Oh, so this is why Murton is successful........

[CubfaninCA]

 

Maybe it's not his fault. Maybe DuBois just isn't that good. The same arguments were made for Choi and 2 years later he's in LA and still struggling. Choi was a better prospect than DuBois too.

 

If Choi is struggling with 15 homers, hitting .257 with a .336 OPB in about 300 ABs, I'd better never see you shower praise on Neifi Perez again.

 

Do you follow the Dodgers at all or just read the stats?? Choi's a part-time player. He doesn't face left-handed pitchers and Tracy has a tendency to sit him against guys like Clemens and Oswalt. Neifi's faces all comers, and I've said all along that he's a middle of the pack SS. Can't see how that's "praise." Nice spin though. :o

 

Put Choi in there every day and his stat line wouldn't look as good. Of course, it's about average for a 1b where it stands.

 

or his numbers could improve w/ more consistent playing time.

 

Yes, Tracy's another manager w/out a clue.

[imb]

Who cares? The point is, in 2003, Choi was a better option against right handers than Karros, but Dusty feels more comfortable failing with veterans than rolling the dice with a kid that plays the same position. Jesus christ you guys are dense.

[CubfaninCA]

How in the world do you get that Neifi is a "middle of the pack" SS? Granted, many of the NL SS are rather pathetic but nonetheless, Neifi's stellar .302 OBP isn't in the middle of the pack. He does have a .390 SLG, which isn't terrible for the position, I'll grant. Neifi's problem is that he doesn't take pitches and doesn't take walks. He's an undisciplined slap hitter with absolutely no patience who's managed to ground into 21 DP, which is bad enough for 7th most GIDP in all of baseball.

 

Most shortstop's have unimpressive stats. Look @ his ops, which is middle of the pack, and factor in his very good defense, and the guy's average. He should never bat 1st or 2nd though. Dusty's fault there.

[CuseCubFan69]

Is Baker good for a young players mental makeup? I don't think he is. The "I put him in a position to succeed" thing can only go so far. If the player starts to accept failure and thinks that Baker is always right...IMO his confidence could be shot. I want players that think they can hit all the pitchers and a manager that has the confidence in him to do so. Baker has no problem with the Boytoys doing that but seems to have issues with a young player going through the same kind of slump. It just seems to me Baker should be more supportive to a young player but for some strange reason he does quite the oposite. I'm hoping among hope that what Baker says to the press isn't the same things he tells a young player. Baker is a thinskinnedegotisticalcoward. I just can not see how a young player could respect someone that always defers the blame to the kid but accepts the praise for anything a young player does well.

[CubfaninCA]

Who cares? The point is, in 2003, Choi was a better option against right handers than Karros, but Dusty feels more comfortable failing with veterans than rolling the dice with a kid that plays the same position. Jesus christ you guys are dense.

 

Oh so that's the point... So just more nitpicking over craptacular and crap sandwich. (See Holla v. DuBois for more)

[imb]

How is that not the point? You want to argue that it's ok to play a lesser player just because neither player is a star?

[CubfaninCA]

 

Maybe it's not his fault. Maybe DuBois just isn't that good. The same arguments were made for Choi and 2 years later he's in LA and still struggling. Choi was a better prospect than DuBois too.

 

If Choi is struggling with 15 homers, hitting .257 with a .336 OPB in about 300 ABs, I'd better never see you shower praise on Neifi Perez again.

 

I hate those .794 OPS players.

 

That's better than Jeromy Burnitz, who has started almost every stinkin game for the Cubs.

 

Maybe there's a reason why Choi only has 300 at-bats. He's been healthy. Perhaps Tracy's just wrong for trying to put a young guy in a position to succeed though.

 

Sidenote - The LA media thinks Choi's garbage.

[CubinNY]

Who cares? The point is, in 2003, Choi was a better option against right handers than Karros, but Dusty feels more comfortable failing with veterans than rolling the dice with a kid that plays the same position. Jesus christ you guys are dense.

 

Oh so that's the point... So just more nitpicking over craptacular and crap sandwich. (See Holla v. DuBois for more)

 

You can certianly say that for Hollandsworth but not for Dubios. We cannot redo history so we will never know what kind of player he would have been this year if given a real chance to succeed. Everytime he started his job was on the line. No margin for error, no 0 fors.

 

So one cannot argue with you, as someone else pointed out, that is the beauty (if you want to call it that) of your and Dusty's logic. It is not falsifiable, but it is illogical.

Edited September 22, 2005 by CubinNY

[BigbadB]

Who cares? The point is, in 2003, Choi was a better option against right handers than Karros, but Dusty feels more comfortable failing with veterans than rolling the dice with a kid that plays the same position. Jesus christ you guys are dense.

 

I'm getting real tired of seeing posts like this.

[CubfaninCA]

How is that not the point? You want to argue that it's ok to play a lesser player just because neither player is a star?

 

If Dusty's hindsight is perfect, perhaps he goes w/ Choi instead. Karros was a good player for a number of years, so Baker decided to roll the dice w/ him and was wrong. It's not like it cost the Cubs the playoffs or cost the Cubs a good player.

 

Question were you upset w/ the Lee for Choi trade. If so, how about I rake you over the coals everyday for the next 3 years cause you were wrong.

 

People make mistakes. That's life.

[Chris]

Most shortstop's have unimpressive stats. Look @ his ops, which is middle of the pack

 

Misleading stat. That assessment includes Nomar (191 ABs), Cedeno (80) and Valdez (13) in that mix. Among shortstops with at least 200 ABs this season, Neifi ranks 13th out of 20 in OPS (.692) and .002 lower would have him in 16th out of 20 among shortstops with 200 ABs (3 guys have an OPS of .691)

[CubfaninCA]

Who cares? The point is, in 2003, Choi was a better option against right handers than Karros, but Dusty feels more comfortable failing with veterans than rolling the dice with a kid that plays the same position. Jesus christ you guys are dense.

 

Oh so that's the point... So just more nitpicking over craptacular and crap sandwich. (See Holla v. DuBois for more)

 

You can certianly say that for Hollandsworth but not for Dubios. We cannot redo history so we will never know what kind of player he would have been this year if given a real chance to succeed. Everytime he started his job was on the line. No margin for error, no 0 fors.

 

So one cannot argue with you, as someone else pointed out, that is the beauty (if you want to call it that) of your and Dusty's logic. It is not falsifiable, but it is illogical.

 

We'll see if DuBois is any good over the next 3 year. If not, I'll rip all those who thought he'd be good, and treat them like a bunch of Dusty's and Neifi's. :o

[imb]

How is that not the point? You want to argue that it's ok to play a lesser player just because neither player is a star?

 

If Dusty's hindsight is perfect, perhaps he goes w/ Choi instead. Karros was a good player for a number of years, so Baker decided to roll the dice w/ him and was wrong. It's not like it cost the Cubs the playoffs or cost the Cubs a good player.

 

Question were you upset w/ the Lee for Choi trade. If so, how about I rake you over the coals everyday for the next 3 years cause you were wrong.

 

People make mistakes. That's life.

 

Nope, I wanted Choi to suceed here, but even I realized that Lee's 2003 was probably Choi's peak.

[CubinNY]

Who cares? The point is, in 2003, Choi was a better option against right handers than Karros, but Dusty feels more comfortable failing with veterans than rolling the dice with a kid that plays the same position. Jesus christ you guys are dense.

 

Oh so that's the point... So just more nitpicking over craptacular and crap sandwich. (See Holla v. DuBois for more)

 

You can certianly say that for Hollandsworth but not for Dubios. We cannot redo history so we will never know what kind of player he would have been this year if given a real chance to succeed. Everytime he started his job was on the line. No margin for error, no 0 fors.

 

So one cannot argue with you, as someone else pointed out, that is the beauty (if you want to call it that) of your and Dusty's logic. It is not falsifiable, but it is illogical.

 

We'll see if DuBois is any good over the next 3 year. If not, I'll rip all those who thought he'd be good, and treat them like a bunch of Dusty's and Neifi's. :o

 

I'll try to type slow.

 

It does not matter one iota what Dubios does for the rest of his career. What matters is it is Dusty's job to put the team in the best position to win. Hollandsworth was a known entitiy. An entity who was likely to be worse than medicore if given the everyday job. Dubois had very good numbers in every level of minor league ball. Yet when Hollandsworth demonstrated his value, he still started. That is all that matters.

[JC]

Most shortstop's have unimpressive stats. Look @ his ops, which is middle of the pack

 

Misleading stat. That assessment includes Nomar (191 ABs), Cedeno (80) and Valdez (13) in that mix. Among shortstops with at least 200 ABs this season, Neifi ranks 13th out of 20 in OPS (.692) and .002 lower would have him in 16th out of 20 among shortstops with 200 ABs (3 guys have an OPS of .691)

 

Stupid subjective numbers!

 

Hold it...

[CubfaninCA]

Who cares? The point is, in 2003, Choi was a better option against right handers than Karros, but Dusty feels more comfortable failing with veterans than rolling the dice with a kid that plays the same position. Jesus christ you guys are dense.

 

Oh so that's the point... So just more nitpicking over craptacular and crap sandwich. (See Holla v. DuBois for more)

 

You can certianly say that for Hollandsworth but not for Dubios. We cannot redo history so we will never know what kind of player he would have been this year if given a real chance to succeed. Everytime he started his job was on the line. No margin for error, no 0 fors.

 

So one cannot argue with you, as someone else pointed out, that is the beauty (if you want to call it that) of your and Dusty's logic. It is not falsifiable, but it is illogical.

 

We'll see if DuBois is any good over the next 3 year. If not, I'll rip all those who thought he'd be good, and treat them like a bunch of Dusty's and Neifi's. :o

 

I'll try to type slow.

 

It does not matter one iota what Dubios does for the rest of his career. What matters is it is Dusty's job to put the team in the best position to win. Hollandsworth was a known entitiy. An entity who was likely to be worse than medicore if given the everyday job. Dubois had very good numbers in every level of minor league ball. Yet when Hollandsworth demonstrated his value, he still started. That is all that matters.

 

He rolled the dice w/ a vet who has had some success in the league over a crap sandwich 26 year old "kid." I see no reason to get all bent out of shape over someone who was doing very little after April when the league had adjusted. Scoff away @ the league adjusting. Yes it was Baker's fault cause he wasn't playing him consistently.

[BigbadB]

Baker has treated every rookie offensive player the same. Little to no playing time regardless of how bad the veteran playing his spot is worse.

 

With that said, Milwaukee and their 2 rookie, 2 second year player line up is tearing up the Cubs "veteran" team.

 

 

Not just head to head, either. Milwaukee and their rookies have a better overall record than the Cubs. I think that's why Dusty isn't playing the kids. He can't stand to allow a team full of young, inexperienced players finish higher in the standings than his team.

 

But, does he ever look at Atlanta, Cleveland, Oakland, etc....?

 

Would Cleveland take Neifi Perez in trade for Jhonny Peralta? Of course not. Would Cleveland start him over Peralta? Of course not. Would Neifi lead off instead of Grady Sizemore? Of course not. Then why on Earth was Neifi playing in front of Ronnie Cedeno and why on Earth does he hit at the top of the order over Matt Murton?

 

Dusty's philosophy might have worked in the era he played in, but it doesn't work now.

[CuseCubFan69]

Dusty's philosophy might have worked in the era he played in, but it doesn't work now.

 

He reminds me of George Allen during his Redskin days.

[dalgreen]

Baker has treated every rookie offensive player the same. Little to no playing time regardless of how bad the veteran playing his spot is worse.

 

With that said, Milwaukee and their 2 rookie, 2 second year player line up is tearing up the Cubs "veteran" team.

 

 

Not just head to head, either. Milwaukee and their rookies have a better overall record than the Cubs. I think that's why Dusty isn't playing the kids. He can't stand to allow a team full of young, inexperienced players finish higher in the standings than his team.

 

But, does he ever look at Atlanta, Cleveland, Oakland, etc....?

 

Would Cleveland take Neifi Perez in trade for Jhonny Peralta? Of course not. Would Cleveland start him over Peralta? Of course not. Would Neifi lead off instead of Grady Sizemore? Of course not. Then why on Earth was Neifi playing in front of Ronnie Cedeno and why on Earth does he hit at the top of the order over Matt Murton?

 

Dusty's philosophy might have worked in the era he played in, but it doesn't work now.

 

I pretty much agree with everything you said, but Baker is playing with the hand dealt to him from Hendry. You mentioned the other teams, yet I doubt their GM's would've re-signed guys like Macias, Perez, Hollandsworth and sign Burnitz if there were young guys up and coming. I blame Baker for not playing some of these guys, but Hendry shouldn't be given a free pass, either. Had he really wanted Dubois given a good shot at the everyday spot, what was the need in re-signing Holla (after promising him more playing time) and then signing Burnitz? If Cedeno was wanted to play a lot, why re-sign Perez? Another example, Jocketty wanted Molina to start. Therefore, he didn't even really entertain an offer to Matheny to come back, nor did he sign a good veteran catcher that might enable LaRussa to play him over Molina. Sometimes the manager's decisions are only as good as the GM's decisions. Baker should be criticized, but Hendry has been his co-dependent.

[CubinNY]

 

He rolled the dice w/ a vet.

 

Well then Dusty should stop playing craps with the Cub players. He seems to be crapping out a lot.

 

However, it is not as simple as that. Dusty didn't roll the dice. He made a decision and stuck with it even when it showed to be not in the best interest of the team. He is a piss poor excuse for a manager.

 

You can rationalize all you want, but the rationalization will not change the facts.

[BigbadB]

Baker has treated every rookie offensive player the same. Little to no playing time regardless of how bad the veteran playing his spot is worse.

 

With that said, Milwaukee and their 2 rookie, 2 second year player line up is tearing up the Cubs "veteran" team.

 

 

Not just head to head, either. Milwaukee and their rookies have a better overall record than the Cubs. I think that's why Dusty isn't playing the kids. He can't stand to allow a team full of young, inexperienced players finish higher in the standings than his team.

 

But, does he ever look at Atlanta, Cleveland, Oakland, etc....?

 

Would Cleveland take Neifi Perez in trade for Jhonny Peralta? Of course not. Would Cleveland start him over Peralta? Of course not. Would Neifi lead off instead of Grady Sizemore? Of course not. Then why on Earth was Neifi playing in front of Ronnie Cedeno and why on Earth does he hit at the top of the order over Matt Murton?

 

Dusty's philosophy might have worked in the era he played in, but it doesn't work now.

 

I pretty much agree with everything you said, but Baker is playing with the hand dealt to him from Hendry. You mentioned the other teams, yet I doubt their GM's would've re-signed guys like Macias, Perez, Hollandsworth and sign Burnitz if there were young guys up and coming. I blame Baker for not playing some of these guys, but Hendry shouldn't be given a free pass, either. Had he really wanted Dubois given a good shot at the everyday spot, what was the need in re-signing Holla (after promising him more playing time) and then signing Burnitz? If Cedeno was wanted to play a lot, why re-sign Perez? Another example, Jocketty wanted Molina to start. Therefore, he didn't even really entertain an offer to Matheny to come back, nor did he sign a good veteran catcher that might enable LaRussa to play him over Molina. Sometimes the manager's decisions are only as good as the GM's decisions. Baker should be criticized, but Hendry has been his co-dependent.

 

I liked the resigning of Hollandsworth. To me, he looked like a guy who could play the part of a Mark Sweeney. Decent outfield replacement when needed and a veteran bat off the bench with some decent punch.

 

Baker was the one who misused him. Whether Hendry had those same intentions or not is not as obvious. I think it hurts the team to not sign a veteran bat for the bench. But, if the manager then turns around and uses the bench bat as an everyday starter, all you can do is beat your head against a wall. Especially if the manager has a contract with more than a year remaining.

 

Maybe I'm wrong and Hendry agrees with Baker's philosophy. If that's the case, Hendry really fooled me. He gave me the impression this past offseason that Dubois would play a lot. He also spent a lot of time and effort building up the farm system. He gave me the impression that he was improving the system from the bottom up, which is a system that works. But, ever since he's had Dusty here, the philosophy seems to have changed.

[thedaymen]

Easrlier in this thread there was discussion as to what Dusty did as manager of the Giants to prove or disprove that he hates young players. Some of the players from his better teams were listed; this shows me a couple of things.

 

1) Dusty's philospophy about veteran players was born of experience and reinforced by the way his veteran teams in SF performed. It isn't unreasonable to expect that he would have "learned" from that experience and have brought that theroy that veterans=more wins.

 

2) Given that Baylor was also in love with this philosophy (remember the Proven Veteran Leader?), is it safe to say that management (MacPhail) embraces the veterans first philosophy as well?

 

If so, that means that Baylor, while he needs to go, isn't the problem...he's just a symptom of the problem, and what needs to happen is a larger reorganization.

[CubfaninCA]

 

He rolled the dice w/ a vet.

 

Well then Dusty should stop playing craps with the Cub players. He seems to be crapping out a lot.

 

However, it is not as simple as that. Dusty didn't roll the dice. He made a decision and stuck with it even when it showed to be not in the best interest of the team. He is a piss poor excuse for a manager.

 

You can rationalize all you want, but the rationalization will not change the facts.

 

He was dealt a hand of crap to start with. Thankfully he got Murton, who he's playing over Hairston now.

 

Since some of you love to throw out stat upon stat to support your opinions, I can't see how Dusty can be considererd a piss poor manager given his winning percentage over the years.

 

I still want to see someone else manage, but will give the guy some credit.

[dalgreen]

I pretty much agree with everything you said, but Baker is playing with the hand dealt to him from Hendry. You mentioned the other teams, yet I doubt their GM's would've re-signed guys like Macias, Perez, Hollandsworth and sign Burnitz if there were young guys up and coming. I blame Baker for not playing some of these guys, but Hendry shouldn't be given a free pass, either. Had he really wanted Dubois given a good shot at the everyday spot, what was the need in re-signing Holla (after promising him more playing time) and then signing Burnitz? If Cedeno was wanted to play a lot, why re-sign Perez? Another example, Jocketty wanted Molina to start. Therefore, he didn't even really entertain an offer to Matheny to come back, nor did he sign a good veteran catcher that might enable LaRussa to play him over Molina. Sometimes the manager's decisions are only as good as the GM's decisions. Baker should be criticized, but Hendry has been his co-dependent.

 

I liked the resigning of Hollandsworth. To me, he looked like a guy who could play the part of a Mark Sweeney. Decent outfield replacement when needed and a veteran bat off the bench with some decent punch.

 

Baker was the one who misused him. Whether Hendry had those same intentions or not is not as obvious. I think it hurts the team to not sign a veteran bat for the bench. But, if the manager then turns around and uses the bench bat as an everyday starter, all you can do is beat your head against a wall. Especially if the manager has a contract with more than a year remaining.

 

Maybe I'm wrong and Hendry agrees with Baker's philosophy. If that's the case, Hendry really fooled me. He gave me the impression this past offseason that Dubois would play a lot. He also spent a lot of time and effort building up the farm system. He gave me the impression that he was improving the system from the bottom up, which is a system that works. But, ever since he's had Dusty here, the philosophy seems to have changed.

 

Well there was a lengthy thread last off-season after it was reported that Hendry and Baker had promised him more playing time and that was a big reason that Holla re-signed with the Cubs. I don't think I've come across as a second-guesser, but I've said since last season that Hendry's build up of the farm system will be primarily used for trades and not to stock the Chicago Cubs. And I'm not one that's all enamored with our position prospects, anyway. I hope I'm wrong. And I wouldn't have minded the re-signing of Holla so much, but then why sign Burnitz, too if you wanted to give Dubois more than a "platoon" chance?

Edited September 22, 2005 by dalgreen

[BigbadB]

Easrlier in this thread there was discussion as to what Dusty did as manager of the Giants to prove or disprove that he hates young players. Some of the players from his better teams were listed; this shows me a couple of things.

 

1) Dusty's philospophy about veteran players was born of experience and reinforced by the way his veteran teams in SF performed. It isn't unreasonable to expect that he would have "learned" from that experience and have brought that theroy that veterans=more wins.

 

2) Given that Baylor was also in love with this philosophy (remember the Proven Veteran Leader?), is it safe to say that management (MacPhail) embraces the veterans first philosophy as well?

 

If so, that means that Baylor, while he needs to go, isn't the problem...he's just a symptom of the problem, and what needs to happen is a larger reorganization.

 

Baylor? :D