CubsWin

you seem set on nomar accepting no less than 5+ incentives, is it that hard to think the base might be less? im not doubting nomar might use his recent performance as terms for negotiation but just a thought. I think nomar is a sign here as well, a full year of him is just about as good if not better as every other shortstop in the league offensively. But you have to have someone with substantial to terrific defense opposite him. Walker and Nomar can both play LF if neccessary, leaving the option to still sign Furcal if need be. One day you could have Nomar at 2nd, Furcal at Short, and Walker in LF, and then shift walker to to 2nd, and put murton or nomar at LF. Could lead to a more powerful bench and having the LF situation taken care of as well. Thoughts? You're not going to have a happy Nomar and Walker, that's for sure. Hopefully the mythical team chemistry really is overrated. I'd love to go that route, but the egos involved might make that more trouble than it's worth. Nomar has never played LF to my knowledge, and considering his issues the last 2 years have been leg injuries, I don't think he's the best candidate to move to LF. Walker played like 2 innings of LF in 2004, and looked like he was baffled by the flight of the ball off the bat. We have a perfectly good, cheap LF option who has patience, speed, can hit the ball to all fields and does have enough power. We can debate this when we get to LF, but dumping 2 infielders in LF isn't going to solve our issues. You beat me to it, USSoccer. I couldn't have said it any better, though. That assumes Murton can play LF and only LF...which we haven't gotten to yet. :D Well, Murton's arm... Oh, yeah. One position at a time. :wink:

That would be nice. Why can't Dusty think of that? Just because he is forced to play one of either Perez or Macias due to injury does not mean that playing both of them, much less at the top of the order, is a good idea. Come on, Dusty, play Theriot.

you seem set on nomar accepting no less than 5+ incentives, is it that hard to think the base might be less? im not doubting nomar might use his recent performance as terms for negotiation but just a thought. I think nomar is a sign here as well, a full year of him is just about as good if not better as every other shortstop in the league offensively. But you have to have someone with substantial to terrific defense opposite him. Walker and Nomar can both play LF if neccessary, leaving the option to still sign Furcal if need be. One day you could have Nomar at 2nd, Furcal at Short, and Walker in LF, and then shift walker to to 2nd, and put murton or nomar at LF. Could lead to a more powerful bench and having the LF situation taken care of as well. Thoughts? You're not going to have a happy Nomar and Walker, that's for sure. Hopefully the mythical team chemistry really is overrated. I'd love to go that route, but the egos involved might make that more trouble than it's worth. Nomar has never played LF to my knowledge, and considering his issues the last 2 years have been leg injuries, I don't think he's the best candidate to move to LF. Walker played like 2 innings of LF in 2004, and looked like he was baffled by the flight of the ball off the bat. We have a perfectly good, cheap LF option who has patience, speed, can hit the ball to all fields and does have enough power. We can debate this when we get to LF, but dumping 2 infielders in LF isn't going to solve our issues. You beat me to it, USSoccer. I couldn't have said it any better, though.

Sure that has been suggested, but suggested by a moron. Id put no credence into that claim. Who? I'm just looking for a source, that's all. Bah, i give up. Could have possibly not been a link but some one something heard some idiot say on the radio.Thanks for checking.

That's what I would do, as well, but only if Hendry is able to sign Giles/Damon or trade for someone just as good or better. If he can't do that, then Furcal is the next best option and that means finding out if Nomar can/is willing to play 2B or, god forbid, RF?

Sure that has been suggested, but suggested by a moron. Id put no credence into that claim. Who? I'm just looking for a source, that's all.

The vote is currently 18-2 in favor of picking up the option on Walker. It makes too much sense given his ability to produce with the bat and the price of 2.5 million. If he doesn't like the idea of coming back then he should not have signed a contract that included a team option for the '06 season. He is the property of the Cubs and can be traded. I believe that Hendry would be willing to work with Todd to trade him to a team that he wants to be with assuming that the offer is to the Cubs liking, but Hendry has no obligation to do so. That said, I'm not in favor of trading Walker just to make room for Cedeno. The only condition under which I would trade Walker is if the Cubs would improve themselves at the 2B position. At this point, I'm not sold that Cedeno is an improvement over Walker. Though, I do like his chances to succeed as a starter in '07. I think the safest bet for success next year is to have Walker playing 2B. Unless the Cubs can somehow acquire a Marcus Giles or Luis Castillo or anyone who is an improvement over Walker, then Walker should be starting.

Not that I don't believe you, but in the interest of keeping this thread factual, do you have a source? One of my top ideas for this off season was to try to acquire Marcus Giles. I considered it too much of a pipe dream to even bring up, but if there is an article somewhere...

That's a pretty good point. Well said and thought out. It makes perfect sense. All that has to be assumed is that Dusty is completely devoid of any morality, honesty or sense of self-worth. If those assumptions are accurate, I think you are dead on. I wouldn't say he's devoid of morality. He's not very bright, is subject to self-serving delusions, and is incapable of admitting to a mistake. He has a fundamental lack of humility and I suspect he actually believes most of his BS. His primary personality trait is that he views everything through the lens of his own gigantic ego. I think we are saying the same thing. You describe Dusty as a delusional egomaniac with a complete lack of humility. How can someone who fits that description still behave morally?

That's a pretty good point. Well said and thought out. It makes perfect sense. All that has to be assumed is that Dusty is completely devoid of any morality, honesty or sense of self-worth. If those assumptions are accurate, I think you are dead on. I know I wouldn't want a system where I don't get blamed for failure, and get credit for success. Nor would I. I don't think any of us would. And yet a lot of us assume that Dusty would. I find that interesting, if not a bit hypocritical. However, it is far from proven that Dusty employs the system described above. It is real easy to look at someone's actions from one point of view and see someone running from responsibility and to look at the same actoins and see someone explaining why he thinks things happen or whatever. We need look no further than our current president. Our nation is deeply divided. He gives the same speech or takes the same actions, but one group hears one thing and the other group hears another. To believe that you know with any amount of certainty that Baker sets up ploys to avoid blame is to say that you are able to read a man's thoughts. Anything short of telepathic ability on your part leaves you with just your opinion. And I think it is a well supported one. Proven? Far from it. In a way, you are right. The logic that is being used is sound. But this logical situation is just a theory. No one has proven that Dusty actually does this. Is there evidence for it, yes, most certainly. Is there evidence against it? Yes. I was being sarcastic. It would be great to never be blamed yet always get the credit, however unethical it is. The rest of my post that you didn't reply to was the evidence for it, what's the evidence against it? 1. The quotes from players like Murton's. There have been several throughout Dusty's tenure with the Cubs. 2. The lack of evidence that Dusty rules his clubhouse with an iron fist. 3. The logic that shows us that in order for Dusty to be making up ploys to avoid taking responsibility, not only does he have to be a pretty terrible person devoid of any morals, but his players have to be spineless wimps who consistently lie for him even though they are dying to tell the truth. 4. The logic that shows us that it is pretty easy for two groups of people to watch the same event, a presidential speech, for instance, and hear two completely different things. One group hears a fearless leader and the other group hears an incredulous liar. Which one is the truth? Both sides will stand by their interpretation, but both can't be accurate. It is probably somewhere in the middle. Again, I'm not defending Dusty. I still want him to be fired. I still disagree with many of his moves. I just don't think that this quote and others constitute evidence that he is a bad manager. I think it is evidence of fans who allow themselves to get so angry that they lose objectivity. Can I prove that? No. That's just my opinion.

Look, I'm not saying that this quote changes anything about Dusty Baker. I still would like to see him go. I disagree with a lot of his decisions. But I think this quote is pretty solid evidence that this thread is another example of us being overly eager to find things to criticize him for. Isn't it enough that he bats guys with terrible OBP at the top of the order? Isn't enough that he failed to rally his team to victory when Wood and Nomar returned? Isn't it enough that he isn't the best at managing a bullpen so that guys stay sharp? Isn't it enough that he overvalues major league experience? Do you really have to twist his words or assume the worst about what he says to whip him some more? I think it is classless of us, and I think were better than this, but so what? That's just my opinion. What matters is that the assumptions made about Baker in this case are inaccurate unless you believe that Murton had a metaphorical gun to his head when he said the above quote. What did you expect Murton to say? "Hey, Dusty is as stuborne as a jack ass. All I've done is hit since I got here and the ignoramus plays Hollandsworth over me. What a buffone. He has to be one of the worst managers for bringing up you position players in the modern era of baseball." Dusty is Murtons manager for crying out loud. Come on CubinNY, Murton could have said a lot of things other than completely ripping his manager or confirming that Baker's choice to ease him in helped him to be successful from the beginning. He could have said, "It may have made a difference. Who knows? I just came to play." He could've said, "Well, Dusty's the manager. He makes the decisions on who plays and who doesn't. That's not my job." Any of those would have been fine, right? I think it is clearly very logical to think that if Murton didn't agree that Baker helped him at all, he could and would have said something other than his original quote which praised Dusty's approach. There are a lot of other, very subtle options a person can say without giving his manager's method a ringing endorsement. If you disagreed that Baker's tactic helped, and you were one of his players, would you say what Murton said? Would you subjugate your own feelings, spit on your own self-respect and lie the way you assume Murton did? If so, why, when you could have said so many other things that would have neither offended Dusty nor confirmed that his decisions helped you succeed? You see, in order for your opinion to be accurate, not only does Dusty have to completely without morals and one of the most evil schemers on the face of the planet, but Murton has to be the biggest ass-kissing wimp, devoid of any self-respect, ever. I'm just not willing to believe that is the case.

That's a pretty good point. Well said and thought out. It makes perfect sense. All that has to be assumed is that Dusty is completely devoid of any morality, honesty or sense of self-worth. If those assumptions are accurate, I think you are dead on. I know I wouldn't want a system where I don't get blamed for failure, and get credit for success. Nor would I. I don't think any of us would. And yet a lot of us assume that Dusty would. I find that interesting, if not a bit hypocritical. However, it is far from proven that Dusty employs the system described above. It is real easy to look at someone's actions from one point of view and see someone running from responsibility and to look at the same actoins and see someone explaining why he thinks things happen or whatever. We need look no further than our current president. Our nation is deeply divided. He gives the same speech or takes the same actions, but one group hears one thing and the other group hears another. To believe that you know with any amount of certainty that Baker sets up ploys to avoid blame is to say that you are able to read a man's thoughts. Anything short of telepathic ability on your part leaves you with just your opinion. And I think it is a well supported one. Proven? Far from it. In a way, you are right. The logic that is being used is sound. But this logical situation is just a theory. No one has proven that Dusty actually does this. Is there evidence for it, yes, most certainly. Is there evidence against it? Yes.

Quite clever considering I want Baker to be fired. :o Just trying to provide some objectivity for a change. Yeah, I saw this post, too, and couldn't figure out who IMB! was referring to. I went back and looked to see if anyone in this thread actually said they loved Dusty Baker and wanted him to stay on as manager and I couldn't find one post that said that. Maybe IMB! couldn't argue with our points, so he/she decided to try to paint as something we're not. I don't know. Find one post where I was talking to you? I was using a little hyperbole to describe our friend over there, I didn't know I had to clear that by you. Maybe you couldn't come up with a post that had any substance to it, so you decided to come up with this bs again, nice going. Wow, clearly you haven't read my posts in this thread. I gave a direct quote from Matt Murton talking about the subject at hand. I don't know how much more substantive and relevent you need my post to be before you can recognize that it has some "substance" to it. On the other hand, the post of your's I quoted above is nothing but an attempt at a derisive personal attack that by your own admission is exaggerated. Your post also failed to clarify who you were talking to. When I read it, I assumed you were responding to my posts. Then I saw that CubfaninCA had also responded. I went back and saw that we were basically the only two posters that were saying that Dusty might actually have been accurate in his statement. I also saw that no one wrote anything remotely close to what you accused them of have writing. I wasn't sure whether you were accusing me or CubfaninCA or someone else of having taken up the banner you described, but since you didn't say exactly to whom you were referring, it was a logical deduction to reach that it was either one of us or both. Hyperbole? I guess if that's all you got, use it. Now, if we can get back on track in this thread. Does anyone else truly believe that Murton was forced to say what he said? Keep raging against the machine then. I'm interested to see just how long your crazy quest to right the message board wrongs against Dusty Baker lasts. I don't know what I did to garner all of this attention from you, IMB!. But you sure seem to enjoy reading my posts, twisting my words and then trying to attack me personally somehow. I don't have a quest. Never said I did. You've said it, though. Interesting. I do have an opinion. I express it, and I provide pretty solid evidence supporting it. If that's a quest in your book, so be it. Is ridicule the only tool in your bag or just your favorite?

That may be the best idea so far. This would also include No Neifi, No Macias. No doubt, I've been on this idea's bandwagon since someone first came up with a month or so ago. Resigning Nomar is key, especially if he can be had at the low price people keep mentioning. There is no good reason to give up on Walker unless the Cubs can upgrade his position. Aquiring someone to play SS who has an expensive, long-term contract when Cedeno is cheap and already under the team's control would only serve to unnecessarily financially handcuff the Cubs in the future. About the only reason to sign Furcal is if the Cubs can't sign Giles or Damon or trade for an impact OFer.

I thought I would post this again. Look, I'm not saying that this quote changes anything about Dusty Baker. I still would like to see him go. I disagree with a lot of his decisions. But I think this quote is pretty solid evidence that this thread is another example of us being overly eager to find things to criticize him for. Isn't it enough that he bats guys with terrible OBP at the top of the order? Isn't enough that he failed to rally his team to victory when Wood and Nomar returned? Isn't it enough that he isn't the best at managing a bullpen so that guys stay sharp? Isn't it enough that he overvalues major league experience? Do you really have to twist his words or assume the worst about what he says to whip him some more? I think it is classless of us, and I think were better than this, but so what? That's just my opinion. What matters is that the assumptions made about Baker in this case are inaccurate unless you believe that Murton had a metaphorical gun to his head when he said the above quote.

That's a pretty good point. Well said and thought out. It makes perfect sense. All that has to be assumed is that Dusty is completely devoid of any morality, honesty or sense of self-worth. If those assumptions are accurate, I think you are dead on.

Quite clever considering I want Baker to be fired. :o Just trying to provide some objectivity for a change. Yeah, I saw this post, too, and couldn't figure out who IMB! was referring to. I went back and looked to see if anyone in this thread actually said they loved Dusty Baker and wanted him to stay on as manager and I couldn't find one post that said that. Maybe IMB! couldn't argue with our points, so he/she decided to try to paint as something we're not. I don't know. Find one post where I was talking to you? I was using a little hyperbole to describe our friend over there, I didn't know I had to clear that by you. Maybe you couldn't come up with a post that had any substance to it, so you decided to come up with this bs again, nice going. Wow, clearly you haven't read my posts in this thread. I gave a direct quote from Matt Murton talking about the subject at hand. I don't know how much more substantive and relevent you need my post to be before you can recognize that it has some "substance" to it. On the other hand, the post of your's I quoted above is nothing but an attempt at a derisive personal attack that by your own admission is exaggerated. Your post also failed to clarify who you were talking to. When I read it, I assumed you were responding to my posts. Then I saw that CubfaninCA had also responded. I went back and saw that we were basically the only two posters that were saying that Dusty might actually have been accurate in his statement. I also saw that no one wrote anything remotely close to what you accused them of have writing. I wasn't sure whether you were accusing me or CubfaninCA or someone else of having taken up the banner you described, but since you didn't say exactly to whom you were referring, it was a logical deduction to reach that it was either one of us or both. Hyperbole? I guess if that's all you got, use it. Now, if we can get back on track in this thread. Does anyone else truly believe that Murton was forced to say what he said?

I feel much the same way. Well said. And, yes, I did make it all the way to the end of your Russian novel.

Quite clever considering I want Baker to be fired. :o Just trying to provide some objectivity for a change. Yeah, I saw this post, too, and couldn't figure out who IMB! was referring to. I went back and looked to see if anyone in this thread actually said they loved Dusty Baker and wanted him to stay on as manager and I couldn't find one post that said that. Maybe IMB! couldn't argue with our points, so he/she decided to try to paint as something we're not. I don't know.

I see what you mean in reference to the Barrett statistic, but the other ones are still valid, aren't they?

Whatever your opinion is of the author doesn't really matter. The numbers are the numbers. You'll notice I didn't include the author's blurb on clutch hitting because I didn't think it applied. But the numbers I did quote weren't made up by the author, were they?

Or maybe he is just being accurate. I hate to introduce empirical evidence in a thread like this one, but, in two and a half pages of posts, shouldn't someone have asked what Murton thinks? I couldn't agree with you more. I want him gone, too. But I can't bring myself to make the leap to using words like idiot when describing Dusty Baker. Not only do I think it is needlessly disrespectful, its simply inaccurate. Comments like "he's an idiot" say more about the person that wrote them than they do about the subject, in my opinion. Wait, you're expecting Murton to say something else there? How can he make any answer besides one that flagellates his manager without fear of repercussion? And it took all of 5 minutes to get the standard response. Why is it that whenever a player says something good about Dusty Baker that some fans immediately write it off as that he was somehow forced to say it? Does anyone have any evidence that suggests Baker runs his clubhouse with an iron fist, and that if anyone says anything less than the highest possible praise about Dusty that they'll sit the rest of the year? Come on, sethuel1, Murton could have said 100 different things. He could have ended the session and said, "I've got to go". He could have said, "It may have made a difference. Who knows? I just came to play." He could've said, "Well, Dusty's the manager. He makes the decisions on who plays and who doesn't. That's not my job." Any of those would have been fine. But he didn't say them, did he?

Or maybe he is just being accurate. I hate to introduce empirical evidence in a thread like this one, but, in two and a half pages of posts, shouldn't someone have asked what Murton thinks? I couldn't agree with you more. I want him gone, too. But I can't bring myself to make the leap to using words like idiot when describing Dusty Baker. Not only do I think it is needlessly disrespectful, its simply inaccurate. Comments like "he's an idiot" say more about the person that wrote them than they do about the subject, in my opinion.

I thought this article applied to our discussion. Here are some highlights:

Remember that movie starring Harrison Ford called Regarding Henry. It was about a guy who survives a shooting only to find he can't remember anything. Boy, was that a bad one. For a second, I thought this thread was going to be a parody of that somehow involving Jim Hendry. Maybe Hendry gets hit in the head by a foul ball and doesn't remember anything about baseball, but he returns to his job as GM of the Cubs after reading Moneyball. The Cubs win the world series and everyone lives happily ever after. What do you think? Should we make it? :wink: