Rusch signed through '07 (Cubs.com)

[CubinNY]

Let's face it, last offseason looked promising on paper.

 

How can you possibly say that? The cubs replaced Sosa and Alou with Burnitz and Hollandsworth. They did nothing to upgrade the bullpen and Maddux was a year older. They did nothing to upgrade the bench. Hendry had a terrible offseason.

 

It looked promising for fourth place to me.

[RynoRules]

I don't mind having Rusch around as the staff Mulholland. I do mind that his presence virtually assures a poor opportunity for any of the Cubs' young pitchers to break through. And I also mind that he got both a raise and an extra year in this process.

 

What he said.

[JC]

LOL. Sure, just like at the end of the 2005 offseason, the Hendry loyalists asserted that you can't make a judgment about him until the season played out. But, now, apparently no judgments can be made until 2006. Hell, if Hendry plays his cards right with an extension, he may be immune from judgment until the Tehran Tigers are welcomed into the league in the 2054 expansion.

 

Ok so who should he have signed? Beltan? Lowe? Pavano?

 

Let's face it, last offseason looked promising on paper, but most of them have been busts. And expensive busts at that. I'm d#$@ grateful we didn't get tied down to someone who can't hold their weight now.

 

EDIT: I'm sure glad we got rid of Sosa somehow though. He would have been a nightmare in RF this year.

 

I thought Pavano would be a FA bust and never had any interest in Lowe. I thought the Cubs should have directed their attention to Drew and Beltran. I'm not going to go through my entire arguments for these two, but Hendry's failure to even express interest in these two in light of 1) the Cubs' 2005 OF woes, 2) the anorexic 2006 FA class, and 3) the lack of potent OF in the Cub system to contribute immediately, was pathetic.

 

Nobody wants to be weighed down by big contracts. But, sometimes overpayment is necessary if you put yourself in such a position. It was the Cubs own fault that the were in a position forcing overpayment. They chose not to, and our 2005 OF was insufferable, and the brightest spot in the 2006 OF is Matt Murton.

 

The point is, Hendry didn't properly evaluate the state of his OF in 2005, and it will continue to cost us in 2006.

 

Lastly, even if Sosa wasn't dealt last year, there is no way his option would have been picked up this year, so your nightmare never really was an issue.

[CubfaninCA]

LOL. Sure, just like at the end of the 2005 offseason, the Hendry loyalists asserted that you can't make a judgment about him until the season played out. But, now, apparently no judgments can be made until 2006. Hell, if Hendry plays his cards right with an extension, he may be immune from judgment until the Tehran Tigers are welcomed into the league in the 2054 expansion.

 

Ok so who should he have signed? Beltan? Lowe? Pavano?

 

Let's face it, last offseason looked promising on paper, but most of them have been busts. And expensive busts at that. I'm d#$@ grateful we didn't get tied down to someone who can't hold their weight now.

 

EDIT: I'm sure glad we got rid of Sosa somehow though. He would have been a nightmare in RF this year.

 

Let Walker walk and sign Kent... Let Nomar walk and sign Eckstein. Deal off Sosa and sign Dye instead of Burnitz and the Cubs offence would have been quite good. Howevah, I'm sure most were thrilled w/ bringing back Walker and Nomar last offseason. Yet they want to nitpick once things don't pan and disregard that their boys (Walker & Nomar) were the big reasons for failure. It's funny that they want to bring both back too!

[YearofDaCubs]

LOL. Sure, just like at the end of the 2005 offseason, the Hendry loyalists asserted that you can't make a judgment about him until the season played out. But, now, apparently no judgments can be made until 2006. Hell, if Hendry plays his cards right with an extension, he may be immune from judgment until the Tehran Tigers are welcomed into the league in the 2054 expansion.

 

Ok so who should he have signed? Beltan? Lowe? Pavano?

 

Let's face it, last offseason looked promising on paper, but most of them have been busts. And expensive busts at that. I'm d#$@ grateful we didn't get tied down to someone who can't hold their weight now.

 

EDIT: I'm sure glad we got rid of Sosa somehow though. He would have been a nightmare in RF this year.

 

Let Walker walk and sign Kent... Let Nomar walk and sign Eckstein. Deal off Sosa and sign Dye instead of Burnitz and the Cubs offence would have been quite good. Howevah, I'm sure most were thrilled w/ bringing back Walker and Nomar last offseason. Yet they want to nitpick once things don't pan and disregard that their boys (Walker & Nomar) were the big reasons for failure. It's funny that they want to bring both back too!

Having the worst OF was probably a bigger reason. Also having a manager who doesnt play the best players nor can put a consistent lineup together didnt help anything.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

LOL. Sure, just like at the end of the 2005 offseason, the Hendry loyalists asserted that you can't make a judgment about him until the season played out. But, now, apparently no judgments can be made until 2006. Hell, if Hendry plays his cards right with an extension, he may be immune from judgment until the Tehran Tigers are welcomed into the league in the 2054 expansion.

 

Ok so who should he have signed? Beltan? Lowe? Pavano?

 

Let's face it, last offseason looked promising on paper, but most of them have been busts. And expensive busts at that. I'm d#$@ grateful we didn't get tied down to someone who can't hold their weight now.

 

EDIT: I'm sure glad we got rid of Sosa somehow though. He would have been a nightmare in RF this year.

 

Let Walker walk and sign Kent... Let Nomar walk and sign Eckstein. Deal off Sosa and sign Dye instead of Burnitz and the Cubs offence would have been quite good. Howevah, I'm sure most were thrilled w/ bringing back Walker and Nomar last offseason. Yet they want to nitpick once things don't pan and disregard that their boys (Walker & Nomar) were the big reasons for failure. It's funny that they want to bring both back too!

 

Walker wasn't a big reason for our failure in 2005. Nomar maybe, but the OF doomed us. not having offensive production from SS is a staple on most MLB teams. the freak show that was our OF was a disgrace.

[CubfaninCA]

LOL. Sure, just like at the end of the 2005 offseason, the Hendry loyalists asserted that you can't make a judgment about him until the season played out. But, now, apparently no judgments can be made until 2006. Hell, if Hendry plays his cards right with an extension, he may be immune from judgment until the Tehran Tigers are welcomed into the league in the 2054 expansion.

 

Ok so who should he have signed? Beltan? Lowe? Pavano?

 

Let's face it, last offseason looked promising on paper, but most of them have been busts. And expensive busts at that. I'm d#$@ grateful we didn't get tied down to someone who can't hold their weight now.

 

EDIT: I'm sure glad we got rid of Sosa somehow though. He would have been a nightmare in RF this year.

 

Let Walker walk and sign Kent... Let Nomar walk and sign Eckstein. Deal off Sosa and sign Dye instead of Burnitz and the Cubs offence would have been quite good. Howevah, I'm sure most were thrilled w/ bringing back Walker and Nomar last offseason. Yet they want to nitpick once things don't pan and disregard that their boys (Walker & Nomar) were the big reasons for failure. It's funny that they want to bring both back too!

Having the worst OF was probably a bigger reason. Also having a manager who doesnt play the best players nor can put a consistent lineup together didnt help anything.

 

So Hendry was supposed to deal off Patterson and not give DuBois a shot?? I recall that many were content w/ giving DuBois a shot in LF, as part of a platoon. Unfortunately, DuBois & Holla flopped big time. Also, there weren't many options for RF. There was Drew, who they didn't have the money for and who only played 72 games. There was Sosa, who some on this board wanted back. There was Burnitz, who had a better season than Sosa. There was Dye, who was coming off a .793 ops season w/ Oakland. Contrary to nitpicking history, the pickings for RF were slim.

[YearofDaCubs]

LOL. Sure, just like at the end of the 2005 offseason, the Hendry loyalists asserted that you can't make a judgment about him until the season played out. But, now, apparently no judgments can be made until 2006. Hell, if Hendry plays his cards right with an extension, he may be immune from judgment until the Tehran Tigers are welcomed into the league in the 2054 expansion.

 

Ok so who should he have signed? Beltan? Lowe? Pavano?

 

Let's face it, last offseason looked promising on paper, but most of them have been busts. And expensive busts at that. I'm d#$@ grateful we didn't get tied down to someone who can't hold their weight now.

 

EDIT: I'm sure glad we got rid of Sosa somehow though. He would have been a nightmare in RF this year.

 

Let Walker walk and sign Kent... Let Nomar walk and sign Eckstein. Deal off Sosa and sign Dye instead of Burnitz and the Cubs offence would have been quite good. Howevah, I'm sure most were thrilled w/ bringing back Walker and Nomar last offseason. Yet they want to nitpick once things don't pan and disregard that their boys (Walker & Nomar) were the big reasons for failure. It's funny that they want to bring both back too!

Having the worst OF was probably a bigger reason. Also having a manager who doesnt play the best players nor can put a consistent lineup together didnt help anything.

 

So Hendry was supposed to deal off Patterson and not give DuBois a shot?? I recall that many were content w/ giving DuBois a shot in LF, as part of a platoon. Unfortunately, DuBois & Holla flopped big time. Also, there weren't many options for RF. There was Drew, who they didn't have the money for and who only played 72 games. There was Sosa, who some on this board wanted back. There was Burnitz, who had a better season than Sosa. There was Dye, who was coming off a .793 ops season w/ Oakland. Contrary to nitpicking history, the pickings for RF were slim.

Yeah, well that thinking is exactly we we had th worst OF. We let Alou walk. If Hendry was so set on moving Sosa and Alou he should of had a better game plan, but like I have stated before I dont think Hendry has/had much of a game plan.

[VVMattVV]

LOL. Sure, just like at the end of the 2005 offseason, the Hendry loyalists asserted that you can't make a judgment about him until the season played out. But, now, apparently no judgments can be made until 2006. Hell, if Hendry plays his cards right with an extension, he may be immune from judgment until the Tehran Tigers are welcomed into the league in the 2054 expansion.

 

Ok so who should he have signed? Beltan? Lowe? Pavano?

 

Let's face it, last offseason looked promising on paper, but most of them have been busts. And expensive busts at that. I'm d#$@ grateful we didn't get tied down to someone who can't hold their weight now.

 

EDIT: I'm sure glad we got rid of Sosa somehow though. He would have been a nightmare in RF this year.

 

Let Walker walk and sign Kent... Let Nomar walk and sign Eckstein. Deal off Sosa and sign Dye instead of Burnitz and the Cubs offence would have been quite good. Howevah, I'm sure most were thrilled w/ bringing back Walker and Nomar last offseason. Yet they want to nitpick once things don't pan and disregard that their boys (Walker & Nomar) were the big reasons for failure. It's funny that they want to bring both back too!

Having the worst OF was probably a bigger reason. Also having a manager who doesnt play the best players nor can put a consistent lineup together didnt help anything.

 

So Hendry was supposed to deal off Patterson and not give DuBois a shot?? I recall that many were content w/ giving DuBois a shot in LF, as part of a platoon. Unfortunately, DuBois & Holla flopped big time. Also, there weren't many options for RF. There was Drew, who they didn't have the money for and who only played 72 games. There was Sosa, who some on this board wanted back. There was Burnitz, who had a better season than Sosa. There was Dye, who was coming off a .793 ops season w/ Oakland. Contrary to nitpicking history, the pickings for RF were slim.

 

Not really, they wanted Dubois as the full-time LF. I don't remember anyone clamoring for a platoon.

[YearofDaCubs]

LOL. Sure, just like at the end of the 2005 offseason, the Hendry loyalists asserted that you can't make a judgment about him until the season played out. But, now, apparently no judgments can be made until 2006. Hell, if Hendry plays his cards right with an extension, he may be immune from judgment until the Tehran Tigers are welcomed into the league in the 2054 expansion.

 

Ok so who should he have signed? Beltan? Lowe? Pavano?

 

Let's face it, last offseason looked promising on paper, but most of them have been busts. And expensive busts at that. I'm d#$@ grateful we didn't get tied down to someone who can't hold their weight now.

 

EDIT: I'm sure glad we got rid of Sosa somehow though. He would have been a nightmare in RF this year.

 

Let Walker walk and sign Kent... Let Nomar walk and sign Eckstein. Deal off Sosa and sign Dye instead of Burnitz and the Cubs offence would have been quite good. Howevah, I'm sure most were thrilled w/ bringing back Walker and Nomar last offseason. Yet they want to nitpick once things don't pan and disregard that their boys (Walker & Nomar) were the big reasons for failure. It's funny that they want to bring both back too!

Having the worst OF was probably a bigger reason. Also having a manager who doesnt play the best players nor can put a consistent lineup together didnt help anything.

 

So Hendry was supposed to deal off Patterson and not give DuBois a shot?? I recall that many were content w/ giving DuBois a shot in LF, as part of a platoon. Unfortunately, DuBois & Holla flopped big time. Also, there weren't many options for RF. There was Drew, who they didn't have the money for and who only played 72 games. There was Sosa, who some on this board wanted back. There was Burnitz, who had a better season than Sosa. There was Dye, who was coming off a .793 ops season w/ Oakland. Contrary to nitpicking history, the pickings for RF were slim.

 

Not really, they wanted Dubois as the full-time LF. I don't remember anyone clamoring for a platoon.

No talk of platoon. Hendry was mentioned as saying he wanted Dubois there. Dubois also outplayed Holla in ST yet Holla got the start. Hmm, I wonder why that is. Baker the man with a brain the size of a raisin.

[CubfaninCA]

LOL. Sure, just like at the end of the 2005 offseason, the Hendry loyalists asserted that you can't make a judgment about him until the season played out. But, now, apparently no judgments can be made until 2006. Hell, if Hendry plays his cards right with an extension, he may be immune from judgment until the Tehran Tigers are welcomed into the league in the 2054 expansion.

 

Ok so who should he have signed? Beltan? Lowe? Pavano?

 

Let's face it, last offseason looked promising on paper, but most of them have been busts. And expensive busts at that. I'm d#$@ grateful we didn't get tied down to someone who can't hold their weight now.

 

EDIT: I'm sure glad we got rid of Sosa somehow though. He would have been a nightmare in RF this year.

 

Let Walker walk and sign Kent... Let Nomar walk and sign Eckstein. Deal off Sosa and sign Dye instead of Burnitz and the Cubs offence would have been quite good. Howevah, I'm sure most were thrilled w/ bringing back Walker and Nomar last offseason. Yet they want to nitpick once things don't pan and disregard that their boys (Walker & Nomar) were the big reasons for failure. It's funny that they want to bring both back too!

Having the worst OF was probably a bigger reason. Also having a manager who doesnt play the best players nor can put a consistent lineup together didnt help anything.

 

So Hendry was supposed to deal off Patterson and not give DuBois a shot?? I recall that many were content w/ giving DuBois a shot in LF, as part of a platoon. Unfortunately, DuBois & Holla flopped big time. Also, there weren't many options for RF. There was Drew, who they didn't have the money for and who only played 72 games. There was Sosa, who some on this board wanted back. There was Burnitz, who had a better season than Sosa. There was Dye, who was coming off a .793 ops season w/ Oakland. Contrary to nitpicking history, the pickings for RF were slim.

Yeah, well that thinking is exactly we we had th worst OF. We let Alou walk. If Hendry was so set on moving Sosa and Alou he should of had a better game plan, but like I have stated before I dont think Hendry has/had much of a game plan.

 

So giving DuBois a shot, and not spending money on Alou wasn't a plan?? Many would have disagreed w/ you back in March of 2005.

[UK1679666180]

So giving DuBois a shot, and not spending money on Alou wasn't a plan?? Many would have disagreed w/ you back in March of 2005.

 

You mean Hollandsworth, look at the game logs from early on, it was a one sided platoon.

 

It was a stupid idea to have a 4th OF'er as a starting LF'er.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

our 2005 starting day OF was a joke. anyone who thought differently was entirely too optimistic. cpat might have been expected to have a good season, but LF and RF were a shambles. Edited October 30, 2005 by Meat&PotatoesMan

[CubfaninCA]

So giving DuBois a shot, and not spending money on Alou wasn't a plan?? Many would have disagreed w/ you back in March of 2005.

 

You mean Hollandsworth, look at the game logs from early on, it was a one sided platoon.

 

It was a stupid idea to have a 4th OF'er as a starting LF'er.

 

It's not like he didn't play. DuBois got 142 at-bats. They tried working him in there and he didn't produce after April.

 

People want to complain about prospects getting no shot. Yet when the prospects get a shot and fail they like to wash their hands and blame it on Dusty and Hendry.

 

If there's blame, it's on Hendry's poor assessment of DuBois. Of course, many had the same poor assessment.

[CubfaninCA]

our 2005 starting OF was a joke. anyone who thought differently was entirely too optimistic. cpat might have been expected to have a good season, but LF and RF were a shambles.

 

Iirc the general consensus was that the OF was a little weak, but the infield was quite strong. Lots depended on Nomar and Patterson. Unfortunately, both failed big time.

[frostwyrm]

our 2005 starting OF was a joke. anyone who thought differently was entirely too optimistic. cpat might have been expected to have a good season, but LF and RF were a shambles.

 

Iirc the general consensus was that the OF was a little weak, but the infield was quite strong. Lots depended on Nomar and Patterson. Unfortunately, both failed big time.

 

No. Use the search button and you'll find lots of complaining about the outfield in the spring. I myself thought it totally sucked. The LF platoon was almost universally condemned. Whenever you have a straight L/R platoon the left-handed hitter is essentially the starter, and nobody but ZZthorn thought Hollandsworth was a legit everyday LF. Backing up glass-bodied Nomar with Neifi was also widely condemned, and many pointed out that Neifi would bat at the top of the order.

[JC]

So giving DuBois a shot, and not spending money on Alou wasn't a plan?? Many would have disagreed w/ you back in March of 2005.

 

You mean Hollandsworth, look at the game logs from early on, it was a one sided platoon.

 

It was a stupid idea to have a 4th OF'er as a starting LF'er.

 

It's not like he didn't play. DuBois got 142 at-bats. They tried working him in there and he didn't produce after April.

 

People want to complain about prospects getting no shot. Yet when the prospects get a shot and fail they like to wash their hands and blame it on Dusty and Hendry.

 

If there's blame, it's on Hendry's poor assessment of DuBois. Of course, many had the same poor assessment.

 

Jesus Christ. Can you make a single point without incorporating some levle of poster bashing?

 

Yes, you're correct, there are those who may have overvalued Dubois. Then again, there are legitimate arguments that Dubois was not handled properly. Not to mention myriad other aspects/issues/components of the Dubois situation. But, you like to skew issues into black and white arguments in support of your often weak positions.

 

Every freaking post doesn't need to have a shot at other posters, either specifically or generally.

[CUBZ99]

So giving DuBois a shot, and not spending money on Alou wasn't a plan?? Many would have disagreed w/ you back in March of 2005.

 

You mean Hollandsworth, look at the game logs from early on, it was a one sided platoon.

 

It was a stupid idea to have a 4th OF'er as a starting LF'er.

 

It's not like he didn't play. DuBois got 142 at-bats. They tried working him in there and he didn't produce after April.

 

People want to complain about prospects getting no shot. Yet when the prospects get a shot and fail they like to wash their hands and blame it on Dusty and Hendry.

 

If there's blame, it's on Hendry's poor assessment of DuBois. Of course, many had the same poor assessment.

 

Jesus Christ. Can you make a single point without incorporating some levle of poster bashing?

 

Yes, you're correct, there are those who may have overvalued Dubois. Then again, there are legitimate arguments that Dubois was not handled properly. Not to mention myriad other aspects/issues/components of the Dubois situation. But, you like to skew issues into black and white arguments in support of your often weak positions.

 

Every freaking post doesn't need to have a shot at other posters, either specifically or generally.

 

Do you think you are perhaps being a little overly sensitive? #-o You complain about his statement that many had a poor assesment, and then make a statement like

"But, you like to skew issues into black and white arguments in support of your often weak positions."

 

Pot meet kettle.

Edited October 30, 2005 by CUBZ99

[UK1679666180]

So giving DuBois a shot, and not spending money on Alou wasn't a plan?? Many would have disagreed w/ you back in March of 2005.

 

You mean Hollandsworth, look at the game logs from early on, it was a one sided platoon.

 

It was a stupid idea to have a 4th OF'er as a starting LF'er.

 

It's not like he didn't play. DuBois got 142 at-bats. They tried working him in there and he didn't produce after April.

 

People want to complain about prospects getting no shot. Yet when the prospects get a shot and fail they like to wash their hands and blame it on Dusty and Hendry.

 

If there's blame, it's on Hendry's poor assessment of DuBois. Of course, many had the same poor assessment.

 

He played after his hot April and Hollandsworth's horrible April. Dubois didn't produce and Hollandsworth was terrible as well.

 

Dubois deserved the shot from the beg., they waited for a career 4th OF'er who played much of his career in CF to try and produce like a LF'er and it was obvious it wasn't going to happen.

 

Hendry failed in bringing a LF'er and a RF'er, I wanted Dubois to come off the bench in '05, but when Hollandsworth was the LF'er brought in, I wanted Dubois. B/c Hollandsworth isn't a starting LF'er and never should've been considered.

 

I'm not in MLB, so my opinion might not be valid.

 

Now if you to shift the theme towards how various posters view Baker, go for it. Just remember who Hendry brought in to be the starting LF'er as well as RF and I shouldn't have to say more, b/c it's so obvious how poor it was. Factor in the circumstances on why they settled for Burnitz and it compounds the poor moves to build the '05 OF, the worst in MLB.

[UK1679666180]

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=17410&start=20

 

(From January)

 

Since, I like to prove anything against hindsight arguments.

 

5th post down.

[JC]

So giving DuBois a shot, and not spending money on Alou wasn't a plan?? Many would have disagreed w/ you back in March of 2005.

 

You mean Hollandsworth, look at the game logs from early on, it was a one sided platoon.

 

It was a stupid idea to have a 4th OF'er as a starting LF'er.

 

It's not like he didn't play. DuBois got 142 at-bats. They tried working him in there and he didn't produce after April.

 

People want to complain about prospects getting no shot. Yet when the prospects get a shot and fail they like to wash their hands and blame it on Dusty and Hendry.

 

If there's blame, it's on Hendry's poor assessment of DuBois. Of course, many had the same poor assessment.

 

Jesus Christ. Can you make a single point without incorporating some levle of poster bashing?

 

Yes, you're correct, there are those who may have overvalued Dubois. Then again, there are legitimate arguments that Dubois was not handled properly. Not to mention myriad other aspects/issues/components of the Dubois situation. But, you like to skew issues into black and white arguments in support of your often weak positions.

 

Every freaking post doesn't need to have a shot at other posters, either specifically or generally.

 

Do you think you are perhaps being a little overly sensitive? #-o You complain about his statement that many had a poor assesment, and then make a statement like

"But, you like to skew issues into black and white arguments in support of your often weak positions."

 

Pot meet kettle.

 

Not even remotely germane to what I referenced in my post. So, the over used and unclever "pot meet kettle" remark isn't applicable. Further, oversensitivity is not an issue because many times, my beliefs don't apply to his remarks. However, I fail to see why anyone needs to repeatedly point fingers at other posters. You can make your point without doing so. If you make it part of your common posting habits, it demonstrates that you are more interested in pissing people off than simply supporting your position.

[frostwyrm]

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=17410&start=20

 

(From January)

 

Since, I like to prove anything against hindsight arguments.

 

5th post down.

 

I'm sure I could find more examples of my own bitching, but here is one I just dug up:

 

Weren't we all annoyed by Alou's .819 OPS in LF in 2003? Was is not universally acknowledged to be poor performance for a starting LF? Now we have to settle for sub-.800 OPS from BOTH corner OF positions, which IMO is pretty lame no matter how you spin it. The burden is on the infield to carry the offense, and we have an SS of questionable health and a notoriously slow-starting 1B. This offense feels rickety and fragile to me.

 

viewtopic.php?t=18057&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=hollandsworth+burnitz&start=60

[CubinNY]

It's not like he didn't play. DuBois got 142 at-bats. They tried working him in there and he didn't produce after April.

 

People want to complain about prospects getting no shot. Yet when the prospects get a shot and fail they like to wash their hands and blame it on Dusty and Hendry.

 

If there's blame, it's on Hendry's poor assessment of DuBois. Of course, many had the same poor assessment.

 

You must have been watching a different Cubs team from the one I watched. Dubios never got a shot. Dusty tried to pick spots for Dubios to be successful, like batting him against Wakefield so Hollandsworth wouldn't lose his eye against a tough knuckleballer. Every single time Dubios stepped to the plate he was batting for a job. An o-fer and he was done for a week. I cannot imagine what that must be like for a 26 year old rookie.

 

Dubios was set up for failure from spring training.

[YearofDaCubs]

It's not like he didn't play. DuBois got 142 at-bats. They tried working him in there and he didn't produce after April.

 

People want to complain about prospects getting no shot. Yet when the prospects get a shot and fail they like to wash their hands and blame it on Dusty and Hendry.

 

If there's blame, it's on Hendry's poor assessment of DuBois. Of course, many had the same poor assessment.

 

You must have been watching a different Cubs team from the one I watched. Dubios never got a shot. Dusty tried to pick spots for Dubios to be successful, like batting him against Wakefield so Hollandsworth wouldn't lose his eye against a tough knuckleballer. Every single time Dubios stepped to the plate he was batting for a job. An o-fer and he was done for a week. I cannot imagine what that must be like for a 26 year old rookie.

 

Dubios was set up for failure from spring training.

Hendry and Baker together is not a good combo. Man, now I know why SF wanted Baker out of here even though he took them to the WS.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=17410&start=20

 

(From January)

 

Since, I like to prove anything against hindsight arguments.

 

5th post down.

 

I'm sure I could find more examples of my own bitching, but here is one I just dug up:

 

Weren't we all annoyed by Alou's .819 OPS in LF in 2003? Was is not universally acknowledged to be poor performance for a starting LF? Now we have to settle for sub-.800 OPS from BOTH corner OF positions, which IMO is pretty lame no matter how you spin it. The burden is on the infield to carry the offense, and we have an SS of questionable health and a notoriously slow-starting 1B. This offense feels rickety and fragile to me.

 

viewtopic.php?t=18057&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=hollandsworth+burnitz&start=60

 

Dude, Hendry needs to give you a call. His crystal ball is broken.