Bench Coach

what part of Do you not understand? I have looked at the provided links, ALL I'm SAYING IS THAT SOMEONE's OPINOIN IS NOT MORE VALUABLE THAN MINE JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE POSTED MORE THAN ME. This not a fraternity or a military orginization last time I checked. Just becasue you put in more time on a message board doesn't mean you have the right to try to shout me down. I asked for some people to list reasons why they dislike Dusty, people provided links, then other people proceeded to treat me like an idiot because I didn't read every post EVER made on why people dislike Dusty. Just because I don't know your opinoin doesn't mean I don't know anything. I am only replying to being treated like an idiot by jerks. Your opinoin is not the Alpha and Omega, and I hope someday you realise that. You telling me to take the time to sort through ALL of the sites history just to find out what EVERYONE'S opinoin of Dusty is not only incredibly ridiculous but also hippocritical considering you don't take far less time to answer me directly, and then insult me. I came into this message board because it had a reputation as a good place to go for real baseball discussions. I did not, however, count on being treated like a Plebe by the more senior posters just because it took me longer to discover this site.

Once again, I don't have time to go back and read 800,000 posts to know what everyone's opinoin on Dusty is. And, quite frankly, since none of you are experts, to suggest that your opinoins are so important that I have to go back and look, an that your time is so precious that you don't have the time to put down a specific reason as to why you dislike Dusty but that I should take the time to go back and read all of your posts is hippocritical. Once again, get overyourselves.

By telling me to go back and read your posts your implying tat I'm not worthy to post on this subject unless I read all of your posts, which also implies that your opinoin is more valid than mine. This quote serves to imply this as well. In case you haven't noticed this is a site for amatuers. Just because some of the poster I'm arguing with have 1000 + posts doesn't meant they know jack about baseball or the Cubs or anything else, and just because I don't have very many posts doesn't mean I know jack about baseball or the Cubs. I'm not I know more than you do, I'm just saying that my opinoin is not worth less than yours just because you've bee on this site longer than me. And, apparently it is too much to ask for you to list the reasons you don'y like Dusty. Taking two minutes to type up a few reasons would take far less time than to find every post ever made as to why you and everyone else doesn't like Dusty.

Its so hard to tell when they're having a new episode or a rerun. Good show though.

Thankyou Illini Iceman. This post pretty much sums up a lot of the things I've been trying to say. Now, I am not a huge Dusty fan, I just think that blaming him for EVERTHING wrong with the teram is incredibly reactionary. The fact is Dusty is a winner, a fact which cannot be denied by even the most ardent Dusty hataz. Thankyou, was that so hard? And, no, I don't have time to go back and read all of the 800,000 posts from every Dusty hater on this site over the past year or so so I can be deemed wothy by you to comment on this subject. None of you are an expert on this, and neither am I. If you disagree with me then tell me why, don't try to shout me down by telling me how right you are because you've been on this site longer than me, because you won't succeed. Get over yourselves. Now, I think this has gotten out of hand. We're all a few posts away from personal attacks and name calling, and I don't want to see that happen. I've made my point, and you've made yours. Lets let it go, shall we.

I think he needs a day off. He's not slumping that badly, but lets give him a day off before he does start slumping badly.

See above. If you didn't like it I guess you should have picked "other" then wrote in what your "other" was. You know, why I put the "other" option there. I thought the "other" option as a write in was farily self explanitory, but noone seems to be able to figure it out.

And, if you had enough time to type that I guess you had enough time to put up one reason why you dislike Dusty.

24 isn't that good (in my opinoin), the Sheild is ok. I meant television shows, so Cub games don't count. I did forget about Arrested Development. I don't like Veronica Mars. I can't spell.

By the way, I put this here because it's not a baseball pole. Hope thats OK.

I was curious what the site thought.

First, laying it on the rookies has been working out pretty well for Bobby Cox and the Braves, hasn't it? Second, how are the rookies supposed to "step up and do the job" if they don't consistently get to play because somebody has to play the "proven veterans"? Thats Bobby Cox and the Braves, not the Cubs and Dusty Baker. The Brave's farm system for some reason is very good at preparing young players for the majors. And, yes, a balance does need to be struck between playing rookies and veterans, so the rookies can get playing time to prove themselvs. All I'm saying is not to through them in there without experience. Its a recipie for disaster for them and the team. Settle down, my man. I encourage you to take the time to read the other posts carefully. Most of the longtime posters here have already given lots of facts to support their arguments so that we when they restate their position on a subject we already know where they are coming from. You are certainly free to state your own opinions here but be careful about attacking long-time members here when you have not taken the time to do your homework about them. I think when you browse this forum you will realize that very few are anointing rookies as saviors or handing them everyday jobs to do with as they please. To be specific, people here are not suggesting Murton be the everyday LF, we just want him to play because he is the hot hand right now and would probably be able to contribute more towards the Cubs winning. In the end that is what Cub fans want the most. Maximize the Cubs' chance of WINNING. You need to calm down. I'm not angry, or anything, I'm just explaining my point. If said long time posters disagree then they can take the time to explain why. I don't have endless ammounts of time to read every post in NSBB history to determine what everbody's feeling is on a specific issue. Once again I'm not angry, I don't know why you think I am. But don't expect me to go back and research every poster's position on every subject over that poster's last 1000 or so posts, just so I can be deemed worthy to comment. I don't have the time. If you think I'm wrong, TELL ME WHY! Don't tell me to respect my "elders".

"WE WANT A PITCHER NOT A BELLY ITCHER" Classic.

First, laying it on the rookies has been working out pretty well for Bobby Cox and the Braves, hasn't it? Second, how are the rookies supposed to "step up and do the job" if they don't consistently get to play because somebody has to play the "proven veterans"? Thats Bobby Cox and the Braves, not the Cubs and Dusty Baker. The Brave's farm system for some reason is very good at preparing young players for the majors. And, yes, a balance does need to be struck between playing rookies and veterans, so the rookies can get playing time to prove themselvs. All I'm saying is not to through them in there without experience. Its a recipie for disaster for them and the team.

forum??? we should just make it mandatory that left feild screams "Dusty Rocks!" right field could reply w/ "Dusty Sox!!" goo ole fashioned Wrigley traditions!!! :clown: What about the center field bleachers?

Murton has played in only a few games, I'm not sure how many. He's doing great. That being said, I'm not ready to declare him the starting left fielder. As far as Cedeno over Perez I would like to see Cedeno get more starts, but I understand Dusty's point. Neifi is a prove4n player, Cedeno is not. YOu just don't junk a proven player over an unproven talent. Neifi is a bench player through and through, but we're not sure what Cedeno is yet. Anyway, I want Nomar back. And, I watch pretty much every game in my capacity as a lazy college student. Just because a few rookies came up and got a few hits doesn't mean I'm ready to declare them the answer to all the Cub's problems. Once again, I like Murton and Cedeno a lot. But, experience counts more in my book than RAW, UNTRIED talent. If Murton proves himself a little more (and he's well on his way to doing that, at least in my eyes) great! Cedeno could be the man to, I don't know yet. But, just because Neifi isn't batting .350 anymore doesn't mean I'm ready to junk him. This isn't an attack on you by any means, but are you saying that you think experience is more important even if that experience isn't good. So by what you are saying it would make more sense for Dusty to call C-Pat up and play him everyday instead of Murton. I mean I know C-Pat was doing terrible, but in the same token Hollandsworth has done just as bad if not worse. Yes Corey struck out WAY more times, but he had more hits, runs, stolen bases, and home runs. Basically what I am saying is that two thirds of our starting outfield was pathetic this season so the experience doesn't mean anything. If a rookie has more to offer than a player who hasn't played well thus far, the rookie should play. A lot of people are saying that Murton doesn't have the power to be a starting corner outfielder. Last I checked Todd Hollandsworth has absolutely no power. His slugging is under .400 and ops is under .700. So the one knock on Murton doesn't have any substantial weight because the player he would be playing for has the same knock on him. It boils down to Dusty Baker being stubborn. In spring training, Hendry was quoted as saying he wanted Ryan Dempster to close, but Dusty said he was going with his boy Hawk cause he has the stuff. When his boy continued to be terrible in the closers role, he kept throwing him out there. Think where we would be right now if Dempster had been closing the whole time like Hendry had suggested. We could easily be 3 or 4 games better than now which would put us in the lead or a tie for the WC. I don't have a problem with Dusty wanting to play vets when the vets are good, but I do have a prolem with him being so stubborn that he refuses to admit the vet is struggling and there are better options. Murton should be the starting left fielder til he shows that he is as bad or worse than Hollandsworth. You don't make the playoffs by playing experienced players over players that are better. At this point in time right now Murton is better. I'm not saying he is going to be great which I hope he is going to be, but I am saying that he is better right now than Hollandsworth for tomorrow's game. I want to make the playoffs, not have experienced bad players get playing time because they have been there before. You definitely have a point. No, you don't understand. I'm just saying that one shouldn't put all their faith in the hands of several untried players. Laying that much pressure on rookies is probably not a good idea. Now, if they step up and do the job, great. I just don't want to load the pressure of a stretch run on the backs of rookies, then if we don't make it, sacrafce them in some sort of scapegoating manauver. Experience over raw talent is a personal opinoin of mine, one which I'm not trying to force on anyone. It does not always apply, though I personally believe it applies more than not. I don't feel like I'm under attack. I, however, made a comment to a post in another thread which called out that poster to show facts as to why he dislikes Dusty. I was impatient at the seemingly endless factless ripping on Dusty. However, several people have pointed out that the reasons people dislike Dusty have been discussed over and over. I don't have the time to go back and read 200 to 300 threads from the past, and was under the impression that people wren't backing their opinoin up with facts. I apologise.

According to the article, no. Sorry, I posted that before I read the article.

Ok, I'll check those threads. I agree with some of your points. I was just under the impression people were lashing out at Dusty wildly. Thanks.

Is Texas one of the teams he has a right to refuse a trade to?

I said he was good. When did I call him Pujols? When did anyone call him Pujols? At some point he has to get playing time. Why can't that time be now since we have no better alternative? Because we're 2.5 games out of the Wild Card. Now is not the time to experiment. Now, if he keeps hitting like he is, I'm all for it. Just don't get to high on this kid too fast. We did that with one outfielder one time. I think his name is Corey Paterson. I know nobody called him Pujols, I was parraphrasing. I was paraphrasing everybody's love affair with Murton. Murton has played in only a few games, I'm not sure how many. He's doing great. That being said, I'm not ready to declare him the starting left fielder. As far as Cedeno over Perez I would like to see Cedeno get more starts, but I understand Dusty's point. Neifi is a prove4n player, Cedeno is not. YOu just don't junk a proven player over an unproven talent. Neifi is a bench player through and through, but we're not sure what Cedeno is yet. Anyway, I want Nomar back. And, I watch pretty much every game in my capacity as a lazy college student. Just because a few rookies came up and got a few hits doesn't mean I'm ready to declare them the answer to all the Cub's problems. Once again, I like Murton and Cedeno a lot. But, experience counts more in my book than RAW, UNTRIED talent. If Murton proves himself a little more (and he's well on his way to doing that, at least in my eyes) great! Cedeno could be the man to, I don't know yet. But, just because Neifi isn't batting .350 anymore doesn't mean I'm ready to junk him.

I can't open these links. And now somebody locked the topic. I don't know why, I just hope wasn't over some immature thing. I think the thread was locked because it was redundant with several other threads still going. To view those threads, remove the Premium in the "PremiumForum" portion of the URL. Thanks I will. Understand Guys, I'm not Dusty's biggest fan. I just think that if someone is going to rip on him then they should prove their point with facts. Just insulting him is classless.

I can't open these links. And now somebody locked the topic. I don't know why, I just hope wasn't over some immature thing.

I said he was good. When did I call him Pujols? When did anyone call him Pujols? At some point he has to get playing time. Why can't that time be now since we have no better alternative? Because we're 2.5 games out of the Wild Card. Now is not the time to experiment. Now, if he keeps hitting like he is, I'm all for it. Just don't get to high on this kid too fast. We did that with one outfielder one time. I think his name is Corey Paterson. I know nobody called him Pujols, I was parraphrasing.

Murton has palyed in a whole (maybe) 15 games. I think this kid is special, but he needs more at-bats. Hollandsworth is a bech player, and should be so. Unfourtanately Dusty's only alternative is a rookie. Like I said I like Murton, but it's a little too early to call him the next Pujols.

Everyone on this site takes every oppertunity to rip on Dusty for anything and everything. From the lack of a solid bullpen, the lack of a solid left fielder, and the sometimes lack of a solid leadoff hitter it's all his fault. People also call him out for not playing Cedeno. Keep in mind Cedeno is a ROOKIE. I like him, but he's probably not ready to be a major league starter. I'll take the experience of Neifi Perez over the RAW UNTRIED talent of Cedeno 9/10 times. That being said, I want someone to bring me actual NUMBERS, proving he's a bad manager. I personally haven't found anything that bad. I don't mean the same old crap where you blame Dusty for everything from the assanation of JFK to the hole in the ozone layer. I want FACTS and NUMBERS (And I already know about Game 6 of the '03 NLCS, I was watching, and I threw up afterwards).