Another great Bruce Miles column......

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I don't think the Cubs could have competed with either the offer for Mulder or Hudson. In hindsight, we might feel we have the prospects to match, but we didn't.

 

Hudson was traded for Meyer, Cruz, and Thomas. We surely could have found someone as impressive as Thomas, but we didn't have a pitching prospect that rated as highly as Meyer and Cruz was coming off a phenomenal season in the pen. I don't see that last year the Cubs had the bullets to match the Braves offer.

 

Mulder was traded for Haren, Calero, and Barton. We likely could have matched Calero and possibly matched Barton with Dopirak, though Barton was still viewed as the better prospect. I don't think we had anyone that Oakland would have valued as much as Haren. Mitre might have drawn some interest, but it would have taken more than that.

 

To match either of the above deals, it likely would have taken the Cubs adding another high level prospect. I just don't think at the time we had the players that could have matched what Oakland believed it was receiving at the time.

[Bruce Miles]

If you look at the entire column, the point is not just what happened this year. It's what has happened year after year after year. Teams such as the Cardinals, Braves and Astros have enjoyed consistent runs of success. This is largely because of good decision making in front office (Jocketty, Schuerholz, Hunsicker _ and see today's Richard Justice column in the Houston Chronicle about Tim Purpura).

Injuries hit all teams. The Cardinals overcame the death of a pitcher in 2002.

All I was saying is that there is a reason that teams succeed year after year. That reason is based in smart planning, good decision making and sound execution on the field.

[Tracer Bullet]

If you look at the entire column, the point is not just what happened this year. It's what has happened year after year after year. Teams such as the Cardinals, Braves and Astros have enjoyed consistent runs of success. This is largely because of good decision making in front office (Jocketty, Schuerholz, Hunsicker _ and see today's Richard Justice column in the Houston Chronicle about Tim Purpura).

Injuries hit all teams. The Cardinals overcame the death of a pitcher in 2002.

All I was saying is that there is a reason that teams succeed year after year. That reason is based in smart planning, good decision making and sound execution on the field.

 

So, to try to read between the lines, are you saying the majority of the blame for this season falls on Hendry, rather than Baker?

[Bruce Miles]

If you look at the entire column, the point is not just what happened this year. It's what has happened year after year after year. Teams such as the Cardinals, Braves and Astros have enjoyed consistent runs of success. This is largely because of good decision making in front office (Jocketty, Schuerholz, Hunsicker _ and see today's Richard Justice column in the Houston Chronicle about Tim Purpura).

Injuries hit all teams. The Cardinals overcame the death of a pitcher in 2002.

All I was saying is that there is a reason that teams succeed year after year. That reason is based in smart planning, good decision making and sound execution on the field.

 

So, to try to read between the lines, are you saying the majority of the blame for this season falls on Hendry, rather than Baker?

 

It's a total team effort: Players, GM, manager, in whatever order you'd like.

[gus_dog]

If you look at the entire column, the point is not just what happened this year. It's what has happened year after year after year. Teams such as the Cardinals, Braves and Astros have enjoyed consistent runs of success. This is largely because of good decision making in front office (Jocketty, Schuerholz, Hunsicker _ and see today's Richard Justice column in the Houston Chronicle about Tim Purpura).

Injuries hit all teams. The Cardinals overcame the death of a pitcher in 2002.

All I was saying is that there is a reason that teams succeed year after year. That reason is based in smart planning, good decision making and sound execution on the field.

 

So, to try to read between the lines, are you saying the majority of the blame for this season falls on Hendry, rather than Baker?

 

It seems to me that all of managment can lay claim to this...all may not have equal parts, but they all contributed to a less than satisfactory conclusion.

[daske17]

If you look at the entire column, the point is not just what happened this year. It's what has happened year after year after year. Teams such as the Cardinals, Braves and Astros have enjoyed consistent runs of success. This is largely because of good decision making in front office (Jocketty, Schuerholz, Hunsicker _ and see today's Richard Justice column in the Houston Chronicle about Tim Purpura).

Injuries hit all teams. The Cardinals overcame the death of a pitcher in 2002.

All I was saying is that there is a reason that teams succeed year after year. That reason is based in smart planning, good decision making and sound execution on the field.

 

So, to try to read between the lines, are you saying the majority of the blame for this season falls on Hendry, rather than Baker?

 

It's a total team effort: Players, GM, manager, in whatever order you'd like.

 

Bruce-- At what point does the blame fall at MacPhail's feet? He's been at the helm for a decade and there hasn't been any noticeable improvement in the team structure. We've had a parade of GMs, managers and players, but the one constant has been MacPhail. Is he merely the Cubs representative on the Trib Board or does he have any impact on the direction of the club?

[CubfaninCA]

Pitching, pitching all that rhetoric about Grudz, Eckstein, Rodriguez, decision making, etc. doesn't to amount a hill of beans if the Cards pitching staff was gutted by injuries in the manner the Cubs were. Over the last two seasons the Cards have used 15 starters, this year alone the Cubs have used 10 starters.

 

How good would have the superior Eckstein, Grudz, Taguchi, Rodriguez, et al looked if they had garbage like Mitre, Koronka and Rusch starting for them?

 

If Carpenter has a Prior-ish year, Houston & Philly might be on their heels.

 

If the Cubs had Carpenter, he'd still be on the DL like he was prior to St. Louis. Sometimes teams are just lucky. Sorry I can't present a formula to better explain this.

[USSoccer]

What bothers me more than the last 2 seasons is that Hendry has basically abandoned the farm system he worked so hard to create. It's been mismanaged, we've held onto guys longer than we should have before trading them, we don't give position players like Murton and Cedeno proper shots at starting everyday, and we haven't trading surplus pitching to fill holes on the team.

 

I'm wondering how much of this has to do with Baker's influence and how much is impatience and/or poor decisions by Hendry.

 

I can think of at least 4 Cub prospects that should have been traded, but instead of selling high we sold them for cents on the dollar.

 

Bruce, do you have any insight on this?

[katway]

...Over the last two seasons the Cards have used 15 starters, this year alone the Cubs have used 10 starters...

 

 

Cubs pitching certainly has not been as durable this year, but it was more durable last year. Cubs have used 11 starters this year and Cards have used 7 starters. But, in 2004, the Cards used 8 different starters and the Cubs used 7 different starters. In both years, they wiped the floor with us, so I'd say it's more than just the starters, but certainly their durability this year has allowed them to absorb injuries to Scott Rollen, et al.

[goonys evil twin]

Bruce-- At what point does the blame fall at MacPhail's feet? He's been at the helm for a decade and there hasn't been any noticeable improvement in the team structure. We've had a parade of GMs, managers and players, but the one constant has been MacPhail. Is he merely the Cubs representative on the Trib Board or does he have any impact on the direction of the club?

 

I'm not Bruce, but I have something to say on that. In my opinion, the way the Cubs organization is structured, Andy's job is strictly business/directional care for the longterm. He's the go between for ownership and management, and is basically just supposed to make sure the franchise is heading in the right direction, both as a financial entity, and a baseball club. For the most part, he's done that job pretty well, although not really in a timely fashion. The franchise was a mess before he arrived. It was a mid-point kind of payroll team, with no farm system and terrible results on the field.

 

The organization is pretty healthy right now. It could be a World Series champion next year without a major overhaul. They are in a position to contend every year.

 

The two problems I have with him is his apparant 100% satisfaction with Hendry/Baker, and the loyalty he has to the good ole' boy network that has hindered the developmental side of operations. I'd love to see Andy pull Jim into his office and say, "Hey Jimbo, Dusty was a failure, get rid of him, and start fixing some of those long running problems this team has, first and foremost, the lack of OBP on offense." But I'm not sure that is a fireable offense.

 

The Trib and Andy have given Jim, the front office and Dusty more than enough to produce a championship caliber winner year in and year out. It's up to that group to make the proper baseball decisions to get it done.

 

If he lets this team drift back to the 70, 73, 77, 75 win embarrasment of mediocrity, then get him the heck out of there. This should be the last sub .500 season for the rest of the decade. A repeat of 2005 should be met with mass overhaul of the front office.

[gus_dog]

IMO, some folks are too willing just write-off the Cubs losing, of the Cardinals winning consistently, to luck.

 

I will grant that it is true there is some luck involved (i.e. Prior getting hit with the liner), I believe if Carpenter got hit with the liner instead, the Cardinals would have found someone to plug in there, and they still would have CONTENDED. This, I think is a key point. In 2003, when the Cardinal bullpen was horrible, they still were in contention.

 

The Cardinals, it seems, are better prepared, on the whole, to deal with whatever happens, and at least contend. The Cubs on the other hand, have a key injury, and it is wait 'til next year.

 

This difference is a fine line, but it has been validated by what we have seen unfold before our eyes, and I believe it is why the Cardinals consistently win, and the Cubs do not. Smarter, better management from the top down, and better philosophy. JMHO.

[CubfaninCA]

So Patterson, DuBois, Murton, Wellemeyer, Hill and Mitre weren't enough for either Hudson or Mulder? Since Beane's a Moneyballer like many on this board, seems as if he'd take a package of 4 of this 6. (Yes I know Patterson's the anti-moneyballer).

[goonys evil twin]

IMO, some folks are too willing just write-off the Cubs losing, of the Cardinals winning consistently, to luck.

 

I will grant that it is true there is some luck involved (i.e. Prior getting hit with the liner), I believe if Carpenter got hit with the liner instead, the Cardinals would have found someone to plug in there, and they still would have CONTENDED. This, I think is a key point. In 2003, when the Cardinal bullpen was horrible, they still were in contention.

 

The Cardinals, it seems, are better prepared, on the whole, to deal with whatever happens, and at least contend. The Cubs on the other hand, have a key injury, and it is wait 'til next year.

 

This difference is a fine line, but it has been validated by what we have seen unfold before our eyes, and I believe it is why the Cardinals consistently win, and the Cubs do not. Smarter, better management from the top down, and better philosophy. JMHO.

 

100% agreement. It's not luck that keeps STL over CHC. It's not unfair nitpicking to note that other organizations routinely outclass the Cubs front office in the personel decision game.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

So Patterson, DuBois, Murton, Wellemeyer, Hill and Mitre weren't enough for either Hudson or Mulder? Since Beane's a Moneyballer like many on this board, seems as if he'd take a package of 4 of this 6. (Yes I know Patterson's the anti-moneyballer).

 

Murton's value wasn't nearly as high as it is now at the point those trades were consumated and Patterson was viewed as part of the long term plan of this team during the offseason. That would leave us with Dubois, Wellemeyer, Hill, and Mitre for Hudson or Mulder. It might have gotten the job done, but I'm not certain if that would have been enough to make Beane give up what he got. None of those pitchers equal what Meyer was believed to be at that time last year and I think that Beane would have valued Haren over the lot as well. None of those have the potential of Daric Barton either.

 

So, no, I still don't think we had the players to make a deal at the time the deal was made.

[goonys evil twin]

So, no, I still don't think we had the players to make a deal at the time the deal was made.

 

I think they certainly did have the players, they just didn't want to deal those players.

[JC]

I'm not necessarily advocating this, but would Murton and Hill land Zito? If both guys are going to be used sparingly/stupidly, I'd rather see them moved for a guy who could potentially help (avoiding signing Burnett or Millwood) than have them rot on the bench.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm not necessarily advocating this, but would Murton and Hill land Zito? If both guys are going to be used sparingly/stupidly, I'd rather see them moved for a guy who could potentially help (avoiding signing Burnett or Millwood) than have them rot on the bench.

 

I think Murton, Hill and Mitre might do it. Unless Billy has had his fill of pitchers, then it might be something like Murton, Sing and Hill, possibly with Fontenot thrown in somewhere. I wouldn't want to see that move, but if they went out and traded or signed for impact OF bats, I wouldn't object too much.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

I never said the Cardinals were better because of Eckstein and the others. I said they were better because of BETTER DECISION MAKING, which includes acquiring the players I mentioned.

Oh, yes, Eckstein will have value beyond this year. And if the Cardinals win it all with him at the top of the order, he surely has had value this year.

Walker a better player than Grudz? Ask the Cubs pitching staff.

The point on Rodriguez is not that he's a difference maker. It's that he's a valuable part, one that the Cardinals identified and acquired. From people I talked to in baseball, the Cubs really had no idea who he was. Followers of the team should be alarmed by that.

 

okay, eckstein has some value, but if you'd have asked me who i'd rather have had, eckstein or nomar, it would have been nomar, no question. and i'd still rather have nomar after this year, regardless of eckstein's 2002-like campaign. i don't chalk that up to bad decision-making, at least, in the front office.

 

Dusty has made bad decisions, i'll admit that, he would have probably had eckstein batting 8th and flailing like neifi.

 

Walker is, was, and will be a better hitter than grudz, that was my point.

 

as for rodriguez, he was no more valuable than hollandsworth would have been had we actually had a starting left fielder. the problem was, holla is not a starter. the poor decision-making in that regard was neglecting to sign a player with any kind of a bat to start in left.

 

i'm not really alarmed that they didn't know who rodriguez was, a career AAA who has maximized his potential this season was not necessarily at the top of my wish list in the offseason.

 

one could argue that if holla hadn't fouled a ball off of his shin in 2004, the cubs might have won the WC. it was a bad decision to let dusty start him, but not a bad decision to sign him after he torched us in the 2003 NLCS.

 

i would have had no problem with holla and grieve as the 4th and 5th OF's this year. but often it seems like it's not up to hendry. hendry's worst decisions are the ones he lets dusty make.

[Bruce Miles]

Bruce-- At what point does the blame fall at MacPhail's feet? He's been at the helm for a decade and there hasn't been any noticeable improvement in the team structure. We've had a parade of GMs, managers and players, but the one constant has been MacPhail. Is he merely the Cubs representative on the Trib Board or does he have any impact on the direction of the club?

 

I'm not Bruce, but I have something to say on that. In my opinion, the way the Cubs organization is structured, Andy's job is strictly business/directional care for the longterm. He's the go between for ownership and management, and is basically just supposed to make sure the franchise is heading in the right direction, both as a financial entity, and a baseball club. For the most part, he's done that job pretty well, although not really in a timely fashion. The franchise was a mess before he arrived. It was a mid-point kind of payroll team, with no farm system and terrible results on the field.

 

The organization is pretty healthy right now. It could be a World Series champion next year without a major overhaul. They are in a position to contend every year.

 

The two problems I have with him is his apparant 100% satisfaction with Hendry/Baker, and the loyalty he has to the good ole' boy network that has hindered the developmental side of operations. I'd love to see Andy pull Jim into his office and say, "Hey Jimbo, Dusty was a failure, get rid of him, and start fixing some of those long running problems this team has, first and foremost, the lack of OBP on offense." But I'm not sure that is a fireable offense.

 

The Trib and Andy have given Jim, the front office and Dusty more than enough to produce a championship caliber winner year in and year out. It's up to that group to make the proper baseball decisions to get it done.

 

If he lets this team drift back to the 70, 73, 77, 75 win embarrasment of mediocrity, then get him the heck out of there. This should be the last sub .500 season for the rest of the decade. A repeat of 2005 should be met with mass overhaul of the front office.

 

Well, said, Goony. MacPhail has brought class, stability and professionalism to this organization. His biggest fault, at least in my opinion, is that he's too patient. You'd be hard-pressed to find a better human being at the top of an organization. And MacPhail is one reason there was no players strike in 2002. He was on the management negotiating team, and the players trusted him implicitly. What he and the rest of the organization must do is find a way to win consistently, not every so often.

[gus_dog]

 

I never said the Cardinals were better because of Eckstein and the others. I said they were better because of BETTER DECISION MAKING, which includes acquiring the players I mentioned.

Oh, yes, Eckstein will have value beyond this year. And if the Cardinals win it all with him at the top of the order, he surely has had value this year.

Walker a better player than Grudz? Ask the Cubs pitching staff.

The point on Rodriguez is not that he's a difference maker. It's that he's a valuable part, one that the Cardinals identified and acquired. From people I talked to in baseball, the Cubs really had no idea who he was. Followers of the team should be alarmed by that.

 

okay, eckstein has some value, but if you'd have asked me who i'd rather have had, eckstein or nomar, it would have been nomar, no question. and i'd still rather have nomar after this year, regardless of eckstein's 2002-like campaign. i don't chalk that up to bad decision-making, at least, in the front office.

 

Dusty has made bad decisions, i'll admit that, he would have probably had eckstein batting 8th and flailing like neifi.

 

Walker is, was, and will be a better hitter than grudz, that was my point.

 

as for rodriguez, he was no more valuable than hollandsworth would have been had we actually had a starting left fielder. the problem was, holla is not a starter. the poor decision-making in that regard was neglecting to sign a player with any kind of a bat to start in left.

 

i'm not really alarmed that they didn't know who rodriguez was, a career AAA who has maximized his potential this season was not necessarily at the top of my wish list in the offseason.

 

one could argue that if holla hadn't fouled a ball off of his shin in 2004, the cubs might have won the WC. it was a bad decision to let dusty start him, but not a bad decision to sign him after he torched us in the 2003 NLCS.

 

i would have had no problem with holla and grieve as the 4th and 5th OF's this year. but often it seems like it's not up to hendry. hendry's worst decisions are the ones he lets dusty make.

 

Sullymon, I think you're getting caught up in player-to-player comparisons. These comparisons, while intriguing, are off the mark.

 

The point is, IMO, that the Cardinals have built a synergistic organization, which trickles down to a synergistic team.

 

The team is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

The Cubs have not learned how to do this. That's not to say that they can't or won't, but only that they have not.

 

The Cubbies could learn alot from the hated rivals to the south, but will they???????

[daske17]

I'm not necessarily advocating this, but would Murton and Hill land Zito? If both guys are going to be used sparingly/stupidly, I'd rather see them moved for a guy who could potentially help (avoiding signing Burnett or Millwood) than have them rot on the bench.

 

I think Murton, Hill and Mitre might do it. Unless Billy has had his fill of pitchers, then it might be something like Murton, Sing and Hill, possibly with Fontenot thrown in somewhere. I wouldn't want to see that move, but if they went out and traded or signed for impact OF bats, I wouldn't object too much.

 

Given our outfield situation, there's no way I'm letting go of Murton now. As much as I would love to have Zito fill out our rotation, isn't there someone else we could send along?

[UK1679666180]

Well, said, Goony. MacPhail has brought class, stability and professionalism to this organization. His biggest fault, at least in my opinion, is that he's too patient. You'd be hard-pressed to find a better human being at the top of an organization. And MacPhail is one reason there was no players strike in 2002. He was on the management negotiating team, and the players trusted him implicitly. What he and the rest of the organization must do is find a way to win consistently, not every so often.

 

I know Andy becomes the scapegoat from being here 10+ years, but the Cubs have taken a step in the right direction under his leadership.

 

He has done very well as a stepping stone between the fiscal side of baseball and the product on the field.

 

It would be out of his role to make any managerial or roster decisions, I can't fault him for the disappointments of the last 2 years, I can give him credit for the job he did as a GM after Lynch was re-assigned (I thought Andy did the best he could with what he had for a team building for the future).

[Magnetic Curses]

 

I never said the Cardinals were better because of Eckstein and the others. I said they were better because of BETTER DECISION MAKING, which includes acquiring the players I mentioned.

Oh, yes, Eckstein will have value beyond this year. And if the Cardinals win it all with him at the top of the order, he surely has had value this year.

Walker a better player than Grudz? Ask the Cubs pitching staff.

The point on Rodriguez is not that he's a difference maker. It's that he's a valuable part, one that the Cardinals identified and acquired. From people I talked to in baseball, the Cubs really had no idea who he was. Followers of the team should be alarmed by that.

 

okay, eckstein has some value, but if you'd have asked me who i'd rather have had, eckstein or nomar, it would have been nomar, no question. and i'd still rather have nomar after this year, regardless of eckstein's 2002-like campaign. i don't chalk that up to bad decision-making, at least, in the front office.

 

Dusty has made bad decisions, i'll admit that, he would have probably had eckstein batting 8th and flailing like neifi.

 

Walker is, was, and will be a better hitter than grudz, that was my point.

 

as for rodriguez, he was no more valuable than hollandsworth would have been had we actually had a starting left fielder. the problem was, holla is not a starter. the poor decision-making in that regard was neglecting to sign a player with any kind of a bat to start in left.

 

i'm not really alarmed that they didn't know who rodriguez was, a career AAA who has maximized his potential this season was not necessarily at the top of my wish list in the offseason.

 

one could argue that if holla hadn't fouled a ball off of his shin in 2004, the cubs might have won the WC. it was a bad decision to let dusty start him, but not a bad decision to sign him after he torched us in the 2003 NLCS.

 

i would have had no problem with holla and grieve as the 4th and 5th OF's this year. but often it seems like it's not up to hendry. hendry's worst decisions are the ones he lets dusty make.

 

Sullymon, I think you're getting caught up in player-to-player comparisons. These comparisons, while intriguing, are off the mark.

 

The point is, IMO, that the Cardinals have built a synergistic organization, which trickles down to a synergistic team.

 

The team is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

The Cubs have not learned how to do this. That's not to say that they can't or won't, but only that they have not.

 

The Cubbies could learn alot from the hated rivals to the south, but will they???????

 

i don't buy the synergy thing in baseball.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm not necessarily advocating this, but would Murton and Hill land Zito? If both guys are going to be used sparingly/stupidly, I'd rather see them moved for a guy who could potentially help (avoiding signing Burnett or Millwood) than have them rot on the bench.

 

I think Murton, Hill and Mitre might do it. Unless Billy has had his fill of pitchers, then it might be something like Murton, Sing and Hill, possibly with Fontenot thrown in somewhere. I wouldn't want to see that move, but if they went out and traded or signed for impact OF bats, I wouldn't object too much.

 

Given our outfield situation, there's no way I'm letting go of Murton now. As much as I would love to have Zito fill out our rotation, isn't there someone else we could send along?

 

My plan wouldn't call for a trade of Murton. But if the Cubs can get Chipper in a trade and sign Giles, I'd have no problem dealing him. In other words, if you fill the OF spot with production, go ahead and trade Murton if you have to.

[JC]

I'm not necessarily advocating this, but would Murton and Hill land Zito? If both guys are going to be used sparingly/stupidly, I'd rather see them moved for a guy who could potentially help (avoiding signing Burnett or Millwood) than have them rot on the bench.

 

I think Murton, Hill and Mitre might do it. Unless Billy has had his fill of pitchers, then it might be something like Murton, Sing and Hill, possibly with Fontenot thrown in somewhere. I wouldn't want to see that move, but if they went out and traded or signed for impact OF bats, I wouldn't object too much.

 

Given our outfield situation, there's no way I'm letting go of Murton now. As much as I would love to have Zito fill out our rotation, isn't there someone else we could send along?

 

My plan wouldn't call for a trade of Murton. But if the Cubs can get Chipper in a trade and sign Giles, I'd have no problem dealing him. In other words, if you fill the OF spot with production, go ahead and trade Murton if you have to.

 

Yep. I assume the Cubs are going to go into the offseason trying to get big bats for the corner OF. Personally, I'm skeptical that adequate talent is available for the money. But, I also have my doubts that Murton will be embraced for his talents because he isn't a prototypical power hitter. That is the only reason I'd consider such a move.