Caryatid

We might be able to get him for Pierre and one or two prospects that arent pitchers... and cash If that were the case, the Cubs would have given up on FIVE prospects for two years of mediocre center field. wait no.. maybe Pierre the two pitching prospects we got for Williamson and cash can get us Crash. yes that would be 5 pitchers... but so what. Because its five prospects for two years of mediocrity. Why do that? Rowand is roughly equivalent to Pierre, which isn't good, and there's no reason to give five prospects up for mediocre players who won't make this team significantly better. Rowand is way beyond equivalent to Pierre, and he's not interchangeable with a dozen AAA outfielders. Adjusted career OPS: Rowand 103 Pierre 87 That means Rowand produces just above the major league average, and at a position (CF) where offense isn't always easy to come by. Pierre is putrid; there's no kind way to say it. You could easily replace Pierre with Generic Triple A Outfielder, but not Rowand. Rowand isn't the second coming of Hack Wilson, but he would be a significant upgrade over Pierre. Great attititude and face-to-wall affinity don't make a player good, but they don't make a player bad either. So the best that can be said about Rowand is that he is "barely above average". Regardless of the hyperbole, the question still stands: is it worth it to spend 5 prospects and $9.5 million on two years of mediocre CF? In other words, do the Cubs need to spend good money after bad?

Rowand would make their team ERA go down the full point that its up this year?

We might be able to get him for Pierre and one or two prospects that arent pitchers... and cash If that were the case, the Cubs would have given up on FIVE prospects for two years of mediocre center field. wait no.. maybe Pierre the two pitching prospects we got for Williamson and cash can get us Crash. yes that would be 5 pitchers... but so what. Because its five prospects for two years of mediocrity. Why do that? Rowand is roughly equivalent to Pierre, which isn't good, and there's no reason to give five prospects up for mediocre players who won't make this team significantly better.

Frank Robinson is no baseball manager mastermind. If anyone could contend for worst manager in baseball with Dusty Baker, Frank is the man. Come on, dude! He's old school! He's a tough guy! That's all that a good manager needs to be!

Go ahead and sacrifice in a tie game in the 8th or 9th. In virtually EVERY other situation, its a waste of an out. Especially with a guy like Kearns.

Seems like that kind of statement is just another way this fame-hound can grab the spotlight for another 15 minutes. It'll certainly put his name in the Chicago papers for a week or so.

They have a young CF (Shane Vitterino) who they seem to like better for the future and Rowand can bring in some prospects. If we trade for Rowand and we sign Lee this offseason... 2/3s of our outfield with be former White Sox.LOLSo what?? Maybe we could broker a deal w/ the Tigers and get Magglio and then you'd have your all ex-White Sox outfield. Knowing the way Crash plays, he'll end his career slamming into the brick wall at Wrigley. Why would we want to give them anything other than Pierre or Jones for Crash. Then we'll be giving up 5 or 6 pitchers instead of 3. hu??We're not going to get Crash for Pierre straight up. We're going to have to give up some young arms in AAA. We already gave up 3 to get Pierre. We might be able to get him for Pierre and one or two prospects that arent pitchers... and cash If that were the case, the Cubs would have given up on FIVE prospects for two years of mediocre center field.

The problem with Hendry is even though he takes the blame, he doesn't learn from his mistakes. He'll say stuff like "Obvisly, the Tribune Company give me a big enough budget, I just need to spend the money better", then he turns around and signs someone like Jock Jones as his big bat offensive player for 3 years.Jones was the best OF available this last year... and was looking for a multi-yr deal. I believe the phrase "the tallest midget" is appropos regarding Jones in the FA market. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something-Corey Patterson could have played in the OF this year for half the cost of Jones. He might have been horrible, but it wouldn't have made a difference because this team was going to be bad regardless. And they could have gone after a better player via trade or FA this offseason.

Didn't notice Knoblauch and Vaughn. I guess Tom Goodwin did stay in the league for awhile, too. And Scott Burrell was a nice player off the bench-for the Bulls. So 22 busts out of 26 total. Ouch.

The 1989 first round, aside from Frank Thomas. 1 Ben McDonald RHP Orioles Louisiana State U 2 Tyler Houston C Braves Las Vegas, NV 3 Roger Salkeld RHP Mariners Saugus, CA 4 Jeff Jackson OF Phillies Chicago, IL 5 Donald Harris OF Rangers Texas Tech 6 Paul Coleman OF Cardinals Frankston, TX 7 Frank Thomas 1B White Sox Auburn U 8 Earl Cunningham OF Cubs Lancaster, SC 9 Kyle Abbot LHP Angels Long Beach State U 10 *Charles Johnson C Expos Fort Pierce, FL 11 *Calvin Murray 3B Indians Dallas, TX 12 Jeff Juden RHP Astros Salem, MA 13 Brent Mayne C Royals Cal State Fullerton 14 Steve Hosey OF Giants Fresno State U 15 Kiki Jones RHP Dodgers Tampa, FL 16 Greg Blosser OF Red Sox Sarasota, FL 17 Cal Eldred RHP Brewers U of Iowa 18 Willie Greene SS Pirates Gray, GA 19 Eddie Zosky SS Blue Jays Fresno State U 20 Scott Bryant 21 Greg Gohr RHP Tigers Santa Clara U 22 Tom Goodwin OF Dodgers Frenso State U 23 Maurice Vaughn 1B Red Sox Seton Hall U 24 Alan Zinter C Mets U of Arizona 25 Chuck Knoblauch SS Twins Texas A&M 26 *Scott Burrell RHP Mariners Hamden, CT

"Relevant" is a very subjective term.

This from the Neyer chat today. I think it applies pretty well to this conversation:

Tell that to the Detroit Tigers (43-119 in 2003, 20 games OVER .500 2006). Or this year's Florida Marlins, Colorado Rockies, Arizona Diamondbacks, or LA Dodgers. All of which have relied HEAVILY on young players they received in trades, while gutting veteran players from last year. Or you could ask all those Boston Red Sox fans if they were satisfied that their team "won a lot of games" in the 75 years before they won the title in 2004.

Ask the A's how much the draft means. Jones, Pierre, Maddux, and to a lesser extent, Perez, Rusch, et. al. And if they go 81-81, he'll be here LONG after that to do this same dance. His job will be on the line. It hasn't been to this point. No-Guzman, Hill, Theriot, Restovich. These are guys who could play a cheap utility role for the team next year-instead the Cubs will stick with playing overpriced garbage veterans and then cry poor. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! They lose 100 games, they won't sell out for the year. Guaranteed. It won't drop a huge amount, but it will be enough for the suits to realize they're going in the wrong direction. Or maybe we can just hope for 81-81 so we can go into next year....hoping to go 81-81. "In sports, there's nothing worse than being mediocre."

As stated earlier, I think Hendry simply wants Baker to be manager. So that leaves the question: Which is more pathetic? 1. Hendry cannot see that this team is horrible and, through blind stubbornness, holds on to a failing manager and a failing strategy. 2. Hendry cannot pull the trigger on a manager despite the fact that he has already hung him out to dry publicly. 3. Hendry has the coach he wants, but because it would be bad P.R. to give him an extension, doesn't have the stones to give an unpopular guy an extension.

1. Higher draft pick 2. Dead weight veterans get traded off. 3. Baker will be gone; potentially a better manager is there 4. Hendry under pressure to actually get something done 5. Young players get opportunity to show whether they belong; if they don't, the Cubs know in the offseason who they need to replace. 6. Clines/Matthews "aggressiveness at all costs" is gone. 7. Slows ticket sales for next year; MacPhail may begin to ask for accountability. Getting to .500 is a step back, because it simply tells these idiots in the front office and coaching staff that what they're doing is right, and it was only "injuries" that made this team bad. So they do the EXACT SAME THING next year, and this team is screwed for the foreseeable future. Its already happened two years in a row--why can't you see that?

They will go 34-40 the rest of the way, end up 68-94, and Hendry will offer Baker an extension because "he really righted the ship in the second half." Baker will decline, or make it look like it was a money dispute, and-best case scenario-Hendry looks like a complete fool and gets a quick hook immediately after 2007. Woo hoo.

I think the answer to all this is simple: Hendry desperately wants to re-sign Baker. There's absolutely no other reason why the guy would let Baker twist in the wind, with no realistic upside to letting him play out the rest of the year. I am going to bet that if Baker is not managing the Cubs in 2007, it will be because Baker chose not to, not the other way around.

First of all, I don't know where all this "putting Novoa with the rookies" thing comes from. Novoa is not a young player (experience-wise)-he debuted in July of 2004. I'm not saying you did this-Baker did it. And you're right, Hendry might not call these players up. But it doesn't mean that's not what he should do. Just because Hendry's incompetent when it comes to long-term franchise health doesn't mean Baker should stay. This is a critique of the entire organization. If Baker was told, tomorrow, that the rotation for the rest of the season should be Zambrano, Marshall, Marmol, Hill, and Guzman, would he really do it? I don't think he would. He would if that is all he had. Baker is getting way to much blame for not playing youngersters this year. I agree in the past he has heavily favored veterans, but this year he has given many younger players a shot at playing. Unfortunately many of them either are not ready to contribute just yet or may never contribute. If all he had were youngsters, he'd put them in as sparingly as possible in the worst possible situations, then blame them for the lack of success the team had. There are few, if any, young players who come in "ready to contribute." I think that's the whole point of this discussion-"ready to contribute" shouldn't mean a thing at this point in the year.

First of all, I don't know where all this "putting Novoa with the rookies" thing comes from. Novoa is not a young player (experience-wise)-he debuted in July of 2004. I'm not saying you did this-Baker did it. And you're right, Hendry might not call these players up. But it doesn't mean that's not what he should do. Just because Hendry's incompetent when it comes to long-term franchise health doesn't mean Baker should stay. This is a critique of the entire organization. If Baker was told, tomorrow, that the rotation for the rest of the season should be Zambrano, Marshall, Marmol, Hill, and Guzman, would he really do it? I don't think he would.

A terrible young player has the opportunity to get better. A terrible old player just costs a lot and doesn't get better. But that's not the point. The point is this season is beyond "deserving a chance to play." Immediate productivity means absolutely nothing right now. The season is at the research and development point-find out if the players that may be able to help you down the road can show enough to warrant spending significant time on them.

This time of year, with a team this far out of the race is no time to be saying "is veteran player X's stats slightly better than young player Y's?" This time of year is not about stats. Its about finding out what you have. There's a simple question that should be asked about every player on this team right now. The answer will tell you if that player should be playing or sitting/traded. The question is "the next time the Cubs challenge for a division or (dare I say) World Series title, will this player be a part of the mix?" If the answer is no, get rid of them immediately. If the answer is "maybe," then you absolutely owe it to the organization to see if that answer will be yes or no.

Firing the manager right now makes a huge difference in regards to next year and '08. Baker will do his best to try and win with the veteran guys here-if he's interested in saving his job, he will do whatever he thinks will win him the most games, and that entails playing veterans. An interim coach, having no interest in "saving his job," will do whatever management wants long-term. If that means playing Murton 7 days a week, that's what he'll do. Regardless of what you think of the youth on this team (Murton, Hill, Guzman, et. al.), for this team to be successful in '07 and '08, they need to find out what they have. If they decide, after seeing Murton in 162 games, that he doesn't have the power to play LF consistently, then so be it. But only by putting him out there with no pressure will the Cubs find out if he has something he can offer. The same with Hill, Marshall, Marmol, Guzman. These guys need to get their lumps now, so the Cubs can see which ones show the most potential. They need to have their Maroth/Bonderman year. Keeping Baker now, only to fire him at the end of the year, is shortsighted and stupid. But then again, this is Jim Hendry we're talking about.

So if he truly did evaluate him during the break, he must have found that he has done a good enough job with the team to warrant a continuation. What is confusing about this is that if, in fact, Hendry believes that Baker has done a good enough job with the team this year, he should offer him a 2 year contract RIGHT NOW. I can't imagine much happening in 77 games that would warrant Baker getting fired IF Hendry believes he hasn't earned a firing right now. This whole thing is turning into a joke.

I would not be surprised to see that, if the team does play .500 ball for the rest of the year, Baker gets offered a contract. Hendry will say that "he didn't have a healthy roster, but did a great job and finished well. He's given us a lot to look forward to for next year."