Wouldn't It Be Nice to Have a Manager Like This

[davecubsfan]

I really don't know how much money I'd be willing to give up for Schurholtz, Mazzili, and Cox. It would probably be close to one billion dollars, but it would be well worth it. I really don't see any of the three of them leaving Atlanta soon if ever.

[treebird]

I really don't know how much money I'd be willing to give up for Schurholtz, Mazzili, and Cox. It would probably be close to one billion dollars, but it would be well worth it. I really don't see any of the three of them leaving Atlanta soon if ever.

 

I think you could take your billion dollars and figure out a way to get them.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I really don't know how much money I'd be willing to give up for Schurholtz, Mazzili, and Cox. It would probably be close to one billion dollars, but it would be well worth it. I really don't see any of the three of them leaving Atlanta soon if ever.

 

You're right. My guess is all three will stay in Atlanta until they retire with some nice AOL/Time-Warner stock.

 

On the other hand, disciples of these three are available. Fredi Gonzalez has worked with Cox. Ned Yost also worked for him. Stealing some guys away from their player development staff might also be possible.

[davecubsfan]

I really don't know how much money I'd be willing to give up for Schurholtz, Mazzili, and Cox. It would probably be close to one billion dollars, but it would be well worth it. I really don't see any of the three of them leaving Atlanta soon if ever.

 

You're right. My guess is all three will stay in Atlanta until they retire with some nice AOL/Time-Warner stock.

 

On the other hand, disciples of these three are available. Fredi Gonzalez has worked with Cox. Ned Yost also worked for him. Stealing some guys away from their player development staff might also be possible.

 

Vance, there's no such thing as "nice AOL TW stock" it's in the crapper just like the rest of the media stocks, so they'd better not retire for a while.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Hmm, and sticking with Johnson has been nothing but good news for the Braves.

 

He's rewarded Bobby's trust with a 25:28 BB/K, and a .270/.395/.450 line.

 

Why can't we have a manager like that?

[Satch80]

DuBois is a butcher in the field, pitchers deserve more than fly outs turning into doubles and I think he's a lot worse than Hendry figured. I have no doubt that Dusty noticed it pretty early. Between that, the fact that he can't hit a curve ball and the high K totals, why should he play?

His place is not in the NL except for some power off the bench, but maybe as DH in the AL .

Believe me, I'm not a Dusty suporter, hated his corey/Nefi tandem as 1/2, hate him playing Nefi over Cedeno. But I wouldn't have started DuBois in many games either.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I think Hendry is a fine GM. We lack the right manager and in some regards I wonder if we have the right personel in player development.

 

I used to agree more with Hendry in the past, I think he has shifted in the past few years - at expense to player development and the farm.

[umpunk]

DuBois is a butcher in the field, pitchers deserve more than fly outs turning into doubles and I think he's a lot worse than Hendry figured. I have no doubt that Dusty noticed it pretty early. Between that, the fact that he can't hit a curve ball and the high K totals, why should he play?

 

Quite you, this board is no place for talk like this. Seriously, the hypocrisy on this board is amazing. People complain Dusty refuses to play rookies over veterans just because they are rookies. The very same posters will start whining to play the rookies for no other reason than they are rookies. It's a never ending circle, "insert name of the the flavor of the month rookie can't be any worse than insert name of middle of the road veteran and Dusty refuses to play them." Then when the rookie (Dubois, Hill, Cruz, whomever) proves he isn't any better, it's on to the next fad.

[1908]

Quite you, this board is no place for talk like this. Seriously, the hypocrisy on this board is amazing. People complain Dusty refuses to play rookies over veterans just because they are rookies. The very same posters will start whining to play the rookies for no other reason than they are rookies. It's a never ending circle, "insert name of the the flavor of the month rookie can't be any worse than insert name of middle of the road veteran and Dusty refuses to play them." Then when the rookie (Dubois, Hill, Cruz, whomever) proves he isn't any better, it's on to the next fad.

Are you looking for a fight or is that the tone you typically take when you're trying to prove a point?

[frostwyrm]

DuBois is a butcher in the field, pitchers deserve more than fly outs turning into doubles and I think he's a lot worse than Hendry figured. I have no doubt that Dusty noticed it pretty early. Between that, the fact that he can't hit a curve ball and the high K totals, why should he play?

 

Quite you, this board is no place for talk like this. Seriously, the hypocrisy on this board is amazing. People complain Dusty refuses to play rookies over veterans just because they are rookies. The very same posters will start whining to play the rookies for no other reason than they are rookies. It's a never ending circle, "insert name of the the flavor of the month rookie can't be any worse than insert name of middle of the road veteran and Dusty refuses to play them." Then when the rookie (Dubois, Hill, Cruz, whomever) proves he isn't any better, it's on to the next fad.

 

Very insulting and stupid post, made even stupider by the fact that the Cubs were just swept by a red hot Braves team with 10 rookies on its roster.

[umpunk]

Are you looking for a fight or is that the tone you typically take when you're trying to prove a point?

To harsh? Still, no worse than the venom that gets spewed out against Dusty on an hourly basis.

[1908]

To harsh?

Yep, too harsh.

 

Still, no worse than the venom that gets spewed out against Dusty on an hourly basis.

Dusty's a public figure and not a member of NSBB. Please make your point without the backhanded insults.

[Roast]

I don't believe in doing things to take pressure off young players. We brought up Johnson from Triple-A and I hit him third right away. The kid has always hit, and he walks. He has a great eye. He went 1-for-30 and even some of our people wanted to send him back. But he hit about seven balls good and he walked about seven times during that stretch. I wouldn't take him out of there for anything.

 

 

“Who plays more kids than me in spring training?” he said. “I probably play more kids than anybody in spring training. That’s why (with), ‘Dusty doesn’t like kids,’ I’m like, ‘Wait a minute, you haven’t seen my track record.’"

 

 

:wall:

[TB_11]

I don't believe in doing things to take pressure off young players. We brought up Johnson from Triple-A and I hit him third right away. The kid has always hit, and he walks. He has a great eye. He went 1-for-30 and even some of our people wanted to send him back. But he hit about seven balls good and he walked about seven times during that stretch. I wouldn't take him out of there for anything.

 

"His slide has been full of line drives,'' he said. "He is probably hitting more line drives at people than anyone on our team. It's different if a guy is popping up or striking out. But he has been hitting the ball hard two or three times a night with nothing to show for it. To me, that's more of an unfortunate period than a slide.''

 

Cox and Dusty apparently use the same logic in different circumstances. Cox uses it to give his young guys a chance to perform, Dusty uses it as an excuse to keep playing Neifi and cement Cedeno to the bench.

[jaydee]

DuBois is a butcher in the field, pitchers deserve more than fly outs turning into doubles and I think he's a lot worse than Hendry figured. I have no doubt that Dusty noticed it pretty early. Between that, the fact that he can't hit a curve ball and the high K totals, why should he play?

 

Quite you, this board is no place for talk like this. Seriously, the hypocrisy on this board is amazing. People complain Dusty refuses to play rookies over veterans just because they are rookies. The very same posters will start whining to play the rookies for no other reason than they are rookies. It's a never ending circle, "insert name of the the flavor of the month rookie can't be any worse than insert name of middle of the road veteran and Dusty refuses to play them." Then when the rookie (Dubois, Hill, Cruz, whomever) proves he isn't any better, it's on to the next fad.

 

Baker is also horrible in handling players. Who knows how different Cruz/Hill/Dubois (your examples) would of done if their manager had had confidence in them and given them some steady playing time? Instead he jerked them around and ruined their confidence. What was Dubois supposed to think when in the first month or two he got zero playing time despite hitting well, while Hollandsworth played (horribly) simply because of the old boys ideology Baker loves? Obviously seeing that is going to have an effect on Dubois' psyche. Then when he finally gets his chance to play and starts to struggle for the first time in his MLB career, he stops getting playing time. Is that supposed too build the confidence needed to play in the top league in the world? Baker is great at ruining the confidence of young players. Dubois was not stupid. He saw that Hollandsworth played horribly and still played. He saw that when he played poorly he would not play. The same thing is happening with Perez ( a veteran, but one who has done nothing special at all in his career) and Cedeno. Baker sets the rookies up to fail, then people like you come along and say they failed simply because they don't have the skills or were not good enough. Skills aren't everything (look at guys on the cubs recently - Hawkins, Wood...) when it comes to succeeding in baseball.

[umpunk]

Baker sets the rookies up to fail, then people like you come along and say they failed simply because they don't have the skills or were not good enough. Skills aren't everything (look at guys on the cubs recently - Hawkins, Wood...) when it comes to succeeding in baseball.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. First off, if you accuse me of assuming a rookie has no skill and that is why he fails and it is has nothing to do with Dusty. Well, aren't you doing the exact same thing - assuming the player has skill and he is failing because of Dusty?

 

Let's look at the examples - Juan Cruz went to the Braves (an organization that hardly discriminates against rookies) and did so well that he was traded to Oakland (another team that values "young" players) and has since been demoted to AAA. Bobby Hill went to Pittsburgh and has done nothing. Hee Seop Choi went to Florida and than to L.A. and has never developed. If you want to argue that Dusty "killed their confidence" then go a head, but it is a stretch.

 

By the way, how quick are you (or anybody else) to "credit" Dusty for turning Lee in to a MVP type player or turning an average Ramirez in to an All-Star? The problem is that Dusty can never get a fair break - if a player succeeds or the team wins it is because of their talent and if the player fails or the team loses it is because of Dusty.

[jaydee]

Baker sets the rookies up to fail, then people like you come along and say they failed simply because they don't have the skills or were not good enough. Skills aren't everything (look at guys on the cubs recently - Hawkins, Wood...) when it comes to succeeding in baseball.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. First off, if you accuse me of assuming a rookie has no skill and that is why he fails and it is has nothing to do with Dusty. Well, aren't you doing the exact same thing - assuming the player has skill and he is failing because of Dusty?

 

Let's look at the examples - Juan Cruz went to the Braves (an organization that hardly discriminates against rookies) and did so well that he was traded to Oakland (another team that values "young" players) and has since been demoted to AAA. Bobby Hill went to Pittsburgh and has done nothing. Hee Seop Choi went to Florida and than to L.A. and has never developed. If you want to argue that Dusty "killed their confidence" then go a head, but it is a stretch.

 

By the way, how quick are you (or anybody else) to "credit" Dusty for turning Lee in to a MVP type player or turning an average Ramirez in to an All-Star? The problem is that Dusty can never get a fair break - if a player succeeds or the team wins it is because of their talent and if the player fails or the team loses it is because of Dusty.

 

What exactly has Dusty done to help Ramirez or Lee get better? I would like to hear it.

 

And yes I "assume" they have skill because baseball "talent evaluators" and "scouts" said they did.. that is about as good as reason as one can have in the case of a young player. And why would a player suddenly put everything back together mentally just because he was traded? It really isn't that easy. I suppose of Ankiel was traded to Atlanta, he would of suddenly put it back together? And you said it is a stretch to say Dusty killed their confidence? How is it a stretch? saying something doesn't make it true.

[umpunk]

What exactly has Dusty done to help Ramirez or Lee get better? I would like to hear it.

Look at there stats before playing with Dusty and then after.

 

I suppose of Ankiel was traded to Atlanta, he would of suddenly put it back together?

Oh, are you arguing Tony ruined Ankiel?

 

And you said it is a stretch to say Dusty killed their confidence? How is it a stretch? saying something doesn't make it true.

I'm not arguing this with you. It's your opinion that Dusty ruined them. That's fine, but again, that's all it is - your opinion. There is certainly no evidence after they left Dusty that they are All-Stars. I can at least point out the fact none of them have had "productive" careers.

[jaydee]

What exactly has Dusty done to help Ramirez or Lee get better? I would like to hear it.

Look at there stats before playing with Dusty and then after.

 

I suppose of Ankiel was traded to Atlanta, he would of suddenly put it back together?

Oh, are you arguing Tony ruined Ankiel?

 

And you said it is a stretch to say Dusty killed their confidence? How is it a stretch? saying something doesn't make it true.

I'm not arguing this with you. It's your opinion that Dusty ruined them. That's fine, but again, that's all it is - your opinion. There is certainly no evidence after they left Dusty that they are All-Stars. I can at least point out the fact none of them have had "productive" careers.

 

So your proof that Dusty helped Lee and Ramirez is that their stats got better. Truly groundbreaking.

 

I didn't even get close to saying TLR ruined Ankiel. Again, your rebuttal is extremely weak and isn't really even a rebuttal, just trying to take something out of context.

 

Ok your not arguing with me, I agree, you are picking a few things out of my post, putting them out of context, and repeating your argument rather than actually replying to what I said in any meaningful way. Yes it is my opinion. And your opinion is your opinion. Very well done!!!!! :roll:

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Baker sets the rookies up to fail, then people like you come along and say they failed simply because they don't have the skills or were not good enough. Skills aren't everything (look at guys on the cubs recently - Hawkins, Wood...) when it comes to succeeding in baseball.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. First off, if you accuse me of assuming a rookie has no skill and that is why he fails and it is has nothing to do with Dusty. Well, aren't you doing the exact same thing - assuming the player has skill and he is failing because of Dusty?

 

Let's look at the examples - Juan Cruz went to the Braves (an organization that hardly discriminates against rookies) and did so well that he was traded to Oakland (another team that values "young" players) and has since been demoted to AAA. Bobby Hill went to Pittsburgh and has done nothing. Hee Seop Choi went to Florida and than to L.A. and has never developed. If you want to argue that Dusty "killed their confidence" then go a head, but it is a stretch.

 

By the way, how quick are you (or anybody else) to "credit" Dusty for turning Lee in to a MVP type player or turning an average Ramirez in to an All-Star? The problem is that Dusty can never get a fair break - if a player succeeds or the team wins it is because of their talent and if the player fails or the team loses it is because of Dusty.

 

Dusty isn't instructing Lee or Ramirez or anyone else. It's an apples and oranges comparison. No one is saying that Dusty ruined those players because of the coaching he gave them. People are saying that Dusty ruined those players because of the playing time they got, which is something Dusty has control over. Ramirez and Lee had both had a good deal of success prior to becoming Cubs, and both are/were entering the prime years of their career. That likely has far more to do with their emergence than any instruction they received, whether from Dusty or any other coach. As others have said before, a manager can put the team in the best position to win, or he can hurt the team. And lastly, the careers of Choi and Hill and Cruz are partially irrelevant. The point is that at the time Dusty had them they were the best choice to play based on their Major League performance, yet Dusty stuck with the inferior player.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I can't say whether or not Dusty ruined those players. What can be said, is that he doesn't use the same logic on rookies as he does for veterans. For example, Hollandsworth struggled, but received a second chance. It was as if Dusty knew that hitting in the majors is tough and sometimes player have a bad streak. On the other hand, Dubois stuggled, but no worse than Hollandsworth did, yet wasn't even fit for pinch hitting much less a second chance.

 

Dusty says he wanted to start Hollandsworth (0-5) today even though a lefty was on the mound, because sitting a week is a long time. However, do you actually think if we face six days of facing a right hander, Dusty will start Murton for the same reason? I doubt it. I hope I'm proved wrong, but it seems the logic is to protect and coddle the veterans, even if they are slumping, while a rookie better prove his worth right off the bat, because if he doesn't then he just doesn't have the skills to stick around.

[Elrhino]

So your proof that Dusty helped Lee and Ramirez is that their stats got better. Truly groundbreaking.

 

How else would you prove it?

 

Amazing to me that the person who questions the prevailing groupthink of this board gets scolded for his or her condescending tone, but stuff like this from the "regulars" seems to pass rather frequently without even a mumble.

[frostwyrm]

So your proof that Dusty helped Lee and Ramirez is that their stats got better. Truly groundbreaking.

 

How else would you prove it?

 

 

So I guess Dusty ruined Sammy Sosa.

[frostwyrm]

I hope I'm proved wrong, but it seems the logic is to protect and coddle the veterans

 

In the Red Sox series Dusty said he started Dubois against the righty Wakefield because he was afraid Wakefield's knuckleball might mess up Hollandsworth's swing. That's about as clear an example of coddling a veteran as you'll ever see. And as Rotoworld pointed out, Dusty was unafraid of messing up Dubois' swing.

[umpunk]

Amazing to me that the person who questions the prevailing groupthink of this board gets scolded for his or her condescending tone, but stuff like this from the "regulars" seems to pass rather frequently without even a mumble.

Getting away from the Dusty topic for a moment, thank you. I was going to post a comment on the very subject, but felt it would come across as whining if I did it.