Cubs Need Stability, Not Another Shake-Up (PJStar)

[GhostRunner]

Kirk Wessler, a respectable (albeit unabashed Cardinal fan) sports writer for the local Peoria Journal Star, wrote an interesting column yesterday regarding the current atmosphere of Baker & the Cubs. His main points focused on the Cubs needing more stability in the clubhouse, rather than yet another manager and/or coaching staff transfusion, and he provides some rather valid reasoning IMO for keeping Dusty around. If nothing else, it's another POV for the adamant Dusty-haters out there to consider.

 

Some highlights (LINK):

 

Over the past 40 years, the Cubs have gone through 23 managers. Twenty-three! The first problem with this approach is that every manager wants to do things a different way. So one year the Cubs are going to live on three-run homers, and by the end of the next they're banking on bunts, then pitchers, then youth, then it's trade the kids for vets and back to three-run dingers again.

 

Stop already.

The Cardinals - and I admit I use their example mostly to aggravate Cubs fans, but also because it's true - are a model of stability . . . after winning the division in his first season in St. Louis, La Russa went through three years in which the Cardinals were 231-254. Had that happened in Chicago, with the Cubs, La Russa would have been fired before he had a chance to make the playoffs four of the next five seasons (soon to be five of six) and reach a World Series.

Baker suffered three consecutive losing seasons early in his San Francisco tenure that would have gotten him fired by the Cubs - before he had a chance to run eight straight seasons that included two division titles and a World Series.

[Electron Blue]

Stability is huge in success, IMO. And the Cubs clearly do need it. But I don't think that should be a reason we keep Baker around. As the Dusty-bashers will attest, Baker's just not a good fit for this team - in both philosophy and abilty. So, I say, we need to form a new stabilty around a better fitting coaching staff.

[Cubfanintheknow]

Kirk Wessler is a wad. I've had the great displeasure of reading some of his drivel in the past. He is a wad.

 

That said, you dont keep someone around for the sake of stability. Look at Lloyd McClendon. Only TLR and Bobby Cox have managed longer in the NL. And what has that gotten the Pirates?

 

Managers are usually fired because the teams they lead are unsuccessful. How that manager fits with the team and it's philosophy is a byproduct of that success.

[CoolHandLuke]

Of course he wants the cubs to keep Dusty! Why would he want his principal rivals to have a manager with at least half a brain?

[Stu]

You know in retrospect, I wonder if Riggs was all that bad. He did a good job of managing an undertalented team to the Wild Card in '98.

 

His use of Wood has to be questioned, considering the fact that Woody was badly hurt. But I don't remember too many negatives associated with the Riggs era, apart from the Woody thing.

[GhostRunner]

Stability is huge in success, IMO. And the Cubs clearly do need it. But I don't think that should be a reason we keep Baker around. As the Dusty-bashers will attest, Baker's just not a good fit for this team - in both philosophy and abilty. So, I say, we need to form a new stabilty around a better fitting coaching staff.

I agree somewhat, esp. with the notion of Baker's philosophy not meshing with the current club, but I truly feel that bringing in yet another manager (with yet another skill set, strategic mentality, etc) could do more harm than good. Let's not forget that despite Cubs fans disliking Baker, the players - including guaranteed hold-overs like Lee, ARam and Zambrano - genuinely enjoy playing for Dusty. He is a player's manager, no doubt, and booting him despite having had 2 (3?) consecutive winning seasons may cause resentment in the locker room.

 

That said, you dont keep someone around for the sake of stability. Look at Lloyd McClendon. Only TLR and Bobby Cox have managed longer in the NL. And what has that gotten the Pirates?

McClendon has always been a victim of his team's lack of financial support. Could you honestly say that he's ever had a squad with enough quality players to succeed? A manager only works with the tools he's given, and when your GM dumps quality guys yearly in exchange for salary relief, your managerial skills will be tested regardless of ability. Personally, I think McClendon's a talented manager who gets a lot out of some lesser players. And your mentioning of TLR and Bobby Cox really just illustrates the advantage of having stability in the manager's office; they're the 2 most successful current NL managers by far.

 

Of course he wants the cubs to keep Dusty! Why would he want his principal rivals to have a manager with at least half a brain?

Yeah, he's a Cards fan, but he's also a sports writer, and has written objectively about the Cubs many times in the past. I don't have any reason to think otherwise about this article, although I guess ulterior motives are always a possibility in anything.

[Cubfanintheknow]

That said, you dont keep someone around for the sake of stability. Look at Lloyd McClendon. Only TLR and Bobby Cox have managed longer in the NL. And what has that gotten the Pirates?

McClendon has always been a victim of his team's lack of financial support. Could you honestly say that he's ever had a squad with enough quality players to succeed? A manager only works with the tools he's given, and when your GM dumps quality guys yearly in exchange for salary relief, your managerial skills will be tested regardless of ability. Personally, I think McClendon's a talented manager who gets a lot out of some lesser players. And your mentioning of TLR and Bobby Cox really just illustrates the advantage of having stability in the manager's office; they're the 2 most successful current NL managers by far.

 

I'll admit it--lousy example!

 

But I'll still stick by my main premise, which is that the manager needs to be a good fit for the organization and the way it attempts to meet its goals.

 

Put it this way; if you need to choose between keeping a manager who's not a good fit for the sake of stability or making a change to find that manager who'll fit into the organization's theory on managing a ballclub, I'd put more emphasis on the latter. Much more emphasis.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I think the only way we could bring any kind of stability is if there is a really big shakeup. That shakeup just needs to be done by a strong leader.

[Warren Brusstar]

You know in retrospect, I wonder if Riggs was all that bad. He did a good job of managing an undertalented team to the Wild Card in '98.

 

His use of Wood has to be questioned, considering the fact that Woody was badly hurt. But I don't remember too many negatives associated with the Riggs era, apart from the Woody thing.

 

Riggleman babied Wood's arm like a 4 year old's. I'm sure there are things to criticize Riggs for, but his use of Wood is certainly not one of them.

[halplm]

That's just an absurd premise... Keep the terrible manager to build stability? Stability at being bad is not good stability.

 

Sorry, no. Stability is great, but only with someone that has a clue how to manage a baseball game.

[kente777]

Tell that to the Marlins in '03 and the Astros in 04', both of which fired their managers halfway through their respective seasons.

 

I don't need to remind anyone what those two teams did after the firings.

 

It's too late to get rid of Baker now, but either he should take a new job next year or be canned for someone who can manage young players.

 

Ken

[neely crenshaw]

we need to put a decent team on the field first. our left field spot is 14 of 16 nl teams this season our cf is 28 out of 30 in the ml. our best outfielder is burnitz who is rated about 60th overall and fading fast.

stability would be nice, a good team would be better....

[wastra]

Stability is great...if you have the right people in place.

 

It makes no sense to want consistency and stability if the people you're keeping around aren't good. Remember: you can be consistently bad just as easy (or easier) you can be as consistently good.

 

So the key (speaking of managers) is to find someone who has the right approach, right personality, and can deliver the right message, and stick with them. How many people think that person is dusty in Chicago? I'll admit he's got strengths, but is he really the guy we want to stick with for 5-10 years?

 

Dusty can motivate guys (though this year's team motivation is in question). He also is well-liked by his guys.

 

But he has some weaknesses as well:

-He's too constrained "by the book." Lefty-righty mathups only work when the lefty or righty you're subbing is a better lefty than the other player is a righty (or vice versa).

 

-He's attached to "his guys." This isn't always bad, if his guys were proven producers. But he gets attached to his guys, and not only does he play them, he tries to make them the focus of the offense. So it's not jsut that he insists on playing perez over Cedeno- I can at least accept that there is SOME logic to that. But hitting him leadoff?!? There's no logic in that at all other than Neifi being "his guy" who baker wants to either showcase or reward for some off-field reason. On-field, it's just bad baseball.

 

-He has a bad coaching staff, and like 'his guys" on the field, he sticks with them too long. Remember "wavin' wendell?" It's clear that somehting with our hitting coaches and even Rothschild isn't gelling.

 

-He's absolutely inept with the media. Totally inept. He contradicts himself from one minute to the next. He'll openly proclaim that Pitcher X can't get lefties out, and batter Y can't get on base, then THAT VERY DAY he'll bring in pitcher X to face 2 or 3 straight lefties and bat player Y leadoff. He'll talk about player Z needing to get at bats, then start someone else for them that day. He'll say absurd things about race and media treatment.

 

-He won't allow anyone in the organization to accept blame for anything. It's always someone else's fault, or beyond their control. He fosters an "enabling" culture in which people make mistakes, but don't have to accept responsibility for them, so the motivation to correct those mistakes is absent. hence, when they make the same mistakes 3 days later, there's little repercussion.

 

-He's far too resistant to change. It's as if by making changes, he's admitting he was wrong. So he sticks with losing formulae looong past the point of normalcy. he'll stick with an unproductive lineup for a month. He'll use a pitcher in the wrong situation over and over and over until everyone from sportscenter anchors to Chicago fans start making fun of it. THEN he finally changes, or the player has 3 good days and he talks to the media in a near "I-told-you-so" tone, and we start the whole process again after that 3-day hot streak ends and the player stinks again.

 

 

 

Now it's Hendry's job to decide if those weaknesses are outweighed by his strengths. Is the motivation and likeability factor more important or more effective than the above weaknesses are detrimental to winning? Is his "all-or-nothing" offensive strategy the right strategy for sustained success? (actually, with Hendry's tools-based method of player evaluation, it probably is in Jim's eyes.) And, if given the RIGHT players, will Dusty be able to win a world series? If so, can the Cubs realistically deliver those players to him?

 

 

All these things are legit questions, and the answers are not cut-and-dry. We all have opinions of them.

[johnnyba99]

 

But I'll still stick by my main premise, which is that the manager needs to be a good fit for the organization and the way it attempts to meet its goals.

 

Put it this way; if you need to choose between keeping a manager who's not a good fit for the sake of stability or making a change to find that manager who'll fit into the organization's theory on managing a ballclub, I'd put more emphasis on the latter. Much more emphasis.

 

I'm not sure that Dusty isn't the right fit for the organizations philosophy. I don't agree with their philosophy, if that's the case, but I've seen no evidence to make me believe the two don't share the same philosophy.