stitchface

It should have been much easier for the Cubs to win with Sosa (when he was as good if not better then Bonds or NEARLY THE SAME)!! But the following managers could not do it! Jim Lefebvre .500 Jim Riggleman .472 Don Baylor .459 Tom Trebelhorn .434 Bruce Kimm .423 yes, and had prior and zambrano been there . . . they might have won even after 1998 (which was as good as any baker year). Prior and Zambrano are not in SF for Bonds, in fact he has never had the caliber of pitcher of either of them two! So you are saying??? With Prior and Zambrano and Sosa (in his prime) any manager could with with them? Okay, I agree! But that is not what we are talking about! The point of winning with Bonds in the line up is easy! okay! I followed that up with, Sosa (what a few years ago) would have been just the hitter (with less walks) that Bonds is,,, that would be near the same I think! However Sosa could not make the above managers winners! You're missing my point - the players win and lose games. The manager doesn't affect that very much, ie Dusty's teams win despite him not because of him.

ok, I'll go with fundamental organizational philosophical changes and 90 plus wins three years in a row.

sure 95 wins then back to mediocrity. I'd like to see a system in place that allows competitiveness year in and year out.

there are some reasons I'm sure . . . I personally don't want either back regardless of performace on philosophical grounds.

It should have been much easier for the Cubs to win with Sosa (when he was as good if not better then Bonds or NEARLY THE SAME)!! But the following managers could not do it! Jim Lefebvre .500 Jim Riggleman .472 Don Baylor .459 Tom Trebelhorn .434 Bruce Kimm .423 yes, and had prior and zambrano been there . . . they might have won even after 1998 (which was as good as any baker year).

because the manager only controls maybe 2 or 3 wins a year. basically you are correct, dusty isn't the big proble, because his decisions are not the difference between 79 wins and the playoffs. he could be the difference between 88 wins and the playoffs though. the pitcher abuse is quite evident in the injuries to wood and prior in 2004 and 2005 . can we prove direct correlation? no, but one thing is certain: the more strain you put on a pitcher's arm, the greater the risk for injury. its not how often they pitched, its how many pitches they threw - sometimes in games that were already decided. the truth is he was stuck with perez at SS until Cedeno came up. But why bat Perez in the top 2? Why continue to use Macias as a pinch-hitter when he has demonstrated for years that he is a lousy hitter? Why not play Cedeno when the team had been eliminated? Why the loyalty to Hollandsworth but not to Dubois? Frankly, I agree with you that the dusty problem is overstated. Nevertheless, he is a terrible manager.

as BM said, this offseason has been a well-executed plan. a horrendously flawed and terrible plan.

come on buddy, you're screwing up my draft!

it seems to me if you keep patterson you keep him in CF. Why move him to RF to make room for Pierre?

WOOT! Great effort to get a huge road win. I just don't understand Mizzou. How can a team look so bad and then go into norman and win? I didn't get to see their 3 cupcake games between Illinois and the conference opener, but they've turned it around for sure. They've played pretty good defense before and maintained that, better offensive flow, better effort, and someone in each game stepping up to help Gardner shoulder the load(McKinney against OSU, Brown against OU). Should be a fun environment to be in on Saturday, hopefully both teams take care of business so there can be some real fun on Monday. wow, complicated name you chose.

I don't think scouts are expected to always be right. in fact, they are mostly wrong.

I am very interested to see how Francoeur makes out this year in the context of this discussion and the one with goony.

That's a good question, I'd feel more confident in ATL making that decision. Pie would've had better instructors during his ascent to the majors as well as having more confidence in their decision makers as far as him being ready compared to the Cubs making that same decision. Once he got to the majors, you have Bobby Cox compared to Baker, Cox dwarfs Baker as a manager and ATL has better instructors at the Major League level as well. Comparing the track record of the Cubs and Braves as far as position players, is a model of success vs. a model of futility as far as drafting and developing quality position players. Is it that you don't think much of Zisk + Joshua or do you just think that much of the Braves instructors? I always though UK loved Zisk. The cubs players seem to start to fade high in the minors - this is very troubling.

No I'm not actually, if you took the time to read what I wrote I said he could find a happy medium between 2003 and 2004. you're right, you did say that. I did take the time to read it so no need to be snide. the happy medium to me is more likely between 2003 and 2005. I don't think you can dismiss 2005 altogether. I don't dismiss it. I think it was horrible, and inevitable if you tried to turn Corey into what the Cubs tried to turn him into. I think he should have gone from low A, to high A, and then AA, and should have hit in the 6 or 7 hole his first few years in the big leagues. I think it's incredibly stupid to focus your entire draft theory on tools, but once you get such a toolsy player like Corey, you have to make the best of the situation, and try to screw it up as little as possible. The Cubs screwed it up as much as any team could screw up. But I think if you focused your efforts on the right offseason acquisitions, and built a solid lineup in front of him, then you could have thrown Corey into the 7 hole this year and had a reasonable chance at .275/.320/.475 (perfectly acceptable for a $3m CF who still has some upside. I think you had a chance of salvaging a .280/330/500 career out of the guy if you didn't give him the Farnsy/Sosa/Walker treatment and try and place blame on him for the team's ills. I think 2005 was entirely avoidable if the Cubs treated the Corey situation differently. I'm not saying they could have done it differently and turned him into a superstar. I don't think Corey could ever become a superstar. But I think you could have maximized his abilities by using him properly, and the Cubs failed to maximize his ability because they took a talented but flawed and limited player, ignored the core flaw, and took him out of his game by placing unrealistic expectations on his development. I agree with all of that - particularly the last sentence. I just think Baker likely played less than 10 percent of a role in his demise. If it were up to me, I wouldn't have drafted him - at least not as high as he went. I've been advocating batting him low in the order for years but I don't really think that is the major cause of his failures. He has a glaring flaw and it is one that generally speels doom for baseball players. Corey has enough talent to still have a career perhaps, but he was always going to be limited. I agree that by rushing him the cubs exposed his flaw.

No I'm not actually, if you took the time to read what I wrote I said he could find a happy medium between 2003 and 2004. you're right, you did say that. I did take the time to read it so no need to be snide. the happy medium to me is more likely between 2003 and 2005. I don't think you can dismiss 2005 altogether.

I don't understand why you think it's that simple. Corey did put the bat on the ball and did produce acceptable numbers before, and he could do it again, if he was used properly. The only reason spot in the order matters is because not only did they bat him in the spot, but they expected him to do things he could not do, and de-emphasized the things he could do. You can't judge Corey on 2005 alone, when he was truly awful. He was not always awful, or close to it. He has been as productive or more productive than other guys on this team that management apparantly loves. In 8 seasons with the Chicago Cubs organization, Corey Patterson had two and half seasons in which he did nothing (his first in A ball, and 2004, and 2003 being the half yr. Heck even his LONE good YEAR in 2004, he was still league average as a player. I do blame the Cubs for rushing him. Watching the Cubs rush Patterson and now Pie is like jumping out of a airplane without a parachute. You know what's going to happen, and you have no ability to change it. Cubs should deserves some of the blame, but to keep it simple EVERYBODY was at fault for the development of Corey Patterson, and I said EVERYBODY. I do think Corey may become a useful player in Baltimore, but he won't become the next Lou Brock, or Rafael Palmeiro, or heck even Eric Hinske. unlike corey, Pie has shown progression at each new level. He should start the year at AA in my opinion, but moving to the hitting friendly PCL should not doom Pie. IMO, he has a lot to learn in the minors still but so far I don't think the Cubs have screwed up too badly.

I disagree with people saying it's all Dusty and the Cubs' fault. But I think you're just as wrong for saying Dusty shares no blame. The leadoff thing played a huge role. It was an example of the Cubs obviously not noticing his weaknesses, and putting him in a spot that would shine a light on his faults and ignore his favorables. Obviously you are wrong when you say his average will always be low and his SLG will always be low. His OBP will always be low, but in 2003 his .298 AVG and .511 SLG showed they didn't always have to be low. Corey could be a guy who hits .280/.320/.500 without changing a whole lot. He could still rack up the Ks. You're allowing his 2005 to completely erase his others years, when in fact, a happy medium between 2003 and 2004 is both very possible and acceptable. But the Cubs wanted him to hit .300 at the expense of power, which makes no sense because a lot of his ability to hit for some average despite the K's is his ability to hit homeruns. They completely went back on their original plan not to ask him to be a slap hitter. They screwed him up. Maybe he would have screwed himself up eventually. And I definitely never liked his approach in the first place. But when the team already stresses such an approach, it's tough to fault a guy for failing to fix his problems. Who was manager in 2003 and 2004? 2005 is a larger sample size than 2003, yes? I think you are falling into the trap of assuming since his first half of 2003 was at one level, he could always perform at that level. I don't think that is the case and that there would have been regression to the mean. Bonds and Sosa both hit leadoff - how come they didn't get screwed up? Corey never tried to become a slap hitter but my guess is he was more likely to be successful that way than as a power hitter. There are just not very many successful power hitters with the kind of plate discipline Corey has. And very few hitters have ever learned plate discipline in the major leagues (or in the minor leagues for that matter). I wouldn't say Dusty had no role in Corey's demise, but its minute compared to Corey himself.

what's the relevance of that? Its quite clear management has no clue what a valuable baseball player is. It's quite relevent. They didn't have to trade him. He didn't have to be moved at all costs. They could have gotten more out of him on the field than through trade if they used him properly. And they wouldn't have had a hard time justifying it given the type of player they already have. If you can justify Jones and his contract, how can you not justify one more year of giving Corey a chance, even as a 4th OF? I'm not justifying anything. I don't see how its related to how corey got screwed up.

Sutter and no gossage? hmmm. Blyleven is this generations Santo.

He can't stay healthy for even a half year. He makes Wood look like an iron man. (Not knocking Wood, he's one of my favorite players.) He needs to do something pretty soon to justify his spot on the 40 man roster. well, not much was lost this year. I guess that evaluation can be made next fall. They should have traded Guzman a couple years ago. I am wondering if drafting and developing pitchers is really a good way to go. I'm not doubting that its' a good plan, I just doubt whether the Cubs now how to do it well, and if taking that plan to the extreme is smart. Developing cheap pitchers is great, the problem seems to be keeping them healthy. And its not just the cubs. look at the mariners, white sox, mets . . .Guzman is more typical than atypical. I think there were red-flags with him that the cubs failed to recognize.

I didn't say it would be a smart or fiscally responsible thing to do, but we're only what 8 weeks or so from the start of spring training and Boston has NOBODY to play CF, no leadoff hitter and a utility guy pegged to start at SS - I honestly don't see them going into the season with Cora slated to be there every day. They've got TONS of pressure on them right now with what the Blue Jays and Yankees have done to improve themselves - not to mention the controversy around losing their GM. Lugo would fill 2 of their 3 holes at leadoff and SS and at least give them a fighting chance in their division. If they don't make the move to get Lugo, I see them being a 3rd or 4th place team in that division - even with Lugo they have plenty more question marks than they've had the last few years. There's no GM in baseball who's going to basically pay $16 million for 1 year of Lugo. They have a young kid in Pedroia who could get a chance to win the spot in spring training. He was basically blocked by Ramirez, so they moved him over to 2b. Their hole at SS is not nearly as big as the hole they have in CF. I wouldn't expect a straight up Marte for Lugo deal - I could see some other names being involved to get something done though (Gaithright, Huff, Clement, Arroyo, Shoppach...). if the price is anywhere near marte, the cubs should not be a part of this discussion. Lugo isn't BAD for a SS, but he is no cornerstone of the future.

He can't stay healthy for even a half year. He makes Wood look like an iron man. (Not knocking Wood, he's one of my favorite players.) He needs to do something pretty soon to justify his spot on the 40 man roster. well, not much was lost this year. I guess that evaluation can be made next fall. They should have traded Guzman a couple years ago. I am wondering if drafting and developing pitchers is really a good way to go.

what's the relevance of that? Its quite clear management has no clue what a valuable baseball player is.

I don't understand why you think it's that simple. Corey did put the bat on the ball and did produce acceptable numbers before, and he could do it again, if he was used properly. The only reason spot in the order matters is because not only did they bat him in the spot, but they expected him to do things he could not do, and de-emphasized the things he could do. You can't judge Corey on 2005 alone, when he was truly awful. He was not always awful, or close to it. He has been as productive or more productive than other guys on this team that management apparantly loves. Because it is that simple. For decades players who don't take walks and strike out a lot have failed to be successful in major league baseball. Corey would benefit greatly from putting the ball in play more frequently but he strikes out a ton. Therefore his batting average is always going to be low. Since he doesn't take walks, his obp will always be low. He can't recognize a pitch he can drive so his slugging will always be low. Corey does not have the tools to be a star major league player. sure, he'll be better than 2005, but he will never be a star. To blame Dusty or Baylor or the cubs is a cop-out. The organization is to blame for not recognizing his weaknesses and trying to correct them before he reached the majors, but to use his batting order spot as an excuse is a desperate plea by someone who cannot believe he failed. All the signs have pointed to his eventual failure for several years. Could I be wrong? Sure. But decades of baseball players indicate chances are Corey will never amount to much and it has nothing to do with Dusty Baker.

Guzman has been around for awhile now. He was slated to come up and take Priors spot in 2003 and only didn't because he got injured. There's a big difference between Pie and Guzman. Pie turns 21 next month, while Guzman already turned 24, and Angel has been around a lot longer. Given his track record, he pretty much has to prove himself this year or he's got little value to the team. Pie is still a couple years away from the time when he has to start producing in the majors or risk becoming a falling star. Until he costs the team something useful, there is no reason for him to "go away."