

Kyle Farnsworth- Effective if not used 3 days in a row, Baker ran him out there as often as possible

Mike Remlinger- More effective against RH hitters, Baker used him as a loogy

Neifi Perez- Career averages suggest he's bottom of the order material, Baker has him lead off

Chad Fox- recovering from surgery must not be used too often, Baker pitched him 3 days in a row.

Shawn Estes- generally ineffective, Baker continued to start him even as he got hit very very hard.

 

With Fox, the third consecutive game was a blowout, Fox obviously didn't have anything, and Baker left him in for 29 pitches. It was disgusting to watch - you just knew what was going to happen.

 

You wonder how many more games the Cubs might have won with Fox and Hawkins setting up Dempster from the get go.

 

Of course, that's just one example of Baker's mismanaging.

[Geech]

I realize I'm a bit late with this, but I don't think this is any sort of signal that Dusty is about to be fired. These weren't Dusty's boys they got rid of, they were players Dusty didn't seem to like.

[ZZ Thorn]

I was rolling into Atlanta on the night Bay-Lo was canned. Seems that it happened around 3 p.m. local time.

 

Interesting. I know its pretty much unfoudned, But i have a real strange feeling bakers days here are officially over.

 

Dusty Busters have been saying that since last fall.... I'm sure it's right around the corner. :roll:

 

Oh grow up.

 

First of all, If dusty busters is a term used to describe people who are sick of the worst lineups immaginable and horrid in game moves, then sure, I'm a dusty buster.

 

Secondly, how can you disagree that him being canned is right aroudn the corner, Even if it doesnt come today or tomorrow like i feel, Its gonna come soon.

 

I know you're a Dusty Buster. A typical feeling of Dusty Buster would be a crazy notion that his being fired is just around the corner. He is not. I'll bet you cold hard cash if you want: If you bet me $20 that he'll get fired in the next week I'll give you 20 to 1 odds that he doesn't - if he does that's $400 for you. But if you don't pay me when you lose, Tim gets to ban you.

 

He won't draw the heat for losing - that's going to CP, Doobs, the injuries and thus far underperforming pitching.

 

Weren't you asked by the mods to stop using that term?

 

I read through the last six pages thinking that, and when I finally get to the I see that Vance has stolen my thunder by beating me to the punch.

 

Not to my knowledge. It's a durn good term: extremely apt, good use of alliteration, excellent meter, but I digress out of modesty. I think they appreciate quality and it's pretty harmless, except to the oversensitive. I mean, there have been imitators, but that's the original.

[imb]

Is it really alliteration? I've only ever seen anything described as alliteration when the consonants of multiple words are the same.

 

Anyway, I specifically remember Tim asking for people to stop using cute little phrases to refer to groups of posters, but I'm no mod, and frankly, if someone wants to invent a lame turn of phrase in order to get people's panties in a wad, far be it from me to stop them.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Can I start referring to those who support Dusty no-matter-what as Dusty's Butt-Kissers?

[imb]

I prefer "Dusty-Fluffers".

[brinoch]

Is it really alliteration? I've only ever seen anything described as alliteration when the consonants of multiple words are the same.

 

It's not alliteration, but it is assonance -- the repetition of vowel sounds. Dusty Buster.

 

And I seemingly recall, some time ago, a request was made to stop using labelling posters and arbitrarily grouping them together using a potential perjorative -- Corey Cartel spring immediately to mind; I believe that the Dusty Buster label would be included among them, particularly as used in this instance.

[brinoch]

Can I start referring to those who support Dusty no-matter-what as Dusty's Butt-Kissers?

 

No.

 

I prefer "Dusty-Fluffers".

 

Also verboten.

[imb]

NEIN!!!

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Can I start referring to those who support Dusty no-matter-what as Dusty's Butt-Kissers?

 

No.

 

I prefer "Dusty-Fluffers".

 

Also verboten.

 

I never intended to. The question was made to indicate how demeaning the term Dusty Buster is. When someone clarifies a post as being from a group as such, it implies that no objective thought is being used.

 

Thanks for clarifying. So, by this, am I to understand that I shouldn't expect to see the use of the label "Dusty Busters" again?

[ZZ Thorn]

Is it really alliteration? I've only ever seen anything described as alliteration when the consonants of multiple words are the same.

 

It's not alliteration, but it is assonance -- the repetition of vowel sounds. Dusty Buster.

 

And I seemingly recall, some time ago, a request was made to stop using labelling posters and arbitrarily grouping them together using a potential perjorative -- Corey Cartel spring immediately to mind; I believe that the Dusty Buster label would be included among them, particularly as used in this instance.

 

Thanks Brinoch, I was thinking of the recent "Dunn Detractors," which is alliteration. Dusty Busters is most definitely not alliteration - nice catch, my bad.

 

Dusty Fluffers is too dirty and unclassy. It's good, but inappropriate.

 

I recall that request, but I figured Dusty Busters gets grandfathered, it's been around so long. Practically a year. It's really not that big a deal. If it wasn't so apt I'd give it up but, sadly, Dusty Busting, while not as prevalent as it used to be, and the virulence it's uttered with is not as unreasonable, compared with it's earliest forms, is still a prejudice widespread enough, as well as a philosophy with a thesis that must not be deviated from, despite facts, figures or ethics, almost a manifesto, and through which everything must be fit around, like dizzy electrons swirling around a nucleus, that an appropriate label must be affixed so as to avoid constant arguments and posts questioning and discussing the motives and underlying beliefs of certain posts, namely those that seek to scapegoat Johnnie B. Baker unfairly and without just cause. It is a great timesaving device, and since Dusty Busters openly declare their intention of Dusty busting, I don't see any reason to abandon the phrase. It's so catchy and yet so appropriately descriptive. It's quite useful.

[ZZ Thorn]

Can I start referring to those who support Dusty no-matter-what as Dusty's Butt-Kissers?

 

No.

 

I prefer "Dusty-Fluffers".

 

Also verboten.

 

I never intended to. The question was made to indicate how demeaning the term Dusty Buster is. When someone clarifies a post as being from a group as such, it implies that no objective thought is being used.

 

Thanks for clarifying. So, by this, am I to understand that I shouldn't expect to see the use of the label "Dusty Busters" again?

 

But Dusty Busting isn't objective, that's why it's Dusty Busting. If Dusty puts Jose Macias in to close out a game, then the bashing is totally fair. It's the unjustified busting that gets called out by Dusty Buster users.

[bhogg]

so Corey and Dubois are Dusty B*****s?

[RynoRules]

I agree that the majority of this bd tends to blame Dusty first and ask questions later (my initial attempt at a user name was rejected b/c it was supportive of Dusty; mind you this was in early 04'). I don't think labling them in general is productive.

 

That said, I have lost a great amount faith and resepct for Mr. Baker over the past year or so.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Can I start referring to those who support Dusty no-matter-what as Dusty's Butt-Kissers?

 

No.

 

I prefer "Dusty-Fluffers".

 

Also verboten.

 

I never intended to. The question was made to indicate how demeaning the term Dusty Buster is. When someone clarifies a post as being from a group as such, it implies that no objective thought is being used.

 

Thanks for clarifying. So, by this, am I to understand that I shouldn't expect to see the use of the label "Dusty Busters" again?

 

But Dusty Busting isn't objective, that's why it's Dusty Busting. If Dusty puts Jose Macias in to close out a game, then the bashing is totally fair. It's the unjustified busting that gets called out by Dusty Buster users.

 

It is objective. Those of us, I being one, that have been labeled as such have objectively viewed the evidence and determined Baker is not a good manager. Just because you disagree doesn't give you the right to label every person who disparages Baker with a demeaning label. In fact, I've seen little evidence from you to prove he is a good manager. Maybe it is you who lacks the objectivity? Maybe your head is so far up the rear of Baker that you can't see the light that he is a poor manager.

[Derwood]

So, you guys done thread jacking here yet? No one has mentioned this transaction for 2 or 3 pages now.

[nilodnayr]

my question is why is the term "dusty busting" demeaning?

[Geech]

my question is why is the term "dusty busting" demeaning?

 

Well, the term ZZ uses most frequently -- almost exclusively, actually -- is Dusty Busters, and he tends to use it with negative descriptors. I recall he once made a sarcastic post along the lines of "Dusty Busters are always honest." People don't like to be negatively profiled like that.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

my question is why is the term "dusty busting" demeaning?

 

It implies that no thought is given behind the criticism of Dusty. It implies that we have, without reason, decided to bash Dusty.

 

It's the same as referring to Corey's supporters as the Corey Cartel.

[Geech]

By the way, I recalled the phrase being banned myself, and a quick search found this post by Tim in the Bad Managerial Decisions thread. It was on page 32 for me, but may appear on a different page depending on your settings. Here's a thought: maybe this should be added to the Member Guidlines thread in the FAQ board?

 

And, for the record, if I see anyone labeling an entire class of posters with a mocking nickname again, said person will get an automatic time away from the site. And it is entirely within the purview of any mod on this site to determine what is mocking and what isn't.

 

I hope that this message is perfectly clear.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

By the way, I recalled the phrase being banned myself, and a quick search found this post by Tim in the Bad Managerial Decisions thread. It was on page 32 for me, but may appear on a different page depending on your settings. Here's a thought: maybe this should be added to the Member Guidlines thread in the FAQ board?

 

And, for the record, if I see anyone labeling an entire class of posters with a mocking nickname again, said person will get an automatic time away from the site. And it is entirely within the purview of any mod on this site to determine what is mocking and what isn't.

 

I hope that this message is perfectly clear.

 

I knew I recalled him saying such. Thanks, Geech.