doesn't matter who we get

[larhur]

We will still have Dusty. He has shown no ability to get the best out of his players, he has shown no desire to play younger, possibility better in the long run players. We still see older, going over the hill players being played way too much, don't know if it is loyalty toward older players or Dusty being afraid of being critisized if they fail.

[rawaction]

We will still have Dusty. He has shown no ability to get the best out of his players, he has shown no desire to play younger, possibility better in the long run players. We still see older, going over the hill players being played way too much, don't know if it is loyalty toward older players or Dusty being afraid of being critisized if they fail.

 

May be just a coincedence but all the offensive talent on this team (Lee, Ramirez, Barrett) have had their best seasons under Baker.

[10man]

You're right. It's just a coincidence.

[Andy]

We will still have Dusty. He has shown no ability to get the best out of his players, he has shown no desire to play younger, possibility better in the long run players. We still see older, going over the hill players being played way too much, don't know if it is loyalty toward older players or Dusty being afraid of being critisized if they fail.

 

May be just a coincedence but all the offensive talent on this team (Lee, Ramirez, Barrett) have had their best seasons under Baker.

They've all entered the age ranges of 29-33, generally considered to be a player's prime years. This has nothing to do with Dusty. Ask Corey Patterson, Jose Macias, Neifi Perez, Paul Bako, and Jason Dubois how much Dusty helped their offense.

[AAApittsburgh]

Cubs can win with Dusty, but Hendry needs to make the team Dusty-proof.

[larhur]

Unless we have a team of all oldsters or all youngsters, we can't dusty proof this team, we need some experience off the bench but Dusty can really screw with the head of a youngster, not many of our younger players excelled under dusty

[CheeseHead Cubs Fan]

We will still have Dusty. He has shown no ability to get the best out of his players, he has shown no desire to play younger, possibility better in the long run players. We still see older, going over the hill players being played way too much, don't know if it is loyalty toward older players or Dusty being afraid of being critisized if they fail.

 

Granted, Dusty is not a perfect manager and quite possibly may not be the "right" guy for Chicago. However, that is a pretty bold statment. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few guys (under Bakers Managment) who have had career years...

 

Barry Bonds - Giants

Jeff Kent - Giants

Russ Ortiz - Giants

Rich Aurlia - Giants

 

DLee

ARam

Mark Prior

Joe Bo

Moises Alou

Glendon Rusch

Carlos Zambrano

Ryan Dempster (30+saves)

Michael Barrett

 

I am sure there are more, and sure, there are some players who sucked during there career in Chicago or even SF. However, to say that it doesn't matter who we get as long as we have Dusty to manage...is simply wrong!

[rawaction]

We will still have Dusty. He has shown no ability to get the best out of his players, he has shown no desire to play younger, possibility better in the long run players. We still see older, going over the hill players being played way too much, don't know if it is loyalty toward older players or Dusty being afraid of being critisized if they fail.

 

Granted, Dusty is not a perfect manager and quite possibly may not be the "right" guy for Chicago. However, that is a pretty bold statment. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few guys (under Bakers Managment) who have had career years...

 

Barry Bonds - Giants

Jeff Kent - Giants

Russ Ortiz - Giants

Rich Aurlia - Giants

 

DLee

ARam

Mark Prior

Joe Bo

Moises Alou

Glendon Rusch

Carlos Zambrano

Ryan Dempster (30+saves)

Michael Barrett

 

I am sure there are more, and sure, there are some players who sucked during there career in Chicago or even SF. However, to say that it doesn't matter who we get as long as we have Dusty to manage...is simply wrong!

 

Exactly. I dislike Dusty as much as anyone (well, maybe not anyone...Goony?). But there are examples both ways as you point out. I don't think the sheer numbers prove anything except that managers have very little to do with player performances.

[YearofDaCubs]

Career years or not, i want Dusty out of here.

[NorthsideAvenger]

They've all entered the age ranges of 29-33, generally considered to be a player's prime years.

 

No that's incorrect. According to Dusty's "belief" a players "primes yrs" are actually between 35 and 40 yrs old. "29-33" that's too young to help a franchise win a championship. Shame on you. [-X :)

[Proven Veteran]

They've all entered the age ranges of 29-33, generally considered to be a player's prime years.

 

No that's incorrect. According to Dusty's "belief" a players "primes yrs" are actually between 35 and 40 yrs old. "29-33" that's too young to help a franchise win a championship. Shame on you. [-X :)

 

It's wrong anyway, 29-33 is plateau and decline time.

[NewUserName]

27-31 is generally prime years. ARam is just getting there.

 

I dont think it makes a difference if prior and wood dont regain past form. With Dusty as manager if that did happen he would just overuse them and they would be hurt again.

[USSoccer]

27-31 is generally prime years. ARam is just getting there.

 

I dont think it makes a difference if prior and wood dont regain past form. With Dusty as manager if that did happen he would just overuse them and they would be hurt again.

 

I fully expect Prior to be at top form next year. The broken elbow had to hurt his stuff just a bit.

 

Wood, who knows. He's probably the biggest x-factor on our roster at present. If I were Hendry, I'd plan on him being hurt, rather than counting on him.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

i'm just praying that moron doesn't get an extension. one more year is just about all i can take. i might have to give up baseball for a while and come back the minute he's shipped off.

[NorthsideAvenger]

They've all entered the age ranges of 29-33, generally considered to be a player's prime years.

 

No that's incorrect. According to Dusty's "belief" a players "primes yrs" are actually between 35 and 40 yrs old. "29-33" that's too young to help a franchise win a championship. Shame on you. [-X :)

 

It's wrong anyway, 29-33 is plateau and decline time.

 

Proven; that was my sarcasm at it's finest.

[Careless]

We will still have Dusty. He has shown no ability to get the best out of his players, he has shown no desire to play younger, possibility better in the long run players. We still see older, going over the hill players being played way too much, don't know if it is loyalty toward older players or Dusty being afraid of being critisized if they fail.

 

Granted, Dusty is not a perfect manager and quite possibly may not be the "right" guy for Chicago. However, that is a pretty bold statment. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few guys (under Bakers Managment) who have had career years...

 

Barry Bonds - Giants

Jeff Kent - Giants

Russ Ortiz - Giants

Rich Aurlia - Giants

 

DLee

ARam

Mark Prior

Joe Bo

Moises Alou

Glendon Rusch

Carlos Zambrano

Ryan Dempster (30+saves)

Michael Barrett

 

I am sure there are more, and sure, there are some players who sucked during there career in Chicago or even SF. However, to say that it doesn't matter who we get as long as we have Dusty to manage...is simply wrong!

Bonds: no worse after dusty left

Kent: better under dusty (peak years)

Russ ortiz: about the same his first year out of SF as in SF. Has had a negative career trend since 2001.

Aurilia: a whole bunch of the same sort of years under dusty and other managers, then that one monster year (2001)

Prior: getting worse under dusty

Zambrano: irrelevant, only manager he's ever had (excluding his rookie season)

Barret: positive under dusty. Also been healthy and entering peak years.

borowski: went way downhill under dusty, was better before he got here. No career year here. Was getting old when dusty arrived.

Alou: best seasons away from dusty, nothing close to a career year for him under dusty.

Lee: Big year, better than anyone expected. that's a career year for you.

Aram: Had his best seasons in chicago, but hardly unexpected given his age.

Dempster: new position, no real applicable trend line here.

So the actual positives we have here: Lee, barret, Aram, aurilia, kent. I'm going to toss out aurilia's season because (assuming his 2001 was all dusty's doing) what use is a manager who can make you play out of your mind 1 year in 10?

This looks like random chance to me.

Not that this is evidence that dusty makes players suck.

[CubfaninCA]

We will still have Dusty. He has shown no ability to get the best out of his players, he has shown no desire to play younger, possibility better in the long run players. We still see older, going over the hill players being played way too much, don't know if it is loyalty toward older players or Dusty being afraid of being critisized if they fail.

 

Hyperbole!!! :o

 

How did Dusty win all those games w/ SF??

 

As AAA said, Hendry needs to Dusty proof the team which means not relying on Nomar and Patterson again, and letting Neifi walk.

[Careless]

We will still have Dusty. He has shown no ability to get the best out of his players, he has shown no desire to play younger, possibility better in the long run players. We still see older, going over the hill players being played way too much, don't know if it is loyalty toward older players or Dusty being afraid of being critisized if they fail.

 

Hyperbole!!! :o

 

How did Dusty win all those games w/ SF??

 

As AAA said, Hendry needs to Dusty proof the team which means not relying on Nomar and Patterson again, and letting Neifi walk.

I can't imagine someone who doesn't see the need to fire dusty seeing the need to dusty-proof the team.

Maybe he just doesn't want to eat his contract, but I doubt it.

[CubfaninCA]

We will still have Dusty. He has shown no ability to get the best out of his players, he has shown no desire to play younger, possibility better in the long run players. We still see older, going over the hill players being played way too much, don't know if it is loyalty toward older players or Dusty being afraid of being critisized if they fail.

 

Hyperbole!!! :o

 

How did Dusty win all those games w/ SF??

 

As AAA said, Hendry needs to Dusty proof the team which means not relying on Nomar and Patterson again, and letting Neifi walk.

I can't imagine someone who doesn't see the need to fire dusty seeing the need to dusty-proof the team.

Maybe he just doesn't want to eat his contract, but I doubt it.

 

Hendry traded for Lawton right?? He signed Walker and Nomar w/ the intention of having them @ the top of the order right? The gamble w/ Nomar failed, and I think Hendry will be smart enough to sign or trade for a better SS.

[Careless]

We will still have Dusty. He has shown no ability to get the best out of his players, he has shown no desire to play younger, possibility better in the long run players. We still see older, going over the hill players being played way too much, don't know if it is loyalty toward older players or Dusty being afraid of being critisized if they fail.

 

Hyperbole!!! :o

 

How did Dusty win all those games w/ SF??

 

As AAA said, Hendry needs to Dusty proof the team which means not relying on Nomar and Patterson again, and letting Neifi walk.

I can't imagine someone who doesn't see the need to fire dusty seeing the need to dusty-proof the team.

Maybe he just doesn't want to eat his contract, but I doubt it.

 

Hendry traded for Lawton right?? He signed Walker and Nomar w/ the intention of having them @ the top of the order right? The gamble w/ Nomar failed, and I think Hendry will be smart enough to sign or trade for a better SS.

I fail to see any point here. Lawton=old. Nomar=old. Walker=old

This is not evidence of hendry dusty-proofing the team, in fact, this is evidence hendry going for dusty-style players (aside from the fact that walker will take a ball)

[RynoRules]

Why do I have some small amount of faith left in Dusty? His 2002 Giants did not hit particularly well, nor did the picth particularly well, yet they came within a few outs of winning the Series that year:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SFG/2002.shtml

 

One other note: that's 8-0-0, baby. If only some of the Cubs' OPS were so high.

[larhur]

I understand many players have had career years, but most of thode players were experienced, Dusty has had many young players not progress as well as they should have according to their minor league statws, I know stats are just that but they should be facing players of equal talent potential at every level, so in the bigs they might be overwelmed at first but should be able to play their way through it. with dusty players had to produce right away or an old player was inserted. But even so they game is played by individuals as a team and dusty doesn't seem to teach the team comcept. Very little advancing the runner, how many times have we left a runner at third with NO outs. TEAM, The teams playing for the series use things like hit and run and squeeze bunts etc.

[scs_paradise]

Cubs can win with Dusty, but Hendry needs to make the team Dusty-proof.

 

I've heard a sentiment touched on here but not reinforced to my knowledge. If we want Dusty to be a good manager we have to give him a team that he can win with, perhaps that's what you mean by dusty proof. There are several managers that I can imagine could have won with our previous years teams dusty just isn't one of them.

 

I would contend that typically a manager is not a good all around manager, exeption perhaps is Bobby Cox. Some managers need a team of youngsters to excel, but if you put them on a team of veterans they fall apart. Vise Versa, you have managers like Dusty, who perhaps do very well with a veteran team but fail when it comes to rookies and young players.

 

This failure is not the failure of Dusty the manager (although he does have many failures of his own doing) its a failure of Hendry/MacPhail for either hiring the wrong manager for the future of this team or for not realizing the team they need to put together for dusty to be successful.

 

Dusty can not win with this team. Dusty is a manager that needs a team of solid veterans and maybe one superstar. When you look at the successes Dusty has had I think it supports this argument. The Giants solid vets and Bonds, the Cubs '03 bunch of vets and Sosa. '04 - '05 cubs young guys with emerging stars...

[AAApittsburgh]

I can't imagine someone who doesn't see the need to fire dusty seeing the need to dusty-proof the team.

Maybe he just doesn't want to eat his contract, but I doubt it.

I definitely want the guy gone, but I can't see it happening. If what he's done already isn't enough to get him fired, I don't think it's going to happen. However, I don't think the season is over before it even begins just because he's still the manager. You just need a good team. Good teams make bad managers look good all the time. Phil Garner is a doofus and his team is in the WS.

[CheeseHead Cubs Fan]

We will still have Dusty. He has shown no ability to get the best out of his players, he has shown no desire to play younger, possibility better in the long run players. We still see older, going over the hill players being played way too much, don't know if it is loyalty toward older players or Dusty being afraid of being critisized if they fail.

 

Granted, Dusty is not a perfect manager and quite possibly may not be the "right" guy for Chicago. However, that is a pretty bold statment. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few guys (under Bakers Managment) who have had career years...

 

Barry Bonds - Giants

Jeff Kent - Giants

Russ Ortiz - Giants

Rich Aurlia - Giants

 

DLee

ARam

Mark Prior

Joe Bo

Moises Alou

Glendon Rusch

Carlos Zambrano

Ryan Dempster (30+saves)

Michael Barrett

 

I am sure there are more, and sure, there are some players who sucked during there career in Chicago or even SF. However, to say that it doesn't matter who we get as long as we have Dusty to manage...is simply wrong!

Bonds: no worse after dusty left

Kent: better under dusty (peak years)

Russ ortiz: about the same his first year out of SF as in SF. Has had a negative career trend since 2001.

Aurilia: a whole bunch of the same sort of years under dusty and other managers, then that one monster year (2001)

Prior: getting worse under dusty

Zambrano: irrelevant, only manager he's ever had (excluding his rookie season)

Barret: positive under dusty. Also been healthy and entering peak years.

borowski: went way downhill under dusty, was better before he got here. No career year here. Was getting old when dusty arrived.

Alou: best seasons away from dusty, nothing close to a career year for him under dusty.

Lee: Big year, better than anyone expected. that's a career year for you.

Aram: Had his best seasons in chicago, but hardly unexpected given his age.

Dempster: new position, no real applicable trend line here.

So the actual positives we have here: Lee, barret, Aram, aurilia, kent. I'm going to toss out aurilia's season because (assuming his 2001 was all dusty's doing) what use is a manager who can make you play out of your mind 1 year in 10?

This looks like random chance to me.

Not that this is evidence that dusty makes players suck.

 

Ha, that is classic. I understand the frustration with Dusty... but man, give the guy some credit.