goonys evil twin

Cubbette = a former slump buster? Former?

Nice, real nice. I don't think Mark Grace is a good announcer. I think he'd be a bad coach and a terrible personel guys.

This was not done from what I can tell. From the Marlins website, titled "Marlins dismiss Girardi; Gonzalez expected": http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061003&content_id=1696581&vkey=news_fla&fext=.jsp&c_id=fla

I never thought the LA Times names was the complete list. Wasn't there supposed to be 100 names or something?

If true, this speaks about Hendry's willingess/ability to do what is best for the Cubs. He always talks about doing the right thing and making fair deals and treating people right. Theoretically this is to give the Cubs a reputation as a team that is good to deal with. Yet it also can lead to missing the boat on guys. Hendry refuses to even talk about future candidates yesterday, as if he was caught off guard that he'd need a new manager. This is why you fire Baker in June. This is why you don't wait to the last minute. This is why you don't get an obvious lame duck play out the string when you need to move forward. Hendry is more interested in keeping his good guy image intact than he is in making the Cubs winners. I'm guessing Hendry would play this off as he was looking in another direction anyway. But there is absolutely no justification for him treating this situation the way he did. The decision could have and should have been handled much earlier, and the candidates could have and should have been lined up already.

What does knowing the city or the fans mean? How does it help anything? Guillen had very little to do with the White Sox success. It was about getting a bunch of decent pitchers to all have career years at once, and fielding a very powerful lineup. It wasn't Ozzie-ball. His ties to Chicago were superficial as far as how it affected the play of his team. I'm not saying Joe can't get the job done, that he'd be a horrible pick or that I'd be pissed if he was the manager. All I'm saying is his ties to Chicago and the Cubs are completely meaningless when judging whether or not he'd get the job done. The most successful management group since I've followed the team was the Green/Frey/Zimmer grouping, and of that group, only Zim had any sort of ties to Chicago. Durocher is the most successful manager of the modern era, and he had no ties to Chicago. Chicago people are notoriously provincial, which is what gives the town it's character. But it also causes much too much emphasis on putting one of "our guys" in charge of institutions.

OK, goony..... but are we discussing the pro's and con's of Joe Girardi..... or are we discussing "What is people's fascination with Girardi about?" ? Well, the thread is about what people's fascination is, and his ties to the Cubs is part of the answer to that question. I'm just reiterating that it should not play a role. Serena is absolutely right in her breakdown of what people are thinking about Girardi.

None of this means a lick, and should not come into play when discussing the pros and cons. If anything, past ties to the Cubs should be considered a negative for any candidate.

You didn't. A lot of others have, which is what I think he's referring to.

I could see Jim going after Francoeur, thus being able to say he went young.

I wouldn't say only in Chicago. NY has a thing about ragging on productive players who don't fit into their preconceived notion about what a player should be.

how has ramirez's lack of hustle ACTUALLY hurt this team? I don't know, but some radio host during yesterday's press conference was all excited about the idea of letting Ramirez walk away. Morons.

That would have disaster written all over it. Since McDonough is the interim president, and he's the one apparantly enamored with Stone, my guess is he's in-line for a job under president, but I doubt the Trib would put the entire organization under Stone's control, given his complete lack of any business success.

Every single non-Yankees team in the league sticks to a budget and tries to fill holes from the previous season. It makes absolutely no sense to try and pretend a 50% increase in payroll is feasible, or worth discussing.

I agree, but would expand the idea to cover two more themes I've been harping on since the late 1990s after viewing the model of the Yankees rebuild a dynasty. Building on your bolded thought, what makes the antiquated notions even worse is the habit of starting with a fixed budget. It's the combination of the two that compounds a Pierre trade with a Jones 3 year contract just because it fits a budget, then scrimp elsewhere by starting unproven rookies in critical position on the field and in the order. We must couple a new baseball strategy with a flexible and significantly expanded budget that allows a GM to pull in the right player whenever he's available, or to extend a player when we know he's exactly what conforms to our baseball strategy. Second, it still boggles my mind that the Cubs' ownership can't recognize that any relatively modest increase in payroll ($50M is a drop in the bucket) that would enable sustained exciting, WINNING baseball would reap orders of magnitude increases in revenues for the foreseeable future. You're basically just spicing up the old argument that the Trib is cheap and needs to spend more. It's absurd to claim a $50m increase in payroll is a drop in the bucket, or that you can't win with a fixed budget. The Cubs don't have a fixed budget, they've made special provisions in the past for things like Maddux's contract and midseason acquisitions. But they have a budget and it does do much good, or make any sense, to ask them to not stick to one. You act as if a budget is a bad thing.

Willingham slots in at 3B when they trade Cabrera, which will happen.

What does that mean? Most every team has a more or less fixed budget in any given year. Hendry often failed to use up the entire budget in the offseason, planning on taking on salary mid year. I say build the best team you can from Day 1, then play the midseason trades however you can. Don't handicap yourself from the start just to make room for theoretical future moves.

I would not assume that a team looking into acquiring a corner outfielder has therefore "soured" on their own corner outfielder. But if Atlanta can get Willis for Francoeur, they're geniuses. Although, we already know they are geniuses. One good half year and the anti-OBP crowd loved the guy, but he was awful in 2006 and will most likely continue that way as long as he refuses to take walks. Swinging at everything is not a noble gesture.

This early? They aren't wasting time are they... Well, technically they wasted all day Monday, and could have had it done by Sunday night (let alone months ago, when they apparantly made the decision).

dingdingdingding.... We have a winner. You could spend $200 million on this team. If it's not spent wisely, we'll just end up like this year. This team could EASILY win a division on the payroll we have now. Not with the players we have now, but the payroll. We just need someone who knows how to spend it correctly. You could spend $200m poorly and probably still win this division. A $30m increase in payroll would probably make this team a 90 game winner, even with some mistakes. Payroll could be part of the answer. And the Cubs absolutely should spend more and more each year. But I see no point in crying for a huge year over year increase, it's not realistic. And it's not necessary. As long as the budget keeps expanding over time, and as long as the GM makes good moves, this team can win. The key though, is the decision making process. If you insist on basing your decisions on vague, subjective, antiquated notions, you will continue to misappropriate funds.

People seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on being an ex-Cub, when talking about potential candidates for different leadership positions. A broadcaster, okay, I can see the point. But the Cubs have a history of losing, and every single ex-Cubs' ties to the Cubs revolve around losing. Not to mention, the vast majority of them have very little, or no, managerial/coaching/personel history, even though people think they should get those jobs. If you want to introduce one of these guys to a role on the coaching staff, go right ahead. But there is absolutely no point in fielding a front office headed by Stone, with Giradi managing, Sandberg, Grace, Banks and Jenkins coaching. The next manager doesn't need to know Chicago to get the job done. He doesn't need to know how to win with the Cubs, because nobody has won with the Cubs. He doesn't need to know how much the fans care. He just needs to be a good manager, regardless of past affiliation.

Haha, you said wei....., or wait, you said whiner.

The worst thing that could come of this is a parade of ex-Cubs getting returning for jobs running this team. A marketing guy might think that's a good idea.

More like a vaguely awkward speech. Think nerdy 6th grader running for student council president-level. I'm getting a terrible vibe from Hendry. He sounds like he has no confidence in his ability to get the job done and is shocked that things went so poorly, and still doesn't understand why things went poorly. I really think he's lost without a plan.

I am unfortunately the one who is still sitting here. Man, I don't think he's got it in him to do the job.