goonys evil twin

A) What progress has this organization made? The big league team has fallen drastically since 2003, the minor leagues are nowhere near what they were like in the late 90's early 00's. B) Why does a youth movement equate to giving up a season? I am so sick of the attitude that you can't win with youth. Atlanta is doing it right now. Oakland has done it time and time again. C) This front office has shown absolutely no ability to capitalize on their ability to outspend most other teams, wasting money on mediocre replacable veterans.

Actually, one of the positions Macias doesn't play is SS. He hasn't played there at all as a Cub, and has only about 40 innings logged there in his career. Considering how much value they seem to place on his versatility, this seems to be a knock against that value. A guy who is supposed to be able to play all these positions should be able to play short. It's not hard to find backup OF. They have plenty of 2B depth. So really his only "value" is his ability to backup 3B, but any middle infield utility player should be able to do the same job, and the Cubs have a couple minor leaguers that can handle that backup duty.

I assume they are facing a lefty.

I really don't think there's anything odd about this at all. I mean, other than Dusty's fascination with getting Neifi into the lineup whenever possible, it seems to makes sense to me.

But with all the day games, the wind blowing in, white guys in the sun, the thick grass, the rain, the wind blowing out, all the youth, bad breaks, bad luck, bad MRIs, unknown pitching opponents, wind blowing sideways, different starting times, hurricane season, the witch hunt for steroid users, completely unpredictable injuries, wind not blowing at all and the booing, changes might not be enough to turn things around.

Who does this hurt? Putting a SS at 3B is hardly a stretch.

I don't think it has anything to do with hard work. I don't doubt that the Cubs organization is trying to succeed. The problem is, they are failing. It really doesn't mean much to me what "baseball people" think of the instructors. I want to see results. If you divide up the baseball decision making world between old school "baseball people" and new school "moneyball" people, the Cubs rely almost exclusively on the former. Everytime they bring in a new coach, instructor or special assistant, we read all about how well respected they are within the game, and what a great baseball person they are. I have no doubt that scouts and such hold many Cubs' people in high regard, because the Cubs as an organization pays homage to that good ole' boy network of people who decide what a respected "baseball person" is. If they could make it work with these people, fine, but so far they haven't achieved a thing. The Cubs seem to put far more emphasis on people who are respected in the game, and far too little emphasis on actual results/production/success.

It's probably different for all guys. Sometimes it's the individual players' fault, sometimes it's a hitting coach, or manager. But that's on an individual basis. Collectively, the entire organization has failed miserably in this department. The scouts, the people who listen to the scouts, the instructors, everybody.

Obviously you have a problem with guys succeeding if you include the Jaxx staff as part of that group. Success has to be measured at the major league level. The goal is not to produce good AA players. And as many have pointed out, the Cubs have failed miserably at bringing up succesful position players to their major league team.

Really? I didn't think that was true. Actually, according to BA, his bb/k is 22/122, as far as I can tell, that's awful. Personally I'm very disappointed by his .265 .311 .507 line. Sure he's got a lot of raw power, and nice HR totals, but for a very high draft pick, who is highly compensated, highly touted, and in his 3rd pro season, I'd like more than that in low A ball.

With Patterson, it's likely because he went from high school ball, to low A ball - where he dominated - to AA and then the majors. I don't think the coaches down there had much of a chance to correct or improve his problems. His first speed bump was at AA, but before he could fix anything he was on the major league bench.

I find it very interesting how quick you are to deflect criticism away from Dusty and his role in the failings, pointing out that it's Jim's fault for giving him bad players, but then you blame minor league managers, coaches and instructors, when all they have to work with are the people Jim and the other personel people provide for them.

If you came to the conclusion that you weren't close to winning with those players and/or didn't want to resign them when they become free agents. Unless the Cubs make massive improvements in at least 2 of the LF, CF, RF, SS positions, their chances will be slim. They also need significant improvement in the starting rotation, bullpen and bench. With a weak free agent class, and possibly very little on the trade market, a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that the Cubs cannot make the moves necessary to improve drastically by next year, therefore justifying trading off their best players. Likewise, if you didn't have a good chance to win next year, and one of your best players was going to be a free agent after the season (Lee) then it would not be unreasonable to deal him in order to better position yourself for the following season. I'm not advocating this strategy, but it's perfectly logical and a possibility that should not be ignored.

You won't mention that, but you just did? 2005 Neifi - .272 .297 .391 Alex - .263 .320 .424 Adv. Alex Career Neifi - .270 .300 .381 Alex - .243 .303 .394 Adv. push (but if you take into account that Neifi played a good chunk of his career in Col, it looks like Alex wins again) How exactly is Neifi 10X the hitter?

This just proves what an excellent job the Cubs have done in bringing prospects to the major leagues.

If you don't want to waste money on a free agent class that's not worth it, why advocate wasting money on Furcal? Surely anytime you go "at all costs" you will overpay, and given his name, Furcal is likely to get big money. I just don't see the logic between getting hot and heavy with Furcal. He's not a difference maker. He's an adequate position holder. If you can sign him reasonably, go ahead, but if the costs go up, go with Cedeno.

Most of your decisions sound like smart, play it safe, don't overspend plans. Then you say sign Furcal at all costs. Why? Furcal isn't great. He's hardly an "at all costs" kind of guy. Personally I'd rather see Cedeno play for $350,000 than Furcal for $8-10m. I wouldn't hate to see Furcal signed, but he's not a must have.

The best thing that could happen is that Andy calls Jim into his office, says that Dusty has to go and that changes need to be made. Then Jim can fire Dusty, some veterans with no future on this team can be dealt for potential pieces of the puzzle. Then the above scenario would take place. But they should at least do what you laid out, ASAP.

call up bartosh, need more pitchers

I think using the WS example as justification for ignoring the Cubs incompetent offense is misguided. The Cubs need help on offense. They don't need a slugger, they need a producer, somebody who can give you the AVG/OBP/SLG necessary for corner OF. If they ignore their offense they will suffer many of the same problems they've suffered the past few years. This team should aspire to 100 win seasons, and be a near-lock for a 90 win season. Focusing exclusively on one side or another will not help make this an all-around great team, which is what a $100m team should be.

Much more likely? I agree Lawton would likely have a higher OBP than Furcal, and Walker won't approach .392, however, neither Walker nor Lawton are likely to significantly out-OBP the other. The past 4 years: Lawton -.342, .343, .366, .363 Walker - .353, .333, .352, .351 Lawton is about 1.5 years older. He's slightly outperformed on 3 of the past 4 years, but he's no guarantee. Both of these guys are good, but not great OBP players, and either of them would be a competent, but not spectacular top of the order guy. I'm assuming an OF of Murton, Giles, Lawton means Giles is in center. That's a pretty bad defensive OF, and offensively still full of questions (Giles is old and has declined in recent years, Lawton is a 4th OF, Murton could be a nice cost effective weapon, but he's nobody you can count on for a full season of corner OF production).

I don't see the point in saying he wasn't brought in to start. He is the starter, and he's been awful. He is a terrible hitter, yet the manager likes to hit him at the top of the order. He's had his moments no doubt, but overall, he's sucked. The Cubs production out of SS has been severely lacking. No, he is not a bad backup, but when you have a guy like Nomar starting, you need a backup who can start on a regular basis. People are mostly pissed that Neifi has played (and is paid) as much as he has, not that he is who he is. Good glove no hit SS are a dime a dozen. The problem with this team is a combination of many things, but the biggest issue has been offense. They went into the season with a bad offense. It's been bad for years. Pitching has disappointed, however, it was mostly due to injury and miscast roles. The hitting was expected to be bad and they did nothing to improve it. Consider the fragile nature of pitching, I think it's negligent to put all your faith in that side of the team while ignoring the lineup (and using a terrible bench). The failings on this team were largely preventable, even with the so-called unexpected injuries (every team has to expect some "unforeseen injuries" and the Cubs chose to rely on oft-injured players). And one thing that could have been prevented was going into the season with a bad offense, then putting one of your worst hitters atop the lineup for an extended period. *oh, and welcome to the forum

And not so coincidentally, they are 11th in runs scored. The lack of offense was going to bite them. And they are .500 since the all star break. Their success is due to great pitching (and I assume some good defense), and has nothing to do with offense.

This is why Andy's job is safe, and his thinking is key. I truly believe that Andy really wants to win with the Cubs. And I think the Tribune is very willing to do what is reasonably necessary to win. The problem lies with the old school mentality of the baseball decision makers. They are all about giving responsibility to good baseball people. And in this sport, "baseball people" is a euphemism for members of the good ole boy network. There is no new thinking amongst baseball people, because the primary focus of baseball people is the past. Stick with conventional wisdom, and you won't be led astray. This safe mindset generally keeps you away from 90 loss seasons. But when you take no chances you generally are incapable of 100 win seasons. At this point, the only hope the Cubs have to win under this regime is for Hendry to realize his mistakes and change his ways. Of course that is possible, it's just not very likely. It's either that, or luck. And no Cubs fan is dumb enough to count on luck. I was thinking about the players that Hendry has brought in. Lee, Walker and Ramirez are the types of high OBP, high OPS players that any of the moneyball teams would love to have. Lawton- if you look at his career numbers- used to get on base. Barrett doesn't but he's a catcher and that's a take what you can get situation. The free swingers were either already here (Patterson) or the best available options (Nomar, Burnitz). Which begs the question: is Hendry more progressive than we think or did he luck into those acquisitions? Best post on this thread. good point. I think his minor league acquisitions - Murton and Moore - lead me to believe that he is paying more attention to OBP than is generally acknowledged. Moneyball is not about high OBP/OPS players, it's about exploiting inefficiencies in the market, getting value on the cheap. The Cubs on the other hand are terribly inefficient. They've got a $100m payroll playing like a $50m payroll team. They do an awful job of efficiently filling out a roster and utilizing that roster. They are the perfect trading partner for teams like Oakland because they're more than happy to overpay for mediocre or worse production.

I really don't think it's a matter of placing blame where it belongs. The bottom line is he sucks and can't be a part of this team next year. Whether you hate Neifi for sucking so much, or hate Hendry for signing him with a crippled SS one broken nail from the DL, or hate Dusty for relying so heavily on him, the point is the Neifi situation is not good.