Barry Rozner wonders does Dusty want to be fired?

[cbbryan]

Well it doesn't matter much anyway. Jim Hendry said on the Score this morning that Dusty would 'unequivocally' be the manager in 2006. So we might as well get used to it for another year.

 

This is the same Jim Hendry who said that Sammy Sosa would be the CUBS' right fielder in 2005, no?

 

It just occurred to me that Hendry may be preventing Dusty from turning him into the bad guy, as Baker did w/Sabean and the Giants.

 

Who knows.

 

At this point, it's all PR posturing. No side is going to go after the other.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

The fact is 2004 greatly impacted the team we have in 2005.

 

 

Why did it have to? Other teams don't operate like that. The Braves moves in 2004 haven't impacted their ability to play well in 2005. You may think that passes for good front-office work. I'm telling you it doesn't. And I'm right, because the result is teams like the Braves win every year and we don't.

 

The Braves weren't compromised in 2005, because for one they used their minor league system to bring in a great starter in Tim Hudson and were able to find another great starter by converting their closer.

 

However, much of the Braves success is attributed to the contributions of players such as Jeff Francoer, Wilson Betemit, Pete Orr, and Kelly Johnson. This infusion of youth has been instrumental in the Braves success.

 

Could the Cubs have benefited from the same youth movement? Would we have performed better with regular contributions by Matt Murton, Jason Dubois, Mike Fontenot, or Ronny Cedeno? I don't know and the fact that we don't know lies more at the feet of Baker than Hendry.

 

After coming so close in 2003, Hendry made the choice, which almost all would agree was the right choice, to put the team in contention for 2004.

 

Of course I agree putting the team in contention was a good choice. However, sacrificing the future for a season isn't what perennially successful clubs do. They win every season.

 

And winning every season is a bit of luck combined with good management. This team has the talent to win. It's not as talented as the 2004 team, but I still contend that talent-wise is stronger than the 2003 team. And even good teams will have dips in their years of success.

 

In order to improve on the 2003 team, he

 

1. Traded Choi for Lee.

2. Signed Greg Maddux to be the fifth starter.

3. Signed LaTroy Hawkins to shore up the bullpen.

4. Traded Cruz and Smyth for Pratt and Lewis to give us a loogy in the pen due to injuries to Mercker and Remlinger in the Spring.

5. Traded Miller for Barrett.

6. Replaced Troy O'Leary with Todd Hollandsworth

7. Signed Todd Walker.

8. Replaced Mark Guthrie with Kent Mercker.

 

With the exception of the trade for Pratt, I can't fault him for any of those moves. All improved the team.

 

That's what I like about you Vance. You pull up all the details. I'm not as concerned about details as I am about being a successful franchise year in and year out. And that isn't happening. I'm concerned about results. If I don't see them, then blame must be assigned. Everyone else feels the same way: that's why the Dusty bashing on this board never ceases, myself included. Hendry deserves some of that blame as well.

 

I think the details are critical when evaluating the performance of a GM and a manager. Let me illustrate with an example from my own life. I teach in a low-performing, povery-ridden school. When I first meet my students and see the test scores from the previous year, they have routinely scored in the lower third of the nation and state. It's a gloomy picture. I work hard with these students, but many refuse to do homework, have no parental support, and some even have parents who cannot read and write. Through it all, I can usually help them improve...though that improvement is often just moving them to the 40th or 45th percentile. Does this make me a lesser teacher than the one in the more affluent school whose students routinely are in the upper third of state performance? Is she a better teacher because her end results are better? Should she be compensated greater than I because of this? To answer those questions, you have to look at the details. What are we doing with our students? How hard are we working?

 

In the same way, it's important for me to look at the details in evaluating the GM. When I do that, I find one major fault with Hendry and that is with who he has entrusted to run this team. The details show that the results have not been indicative of his performance.

 

But in setting that team up for 2004, Hendry signed contracts that limited most if not all of his financial flexibility for 2005. In essence he was mortgaging 2005 for a run at 2004. For example, if he hadn't giving Maddux 9 million in 2005, we would never have had him for 2004. Lee's extension paid him more down the road, as did Wood's contract and LaTroy's contract....and so forth.

 

Why did he have to "mortgage the future" for 2004 when other successful franchises, even on less money, don't have to do that?

 

When I say he "mortgaged" 2005, I simply mean that there wasn't going to be money to go out and plug the holes. Those remedies would have to come from within. Teams who are performing on less are doing just that. The Braves are an excellent case in point.

 

Therefore, leftfield was entrusted to Dubois, but Dusty chose Hollandsworth. The closer was trusted to Dempster, but Dusty chose Hawkins. When Nomar went down, Cedeno should have been given opportunity, but Dusty went with Perez.

 

There was also much about this season that could not have been forseen. Hendry could not have forseen Nomar's exploding groin. He couldn't have forseen Prior taking a ball off the elbow. He couldn't have forseen Patterson completely losing focus and becoming inept. Those factors killed what could have been a successful team. Just as Bonds not being available pretty much rendered Sabean's moves null and void in San Francisco.

 

Had we made it to the WS in 2004, most of us would be too happy to care that the 2005 team would have holes. But because of lack of finances, Hendry wasn't able to go out and sign a closer or a lead-off hitter. The money wasn't there. And to top it off, the closer options out there this winter haven't been any better than what we have.

 

We have the largest payroll/budget in the NL, vance. If we can't win with that, then using the excuse that the "money wasn't there" is ridiculous. Even so, I certainly wouldn't have forgiven 2005 bad play just because we made the World Series in 2004.

 

And rightfully we shouldn't forgive bad play. My point is that we assembled a team that should have been better in 2004 and that team and the contracts signed for the most part determined the team in 2005. Both teams, the 2004 and 2005 team, should have performed better than they did. When I see a team underperforming, I lay that at the feet of the manager, not the man assembling the teams.

 

 

 

For any point to have validity it must be looked at in context and the offseason preceeding 2004 and the motivations behind those moves are very much contextual to the situation we are in today.

 

And yet, year after year, others make moves in each offseason, develop players each offseason, put together teams each offseason, and win each and every season. Yet we cannot. For your point to have validity, the moves that teams like the A's, Braves, Cardinals, and others would have to have a bad effect on future years. Yet it doesn't.

 

Well, the A's missed the playoffs last season, so they experienced the same failure as the Cubs. I contend the Braves are there year after year because of the tandem team of both GM and manager, and the Cardinals missed the playoffs in 2003...same level of failure as the Cubs last season. So if the standard simply is winning seasons, the Cubs have done that the past two years and even with this year's struggle an above 500 finish isn't out of the question.

 

I think once again, you have to look at the details. The talent assembled here is as strong as the Braves, Cardinals,and A's. What we lack is the fundamentals that are executed by those franchises. Guess where I believe the blame for that lies. Right. With manager and coaches.

 

I don't hold Hendry blameless. He hired Dusty. For that he deserves blame. He has a chance to rectify his mistake. I only hope he acts quickly.

[Cubfanintheknow]

I contend the Braves are there year after year because of the tandem team of both GM and manager, and the Cardinals missed the playoffs in 2003...same level of failure as the Cubs last season. So if the standard simply is winning seasons, the Cubs have done that the past two years and even with this year's struggle an above 500 finish isn't out of the question.

 

Not to diminish the accomplishments of the Atlanta Braves, but it helps when you have an expansion team in your division (granted one that has won two World Series recently during the same time frame where the Braves haven't won any), the Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals and the generally inept New York Mets and Philadelphia Phillies. Only four times in the 13 straight years the Braves have one the NL East has the wild card also come from that division (ironically, all four of those teams went on to the World Series).

[wastra]

WIth or without Dusty, this team is not in contention.

 

No bullpen.

 

No Offense in the outfield.

 

None of that changes without Dusty.

 

But Dusty has NOT maximized the talent we've had. So when you address moves for Hendry to make (he's not firing himself), you look at the different parts ofh te team that need upgrades. Corner outfield. Bullpen. Back of the rotation. Bench. Coaching staff. All need changes.

 

Neifi Perez is nto the reason we're basically done. Neither is Macias. Neither is Baker. Neither is Patterson or Burnitz.

 

But you add them all in together, and we're just not that good of a team. So Hendry has to, IMO, start addressing these needs this offseason. Everything from on-field players to bat-boys should be looked at for improvement.

 

And if hendry turns in two pathetic offseasons in a row, given that he's not NEARLY as hampered by salary issues this offseason as last, HE'LL be on the hot seat too, IMO.

[halplm]

He's already on the hotseat... and if he's making statements that there is no way Dusty gets fired, then he is either being told to make them (for the ugly ugly PR war that will kill next years team), or he's getting fired the same day as Dusty, which will hopefully be sooner rather than later.

[sonofsamiam]

Some interesting conversation here, though I think soul is using A LOT of hindsight to criticize Hendry.

 

Anyway, there are two general ideas in this thread that I think need to be debunked.

 

First, the Cubs DO NOT have the highest payroll in the NL.

 

See this link: http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2005

 

The Cardinals are spending more, the Braves are spending about the same as the Cubs, and the Astros aren't far behind. (Dunno how Sosa's contract is figured into this, though. Perhaps what they're paying on that is not figured in.) Regardless, it looks like the Mets, Giants, and Phillies are just as disappointing given money spent.

 

Second, and this may be controversial -- the '03 Cubs weren't as good as people make them out to be, and their flirtation with the WS has had a spillover effect into both personnel moves and expectations that may have actually had a negative impact on the team. That team squeaked into the postseason with 88 wins, and had a ridiculously good record in 1-run games. They also had the worst team OBP of any playoff team in something like the past 25 years. Even with good roster moves in '04, it shouldn't have been too surprising that luck evened out.

 

EDIT: Just looked into how they figured the payroll, and Sosa's payment is not included. Still, they're not as far above in spending from other teams as seems to be assumed. (Blame that on the Trib all you want.) I will criticize Hendry and upper management all around for so willingly throwing Sosa under the bus at the end of last year (deserving or not) because of how much it ruined his perceived value. That was a stupid business decision, and was obviously motivated by passion rather than good sense.

[halplm]

no, the '03 club was not as good as they seem to appear now, just as you say. However, they did have the "magic" that makes a WS team special. They won close games, they came from behind, they hit game wining home runs in the bottom of the ninth.

 

In every way that mattered, they did what it took to get to the World Series... until our shortstop couldn't keep his stupid glove down... The team really had the 3 pitchers needed to win in the postseason, and their 5 pitchers were good enough to get them there.

 

last years team was better statistically, but (IMHO) Dusty tore that "magic" out of the heart of the team, played his stupid games that some players love and others can't handle, and lost us a bunch of games by stupid in game managing.

 

This season is just a mess for all the same reasons, and he ran half the talent out of town so he could have "his" team.

 

The '03 team should have been somethign that could have been built on... instead it was the peak and we haven't even reached the bottom of the valley...

[sonofsamiam]

no, the '03 club was not as good as they seem to appear now, just as you say. However, they did have the "magic" that makes a WS team special. They won close games, they came from behind, they hit game wining home runs in the bottom of the ninth.

 

In every way that mattered, they did what it took to get to the World Series... until our shortstop couldn't keep his stupid glove down... The team really had the 3 pitchers needed to win in the postseason, and their 5 pitchers were good enough to get them there.

 

last years team was better statistically, but (IMHO) Dusty tore that "magic" out of the heart of the team, played his stupid games that some players love and others can't handle, and lost us a bunch of games by stupid in game managing.

 

This season is just a mess for all the same reasons, and he ran half the talent out of town so he could have "his" team.

 

The '03 team should have been somethign that could have been built on... instead it was the peak and we haven't even reached the bottom of the valley...

 

This is sort of my point, though -- was there really "magic" on that '03 team? Or were they fortunate that the Cardinals had injuries and a terrible bullpen, and lucky to be so good in 1-run games? It's been pretty much statistically proven that being able to win 1-run games doesn't tend to repeat over a long period of time.

 

They won 88 in '03, and 89 in '04. That shouldn't be surprising, as the 1-run "luck" evened out and Wood/Prior had injuries. The additions as far as talent evened out those occurrences, and thus we got a similar record. The only problem was the Cardinals were vastly improved and the Astros got super-hot. And yes, Dusty was just as wacky a manager in '03 as he was in '04 and has been this year.

 

My whole issue is the team was built upon an '03 team that was fundamentally flawed in the first place. And it's not surprising that the team was built around the young starting pitchers, because they were far and away the main reason the Cubs even sniffed the postseason that year.