Caryatid

Its also prissy (in everyday speak I'd use another word that is p---y') behavior to take crap and not do anything about it. Sometimes you have to stand up for yourself and your team or you will be run over and disrespected all the time. There are some things going for blind masculine violence. I disagree with the behavior of saving face when "disrespected" because a man needs to have street credibility. That's white trash behavior and doesn't have any place on the baseball diamond either. I also disagree that Barrett was "disrespected" by AJ. That's a play that happens routinely in the game of baseball. I haven't seen a guy barrel into a catcher who didn't have the ball for years. Its typical Pierzynski behavior-do something that's totally unncessary, but just barely within the rules, so you can have some deniability. I, for one, am glad that Barrett did what he did. While Pierzynski may not have deserved it for this one incident, think of it as a lifetime achivement award. As far as the suspension, you all should spare your indignation. This team is going nowhere anyway. Losing Barrett for 10 days might change their record over that span from 2-8 to 1-9. It was pretty much the only entertaining thing this Cubs team has done this whole year.

This would have been a good quote from Dusty: "I understand that Michael has gotten fed up with the fact that this team has no leadership, no fire, no willingness to do anything remotely close to caring about our poor play. Therefore, he did something out of frustration. As the supposed leader of this team, I take personal responsibility when a player loses it like that, and would like to announce that as of today, I will no longer manage the Chicago Cubs."

No, it's not Jones's job to correct this. I completely disagree. He should never, ever deal with a reporter in an adversarial situation. Jones should let the media relations staff deal with this. If the staff dealt with it, and they felt it was still unresolved to their satisfaction, then Hendry approaching Sullivan might be appropriate. But without knowing the chain of events and conversations, I don't think it's fair to cast judgment on Hendry. And, I don't blame Sullivan for leaking it, by the way. There's a reason you don't pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrell. I think this is a unique situation because they both work for the same company, though. I think someone with less juice within the organization probably would have been a better choice to confront Sullivan (if, in fact, it was erroneous-which is debatable), because there is certainly a conflict of interest here and an unstable power breakdown.

Is he the better player relative to his contract. You can't just say "he's better" without quantifying it. Sure, he's better on a very basic level, but factoring in the albatross that is his contract, he certainly doesn't make the team better in the long haul (unless you can convince somebody dumb to take on the contract). Patterson might not be anything more than mediocre, but he was a moveable asset. Jones is slightly less mediocre, and less moveable, which makes him a less valuable player.

For clarity's sake, Sullivan said that Hendry chastized him for what Hendry heard was a misquote of Jones, not of Hendry. So Jones told Hendry that he was misquoted, and Hendry went after Sullivan. OK, so Hendry was essentially speaking out on Jones' behalf. Doesn't really change the fact that if Sullivan misquoted somebody, he deserved to be called on it. True, however, its not up to Hendry (who would be hearing the story secondhand at best) to go after Sullivan. If Jones was misquoted, its Jones' job to set the record straight. Not some guy who wasn't even there, and who could intimidate the writer into self-censorship.

If he has a problem with being misquoted then fine, issue a statement saying you were misquoted, don't get yourself riled into a tizzy about it. You would think Hendry would have a lot bigger things to worry about than if he was misquoted in the paper. As a fan, it really is disappointing to hear the Hendry has time to throw a fit, when there are so many other problems that need fixing. You are in the big leagues now Jim, start acting like it. Enough with the excuses, it is time to do your job, you are sitting at the "Grown Ups" table now quit acting like a child. Issue a statement? Cmon now. If he was misquoted, then the correct course of action would be to confront the guy that wrote the piece and explain a) that's not what I said, and b) I don't appreciate you misrepresenting me. For clarity's sake, Sullivan said that Hendry chastized him for what Hendry heard was a misquote of Jones, not of Hendry. So Jones told Hendry that he was misquoted, and Hendry went after Sullivan.

That's assinine. We don't run the Cubs. But anyway, I can't speak for anyone other than myslef, but if Hendry were justified in calling a reporter on the carpet that would be one thing. But with the state of the currentl club, it is quite another. And I am in no way defending the hack Paul Sullivan. His sportswriting is just bad, but then again that is not what Hendry was complaining about. No, it's not "assinine" at all. If you or I see something from Sullivan that we don't like, no one is going to get all pissy because we comment on it. Just because Hendry has the ability to go straight to Sullivan rather than whining about it on a message board doesn't make it any different. He saw something that he didn't like and he let it be known. Not a big deal. No, it's asinine. Alou and Mercker were whiny little babies for complaining about the announcers. That's not the same as fans complaining about the announcers. Their job is to play the game. Our job is to watch, listen to or read about the game. No, it's not asinine. It's incredibly popular on this board to bash Sullivan and his articles (not that there's anything wrong with that), but the second that Hendry finally has had enough of Sullivan and lets him know about it, everyone suddenly think that it's unacceptable. Fans can slam a writer but a general manager can't? EXACTLY. The power relationship between a writer for one company and another, higher ranked member of that same company carries with it a weight that the relationship of a fan to that writer does not. To explain: if a fan criticizes a column, it is highly unlikely that this columnist will cease to write columns expressing that opinion; actually, this should make him write more columns of this nature, as the columnist's job to elicit a reaction. Conversely, if someone high up in an organization, with the power to influence that writer's career on some level, criticizes a column, especially in the manner in which Hendry and MacPhail did, it will much more likely result in less of that type of column written in the future-a passively induced self-censorship, which is the antithesis of what a columnists is supposed to do. So, on a VERY simplistic level, there is little difference. But a very minimal look into the relative positions of the people making the criticism shows that that very simplistic level is just plain wrong.

Do you have more information about this than we do, because we'd love to hear about it. Since Sullivan said it on the radio (according to a post earlier in the thread) that this was over a Jacque Jones article, is there a reason we shouldn't believe that? Sullivan was on WSCR this morning and said that "Hendry was upset about what he felt was a misquote in the Jones article. MacPhail got personal. I didn't realize he was so upset the stuff I've written during my career."

This is the biggest problem the Cubs have. They've created an environment where, for the last two seasons, the most celebrated offseason moves have been the removal, not the acquisition, of players. Corey should have been here until a more productive replacement could have been found.

Date this quote was first used by a Cubs fan: April 1, 1909.

Unless we have the power to call him into our office and berate him, with the implied threat of his job being on the line based on our relationship with his parent company, I don't think this is anything whatsoever even close to what Hendry/MacPhail did.

That's a very Dusty response. "Dude, its a society problem." That's fine, but it doesn't excuse the Cubs from doing it.

The thing is, I can live with one guy like Blanco on the team if he brings "intangibles" to the table (handling pitchers, coach-on-the-field type). I think every team needs one of those guys. The problem is that every single guy on our bench could fit into the category of "brings very little to the table in actual tangible contributions." One guy is fine. Five is a disaster.

Actually, I (along with a number of other posters) said that keeping Patterson was a better option than trading for Pierre, and that Nomar for a year was a decent option. And quite a few advocated for Prior for Tejada. This isn't about hindsight-people have been saying these things since October. Nomar would have been fine in RF-certainly no worse (from a throwing standpoint) than Jones. There are very few logical arguments why he wouldn't be. There is no way that anyone could possibly think Nomar could do as well as Jones in throwing from RF unless you use hindsight to look at Jones' problems this year, which proves my point. Jones was noted for having a very good arm while Nomar makes Pierre look good. Why not? Anyone who watched Jones last year and in years prior knew that his "good defense" reputation was more about his range and had little to do with his arm. Aside from that, Garciaparra has a shortstop/3B arm, which, while it wouldn't be completely terrific, would have certainly been sufficient. Its actually a fairly logical assumption.

This is just not at all true. The hindsight accusation is completely bogus. Many people were up in arms about these moves long before they were made. Many said they would much rather have Burnitz for 1 year than Jones for 3. Many said they would rather have Patterson for relatively cheap than Jones or Pierre for a lot. Many said they wanted Nomar back at the cheap deal he was supposedly willing to sign. You're dead wrong on this, dead wrong. And then everyone would have criticized Hendry for bringing back the same team that was lousy last year. Again, I'm not defending everything that Hendry has done, I just want to emphasize that being a GM is much easier sitting at our computers than it is really making the deals. No, "they" wouldn't. I'm not sure who you're arguing against, here. There are plenty of people who were against the moves that were made WHEN THEY WERE MADE, and would not have complained about those moves had they done them. Its as simple as that.

Actually, I (along with a number of other posters) said that keeping Patterson was a better option than trading for Pierre, and that Nomar for a year was a decent option. And quite a few advocated for Prior for Tejada. This isn't about hindsight-people have been saying these things since October. Nomar would have been fine in RF-certainly no worse (from a throwing standpoint) than Jones. There are very few logical arguments why he wouldn't be.

Then that's a problem with Hendry and MacPhail, not the Tribune. While 7 years at 17 million was crazy for Beltran, 13-14 per year for 5 on Tejada was certainly reasonable.

Both Hendry and MacPhail said several times afterwards that they had no interest whatsoever in a contract that long, let alone for that much. both good trib men. the bottom line is that the trib hired these guys to "mismanage" $100 million. the buck stops w/ the trib. giving the trib a continual pass is equivalent to blaming everyone except bush when things go wrong. if i got a dollar for every time i've heard it's someone elses fault, not bush.... :lol: Its okay to blame the Trib for hiring MacPhail and Hendry, but its not okay to blame them for not spending enough money. They could spend more, but the amount a team spends (over about 80-85 million) is not nearly as important on who they spend it on.

I'd go: 1. Dusty 2. Hendry 3. The guys Henry brought in this year (Pierre esp - quit grounding out to 2nd!) 4. ARam 5. Luck, Bad (Lee) Dusty gets primary blame for 2 reasons - (1) no this isn't a 100-win team with what Hendry assembled, but it isn't a team that should be shut-out 5 times in a 2-week span or lose 9 straight. Dusty's supposed to be a great player's manager, but he hasn't gotten the most out of these guys. His "be aggressive" policy isn't helping either; and (2) I blame Dusty in part for the injuries to Wood & Prior's arms. He worked them to death in '03 and just overuses young pitchers too much for my taste. I guess if we had won the WS that year, I wouldn't complain. But we didn't, so I do. Hendry gets the blame for bringing in Pierre and Jones to play key roles on this team. And also for the likes of Bynum, Mabry, and Neifi being our primary options off the bench. A disgrace for a major-market team really. I don't really blame the Trib b/c they could give Hendry $400m and he'd blow half of it on crap like Jones and Perez and the other half overpaying for decent players (I still think Hendry overpaid for the bullpen guys). Until we see Hendry hot after a difference maker and get outbid by another team b/c of budget, I can't really blame the Trib. Hendry wanted beltran, but that wasn't happening til Sosa's $17 million was cleared & the Trib wouldn't have done 7 and $119m either. Both New York teams, Anaheim and Boston dominate free agency. The Trib has the ability to cause they pull in tons of revenue, but decline to do so. Before we go taking the easy road and blaming the Tribune incorrectly, it should be pointed out that, subtracting Jones, Rusch, Perez and Pierre's ($15 million total) salary and replacing it with players on last years' roster would have freed up more than enough money to get not one, but TWO star players at $15-$17 million per each AND keep the payroll under $100 million. Its not about the money that's spent, its about HOW you spend it.

Not that I think this lineup would have won the division necessarily, but its 8 million cheaper than our current roster (thus allowing for a July move), AND has short-term contracts at 2 SP spots, 3 RP spots, CF, RF, and 2B, so if it didn't work, just try again next year. Walker: 2B (2.5) Murton: LF (.4) Lee: 1B (12) Ramirez: 3B (9) Garciaparra: RF (6) Barrett: C (4.3) Patterson: CF (2.8) Cedeno: SS (.3) Blanco: 1.5 Hairston: 2.3 Pagan: .3 Mabry: 1.1 Bynum: .3 Wood: 12 Prior: 3.7 Maddux: 9 Zambrano: 6.5 Marshall: .3 Ohman: .6 Novoa: .4 Eyre: 3.2 Howry: 3 Dempster: 4.3 Williamson: 2 TOTAL: $87.8 million

We have the talent, if all of these guys played to the real potential they had, or Dusty having the ability to bring it out in them or they find a way to bring it out in themselves. I don't want to be overly critical of anyone, but man, this attitude really upsets me. Having the attitude of "we have the potential" just allows for this same situation to happen every year. Every year, regardless of talent level or philosophy, if we keep telling ourselves that we just didn't play to potential, then we'll never have a team that actually has the potential we project on our current team. We need to accept that this team, both at the major and minor league level, has the WRONG philosophy about both offense and pitching and it will never change unless this management team sees the error of its ways, or we get a new management team.

Speaking of rediculious. Before the season you wanted a quick fall from contention? Wow. Why is it ridiculous? I looked at the team and didn't see a contender, and the org. needs some housecleaning anyway so yeah, let's crash fast, take out the trash, and get ready for next year. Better that than some tragically halfassed darkhorse run this year. It's ridiculous to hope your team fails, especially before the the season even starts. Did you see a contender before the 2003 season? If not you must have wanted a quick fall from contention that year also. You must have been pretty dissapointed come mid October. IF someone's rooting for a quick fall, they're essentially rooting for multiple injuries, a major decline in key players, and for the young players to be either below average or just average. Wood, Prior & Lee are all hurt. ARam's horrible. Guzman & Williams sucked. Cedeno, Murton & Hill are all bordering average. Yippee I don't think anyone roots for injuries. I think someone rooting for a quick fall is hoping that no one who is going to inevitably come back to other plays so much over their head that they anectdotally validate a faulty strategy, while at the same time make the team no more than mediocre, because that dooms a team to perpetual mediocrity. If your team's realistic ceiling is somewhere around .500, you want bad players to play as expected and good players to play as expected, because that should guarantee change in a positive direction the next year.

(a) No they're not better - that's the point. (b) Explain the losses to the Pirates, Diamondbacks, and Giants in the same time-frame. In SF, the rookie pitchers didn't pull through. Versus Pitt & AZ the Cubs were in the midst of a massive hitting slump. Guzman pitched vs. Pitt. Sure loss. Maddux returned to earth vs. AZ. There's an excuse for every loss. The problem is, they all add up to a bad team.

Who knows if they actually are...7 of their last 14 victories have come against the Cubs.

I don't believe in the concept of "untouchables." If you can get an offer of a better player for one that you have, regardless of your feelings for that player, you should make the deal. The only player I think the Cubs CANNOT get equal value for, regardless of the deal, is Lee. Therefore, everyone else is fair game. One of the reasons the A's are still contending is because they didn't consider Mulder and Hudson untouchable.