CubsWin

give me a break...this guy always finds a way to cut down a young player and make excuses for an older player. his bias is so ridiculously obvious that i can't believe he even makes an effort to dispel it with his comments. well, i'd love to start cedeno at ss, but his throws to first run just a little bit into the runner. i think we'll go w/ neifi and his sub-.300 obp...his throws to first are awesome! No, you give me a break. Honestly, would this quote raise an eyebrow if any other manager had said it? If Tony LaRussa or Bobby Cox were saying this we would be saying, "see, it is their eye for detail and the level of excellence they demand of their players that gets them where they are". This is a perfect example of people who already have made up their mind about Baker taking a perfectly innocent quote and trying to turn into evidence that supports their already-made-up-mind's position. Baker may deserve to be fired, but this quote has nothing to do with it. Go find me a quote from Bobby Cox nit-picking to the beat writers at areas where a young player needs to improve. Kelly Johnson came up and went 1-35 with the Braves, yet he said it was easy to come out of that slump because Bobby took the pressure off him and told him to just play. He said your here because you can play; just go out, bust it, and you'll begin to hit at this level. Kelly Johnson, despite the struggles is at .278/.368/.808 since that 1-35. The point is, Baker puts pressure on these players by saying "you need to do this" "oh, he can't do that" "oh, he'll never be this" rather than allowing the player to just play the game and work with these players to improve. Instead, he can't stop defending his vets, but finds the time to spout to anyone who will listen about the younger player faults. I don't have the time to sift through pages of Bobby Cox quotes, so you may be right, you might not. I don't know. But even if you are right, it just shows that Dusty has a different style of managing, not that he hates rookies and will always play the veteran over the rookie as some fans would have you believe. Again, I'm not defending Dusty's quotes or his actions. I'm only saying that some fans are taking things too far and reading into stuff unnecessarily.

cubbieinexile, What are you trying to say by including this article about this projection process? The projection you quoted concluded that the Cubs would win 85-90 games. The wildcard leader has 73 wins with 24 games left to play. If they continue to win like they have been, they might go 15-9. That would be 88 wins. So, according to the projection you quoted, Hendry put together a team that was playoff caliber. So are you saying that unless Hendry puts together a team that projects to be dominant and run away with the division, he doesn't "get it" and should be fired? I also noticed that the projection you quoted says nothing about poor performances like the ones put in by Corey, Holla, Dubois, Rusch, Remlinger, etc., and they didn't project the amount of games missed by players like Prior, Wood, Nomar, Ramirez, Walker and the like. Yet, they still came up with 85-90 wins. It seems like according to this projection, the Cubs got exactly what they should have gotten given all the things that went wrong. Now if what you are saying is that because Hendry hasn't put together a squad that is a dominant 100-plus win team in his first 3 seasons and for that he should be fired, we can have that debate, but right now, I don't know what you are arguing for.

Yes, but how consistently have they/you been right? No, but how productive is the question. Anyone, and probably everyone, who looked at the Cubs line-up said the IF is the strength and the OF is the weak-link. Thats not saying anything, though. It is the finer points of how productive will they be that determine the team's ability to win games. Clearly anyone could look at the outfield and see that they were weaker offensively than the infield. But does that mean that they could have predicted Corey's self-destruction? No. Of course not. So why do you bother to bring it up? Here is what is germane to this discussion. The infield's production took a big hit when Nomar went down for 100 games. If he had missed the more predictable amount of 25-30 games, how many more games would the Cubs have won? If Maddux slipped to a post-all-star break ERA of 3.70 (from 3.48 in 2004) instead of the near 4.00 ERA he had the last time I checked, would that have resulted in one or two more victories? If Mitre had been more consistent or Rusch not folded in the 2nd half, how many more victories would that have produced? If Baker hadn't put Dempster in the rotation at the beginning of the season, how many more victories would that have produced? Projections rarely take into account these finer points, these smaller factors. Why do you keep coming back with the same questions that have already been answered for you with logic and statistics. Do I really have to answer these questions for you again? If you want me to, I will, but I'm starting to believe that it won't make any difference in how you see things.

I figured you would say that. Murton has spent a little over a year in the Cubs system. In that time, he has put numbers way beyond anything he ever did in the Boston organization. But, you're right. There is no way, shape or form that Matt Murton learned anything in the last 12 months. You are absolutely right that the Cubs instructors have nothing to do with his growth as a player. It is absolute coincidence that the numbers he has put up with the DJaxx and Cubs this season were much better than any of the stats he put up in 2 1/2 years with Boston. Thats just luck or baseball variance, right goony? Here is something for which Jim Hendry is 100% responsible: Murton being on the Cubs roster. Hendry lucked into Murton. He has no clue. Yeah, you're right. I guess it was the Red Sox GM that insisted Murton be included in the Nomar deal. In fact, I think I read somewhere that he wouldn't agree to trade away Nomar without Murton also being attached. A package deal I think you call it. :wink:

And I'll make my prediction right now regarding next year. Nomar will be on the DL, and will not play a full season again for the Cubs. . If Wood doesn't change his mechanics, he will be on the DL. If Hendry doesn't see that, and plans on full seasons from both, then he is being foolish. To predict that both of those players will be on the DL is like predicting that fish will continue to live in water next year. How long will they be on the DL, that is the prediction to make.

give me a break...this guy always finds a way to cut down a young player and make excuses for an older player. his bias is so ridiculously obvious that i can't believe he even makes an effort to dispel it with his comments. well, i'd love to start cedeno at ss, but his throws to first run just a little bit into the runner. i think we'll go w/ neifi and his sub-.300 obp...his throws to first are awesome! Honestly, would this quote raise an eyebrow if any other manager had said it? If Tony LaRussa or Bobby Cox were saying this we would be saying, "see, it is their eye for detail and the level of excellence they demand of their players that gets them where they are". yeah, except, strangely enough he only nit-picks at the games of younger players. -murton needs to hit for more power (replaced by hairston, who has no power & patterson who can't hit anything) -dubois can't play defense (replaced by hollandsworth, who is awful defensively, and can't hit to save his life) -cedeno throws slightly funny (replaced by neifi and his .300 obp) -hill isn't ready for the big leagues (replaced by rusch, who has gone 0-4 with an 8ish era since he took hill's spot) point me to an example of him doing this to a young player, then we'll talk. I think you meant older. But wasn't it just recently, and then back in July and also back at the end of May that Baker was making public comments about how players, both veterans and not, needed to be more selective at the plate? maybe...but what came of it? two of the most unselective players on the team (macias and neifi) have only gotten more playing time. The stats don't support this statement. Neifi playing time has definitely tailed off since the return of Nomar and should continue to do so with Hendry calling for more of Cedeno. If Cedeno's P.T. doesn't pick up over the last month, then that would be solid evidence. Macias got 3 starts in April, 4 in May, 2 in June, 4 in July and then Aramis got hurt and he stepped in for him in August. He hasn't started a game since August 11th.

Look, abuck, I hold the opinion that Baker overvalues major league experience when he is determining who to play and who not to play, and this leads to his perceived bias against rookies. It isn't a bias against rookies. So his quotes that aren't directly about his playing rookies don't apply and are simply being twisted. He has and will play a rookie if he determines that they are his best option for winning today's game. But in the process for making that determination, he, wrongly in my opinion, overvalues the major league experience the player may or may not have. But he is still, in his mind, playing whomever gives his team the best chance of winning, rookie or not. So the debate isn't about Baker having a bias and being an idiot, etc. It is and should be about the value of major league experience in a player's ability to produce and contribute to winning ball games. Does anyone have any stats on that? My personal opinion is that it doesn't matter as much as Baker thinks it does, but I have no evidence to support that opinion. Anybody?

give me a break...this guy always finds a way to cut down a young player and make excuses for an older player. his bias is so ridiculously obvious that i can't believe he even makes an effort to dispel it with his comments. well, i'd love to start cedeno at ss, but his throws to first run just a little bit into the runner. i think we'll go w/ neifi and his sub-.300 obp...his throws to first are awesome! Honestly, would this quote raise an eyebrow if any other manager had said it? If Tony LaRussa or Bobby Cox were saying this we would be saying, "see, it is their eye for detail and the level of excellence they demand of their players that gets them where they are". yeah, except, strangely enough he only nit-picks at the games of younger players. -murton needs to hit for more power (replaced by hairston, who has no power & patterson who can't hit anything) -dubois can't play defense (replaced by hollandsworth, who is awful defensively, and can't hit to save his life) -cedeno throws slightly funny (replaced by neifi and his .300 obp) -hill isn't ready for the big leagues (replaced by rusch, who has gone 0-4 with an 8ish era since he took hill's spot) point me to an example of him doing this to a young player, then we'll talk. I think you meant older. But wasn't it just recently, and then back in July and also back at the end of May that Baker was making public comments about how players, both veterans and not, needed to be more selective at the plate?

As documented in Moneyball, Billy Beane got mad at the players that the then manager was using and told him who to use and it seemed like it was big deal (as in that doesn't happen often). Guess what Beane got a new manager the next season.... Yes, I agree that Hendry can afford to assert himself more, if he indeed he disagrees with Baker, but for the purposes of the comment I made, the story you mention from Moneyball only serves to support the notion that GMs don't have control over who to start. And certainly not at the begining of the season with the manager having only fulfilled 2 years of a 4-year contract. It certainly is possible that, starting with Hendry's decision to bring up Murton and Greenburg, we saw the beginning of Hendry asserting himself over Baker in this regard.

give me a break...this guy always finds a way to cut down a young player and make excuses for an older player. his bias is so ridiculously obvious that i can't believe he even makes an effort to dispel it with his comments. well, i'd love to start cedeno at ss, but his throws to first run just a little bit into the runner. i think we'll go w/ neifi and his sub-.300 obp...his throws to first are awesome! No, you give me a break. Honestly, would this quote raise an eyebrow if any other manager had said it? If Tony LaRussa or Bobby Cox were saying this we would be saying, "see, it is their eye for detail and the level of excellence they demand of their players that gets them where they are". This is a perfect example of people who already have made up their mind about Baker taking a perfectly innocent quote and trying to turn into evidence that supports their already-made-up-mind's position. Baker may deserve to be fired, but this quote has nothing to do with it.

Not according to Hendry. But then again, what does he know? :wink: Yeah.... wasn't he the same guy that told us Sammy would be playing right field for us this year ??? In the preseason he also talked up Dubois as a potential Rookie of the Year, then it turned out Hollandsworth was the starter. Hendry says a lot of BS for public consumption. Judging by how quickly Dubois was dumped it wouldn't surprise me if Hendry was looking for offers for Dubois even before opening day and the ROY talk was just hype to inflate Dubois' value. That's possible. Its also possible that Hendry had nothing to do with the decision to start Hollandsworth. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that there is an expectation in baseball that it is disrespectful for the GM to start telling the manager who to start.

No. I'm fairly certain if he had to do it all over again knowing what he knows now that he would do a lot of things differently. But thats the point. He didn't know, in fact no one knew, and if they say they did they are trying to sell you a bill of goods. He may have had reason to suspect some guys would have off years, and he may have had what he and his scouts thought were solid back-up plans for that eventuality. But sometimes things work out and sometimes they don't . He isn't perfect. He took some gambles and they didn't work out. For that, he is responsible. When you compound those failed gambles with all the other stuff that was beyond his or any other GMs control, you get the results that we got. But you seem to be saying that he should have seen it all coming, and you haven't shown much evidence to support that position besides some projections. In order for any projection to hold water in such a debate as this, you would have to introduce the projector's track record, and it would have to be pretty darn accurate over several years for the projection to apply to this discussion, wouldn't it?

Not according to Hendry. But then again, what does he know? :wink: Yeah.... wasn't he the same guy that told us Sammy would be playing right field for us this year ??? Yes, and the quotes in this article fall right in line with his modus operendi. He has to say publically that which puts him in the best bargaining position. So, if he is trying to trade Sammy, and it was no secret that he was, then it behooves him to publicly state, when he isn't finding a good enough offer in return, that it looks like Sammy will not be traded. He is doing the same thing here. Hendry intends to at least see what the market is like for either Nomar or Furcal or both. To say that Cedeno has looked great and has proven himself to the Cubs to the point that if he was their starter next season they would be okay with that works to the CUbs advantage on several levels. It gives the Cubs leverage in negotiations with all FA SSs. It gives Cedeno a public pat-on-the-back for his success over the last two seasons. It probably gives Cedeno some added confidence that he belongs in the bigs, and it provides some PR cover if Hendry chooses not to sign one of the FA SSs. Show me a GM of any sports franchise who is up front with the media and the public 100% of the time, and I'll show you a guy who is about to be fired and deservedly so. But as far as Neifi getting playing time over Cedeno if they are both on the team, that will be up to the manager. If its Dusty, it looks highly likely that Neifi will see a lot of time on the field over Cedeno. That would be very disappointing to me.

I totally agree that the Cubs would be much better off with someone other than Macias backing up Ramirez at 3B. Ramirez has shown a propensity to miss 10-15 games a year, so having someone who has got some pop and the ability to maybe play an outfield spot as well as 1B might not be a bad idea. Anybody have any names that fit that description? And I think the greater likelihood, if Nomar is brought back and Walker isn't, is that Nomar would play SS and Cedeno would move to 2B.

Not according to Hendry. But then again, what does he know? :wink:

Or Walker... Exactly. The article mentioned ronny being worked out at 2B. With Hairston still on the roster, it would be possible to let Walker go, bring Nomar back and have Cedeno play 2B. If Nomar gets injured again, Cedeno slides over to SS and Hairston takes over at 2B. Personally, I would rather see Walker and Nomar return with Cedeno spelling both of them and Hairston splitting time backing up the outfielders and a little at 2B as well. Walker's production remains fairly high and his price of 2.5 mill next season is fairly low. If Nomar can be brought back with a low base salary and lots of incentives, it would be the ideal low-risk, high reward situation for the Cubs. Nomar would get regular rest with Ronny taking over once a week or so and Walker would sit against lefties with Ronny stepping in for him at 2B. The article left the door open for Nomar to return. With Hendry making this statement now, it maximizes his leverage in negotiations with any FA shortstop. Good move, Jim.

Agreed. I'd like to see a one year offer extended to Nomar with a low base salary and with a chance to earn several more million if he reaches certain incentives. Cut ties with Neifi, have Cedeno as the backup, and it's a win-win situation for all parties involved... except for Neifi, but who cares about him? This is the move that makes the most sense to me. Nomar just has too high of a ceiling if he can play 140 or more games. I've been advocating this move for the last month or so and it is good to see others doing the same. However, this interesting tidbit is from ChicagoSports.com... This is a typical Hendry move. It maximizes his leverage in negotiations with any FA shortstop while also setting the expectation that Cedeno will be seeing greater playing time next season. It also leaves the door open for Nomar to return.

So faced with the fact that several people underperformed this season and not just Corey, and faced with the fact that not every player that got injured is a proven injury risk, you have now given us your opinion about how the Cubs should have done this season and are treating your opinion like it is fact. I don't mean to be rude, but I have to ask what evidence can you show that your projections are more accurate than anyone else's? Why should your projections be treated as the truth in this case?

Well, there sure are a lot of fans out there that write either exactly that or the equivalent whether they seriously think that or not. Your point is my point. Or was it my point first? Who knows? Who cares? We are in agreement on this. Who I was disagreeing with was those who say that Dusty never plays rookies, hates rookies or is biased against them just because they are rookies. The evidence shows that he is trying to win but that he overvalues major league experience, in my opinion. And those last 3 words are very important. It is still just an opinion and not a fact. A very supportable opinion, but still just an opinion. Some fans lose sight of that fact and let their frustrations get the better of them when writing about Dusty. Well, thats my point. "Devalues" is a relative term. I would say it is accurate that Dusty devalues walks in comparison to how Billy Beane values them, yes. He probably devalues them in comparison to how a lot of other managers and GMs value the walk. If the fans I have been describing would have written that Dusty values the walk less than so and so, I wouldn't have a beef because I would agree. But these fans weren't saying that. What they were saying was stuff that was inaccurate, unfair and disrespectful. It was to those fans that I was responding.

You make it sound like those things are completely untrue. Many people came to these conclusions based on the ample quotes and decisions by Baker that confirmed that suspicion. Baker is a guy who doesn't choose his words very carefully, we all know that. Some of his sentences only make sense when you consider what he was trying to say, but in order to do that, one has to give him the benefit of the doubt. It is very easy for anyone who wants to support an already held belief to twist his not-very-carefully-chosen words around to do so. It has been my experience that some fans have done exactly that and don't give Baker the benefit of the doubt very often, if at all. Maybe you aren't one of them. I don't know. I don't pay close attention to the name of the person doing the writing. I pay more attention to what is being written. But it seems clear to me that some fans have an already held belief that they are seeking to support by assuming the worst about a certain quote or twisting the words around to make them mean what they want it to mean. I remember the Baker quote about tall guys having more moving parts. His words were poorly chosen and you kinda had to visualize what he was talking about to understand what he meant, but once you did, you got the gist of what he was saying. Some guys jumped on him for that quote and used it as evidence that he is an idiot or something, I don't know. His quote about walks clogging the bases was twisted by these fans, too. Baker was referring to the fact that a hit can drive in someone from 2nd base, but a walk doesn't advance the runner with 1st base open instead, it creates a double play opportunity for the other team. If you give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't an idiot, you can understand what he was trying to say. But, if you have an already held belief that he is an idiot who hate walks, then it is fairly easy to twist Baker's poorly worded statements into evidence for your hatred of him. That said, I think Baker could have done a much better job of getting his hitters to take more walks. I think he could have emphasized it a lot more. I don't think it is a coincidence that the Cubs have walked as little as they have under him and I think he should be fired. But the twisting of his quotes and extreme viewpoints expressed with hatred towards Baker by some fans I think is unsupportable. I would agree with that if Baker's actions and decisions didn't support the supposed forgone conclusions that posters apparently twist his words to come to. It's one thing to interpret a Dusty quote to say "Dusty hates walks" or "Dusty hates kids". It's another thing to come to that interpretation after watching Bellhorn get run out of town, approaches like Neifi's continually rewarded, the PT situations of deserving young position players the last few years, etc. in addition to the supposedly twisted quote. Excellent statement. In 2003, I ignored Dusty's ignorant ramblings for the most part. But after watching actions back up the worst possible interpretations of said quotes, it's hard to do so any longer. I disagree. I don't think it is an excellent statement at all. I think it has a lot of holes in it. As I stated in my post, I do think Dusty's approach to hitting has an adverse affect on a team's walk total and that he should be fired. But it is unfair and inaccurate to say that he hates walks. He doesn't. No manager does. To say that he does is to also say that he is an idiot. He isn't. No manager is. To say that he hates playing rookies is also inaccurate. He plays the people he thinks give his team the best chance of winning. Sometimes, that happens to be a rookie. It is accurate to say that he values major league experience, and it is a very supportable opinion to say that he overvalues it. But to take some not-so-carefully-chosen words and twist them to support your view that Dusty is an idiot who hates walks and hates rookies is simply inaccurate, disrespectful and letting your frustrations get the better of you.

You can put Boise in the loss column as well. Wow, could you have more divergent outcomes for the two Cubs Rule 5 draftees? Sisco gets kept and does well as a reliever in KC. Hagerty get returned and has the worst season of any Cubs minor leaguer.

You make it sound like those things are completely untrue. Many people came to these conclusions based on the ample quotes and decisions by Baker that confirmed that suspicion. Baker is a guy who doesn't choose his words very carefully, we all know that. Some of his sentences only make sense when you consider what he was trying to say, but in order to do that, one has to give him the benefit of the doubt. It is very easy for anyone who wants to support an already held belief to twist his not-very-carefully-chosen words around to do so. It has been my experience that some fans have done exactly that and don't give Baker the benefit of the doubt very often, if at all. Maybe you aren't one of them. I don't know. I don't pay close attention to the name of the person doing the writing. I pay more attention to what is being written. But it seems clear to me that some fans have an already held belief that they are seeking to support by assuming the worst about a certain quote or twisting the words around to make them mean what they want it to mean. I remember the Baker quote about tall guys having more moving parts. His words were poorly chosen and you kinda had to visualize what he was talking about to understand what he meant, but once you did, you got the gist of what he was saying. Some guys jumped on him for that quote and used it as evidence that he is an idiot or something, I don't know. His quote about walks clogging the bases was twisted by these fans, too. Baker was referring to the fact that a hit can drive in someone from 2nd base, but a walk doesn't advance the runner with 1st base open instead, it creates a double play opportunity for the other team. If you give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't an idiot, you can understand what he was trying to say. But, if you have an already held belief that he is an idiot who hate walks, then it is fairly easy to twist Baker's poorly worded statements into evidence for your hatred of him. That said, I think Baker could have done a much better job of getting his hitters to take more walks. I think he could have emphasized it a lot more. I don't think it is a coincidence that the Cubs have walked as little as they have under him and I think he should be fired. But the twisting of his quotes and extreme viewpoints expressed with hatred towards Baker by some fans I think is unsupportable.

It was widely held that the Cubs did a great job at drafting and developing arms by many scouts and other experts like BA and the like. This was admittedly by design. The Cubs felt that was where their scouting strength lied and also felt that good pitching would remain highly sought after and would allow them to acquire talent in other areas via trade. However, according to BA at least, the Cubs experienced a breakthrough in position player talent this season and now have more balance in their minor league system than ever before. I agree that that isn't saying much given their previous dearth of position player talent in their system, but it does counter your statement that I bolded above. What determines whether or not Cubs positional prospects will "flop" or not, is their individual talent, instruction and ability to learn and remain confident/free. It has nothing, nothing, to do with the past that has come before them.

Of course that is what he is trying to say. Thats what he said. And who wouldn't agree that hitters should not be passive at the plate and looking for a walk. Dusty has been saying this all along. This is nothing new from him. And this isn't the first time he has mentioned this. He talked to the players in the last week of May about being more selective at the plate and waiting for your pitch. The guys then went on an impressive streak of games where they got double digit hits and had a great west coast road trip. So is it the players or is it Dusty? I think it is both. But some fans seem to have made up their minds a long time ago that Dusty is an idiot who hates rookies and thinks that walks are a bad thing. None of that has ever been true. He wants hitters to be aggressive and look to drive a ball, but at the same time he wants them to be selective because it is a lot easier to drive your pitch than the pitcher's. He wants to win every game and he believes, rightly or wrongly, that major league experience makes a difference. I tend to disagree with him on this one, but by no means do I think the evidence supports that Baker is unwilling to start/play players simply because they are rookies. Rookie or not, if he believes they will give his team the best chance of winning a game, he is going to play them. Where I disagree with him is what goes into making him believe the rookie player is his best option for winning that day or not.

A fantasy world? Okay, so lets go back to last off season. The 2004 season has just ended and we ask ourselves the same question, "When was the last time Wood, Prior or Nomar had a healthy season? The answer? The year before. In 2003, Wood pitched 211 innings and the year before that he pitched 213. In 2003, Prior's arm was completely healthy. He only missed time for the freak injury when he ran into Marcus Giles in the basepath. His injury wasn't from wear and tear. It wasn't until '04 that Prior showed any sort of arm problems, so why would Hendry have reason to think that it would be a reoccuring thing? Nomar played in 156 games and had 658 at bats in 2003. In fact, in '02 he also played in 156 games. And here is the kicker, before the '04 season, Nomar had only registered one season in which he had missed over 27 games. So given the overwhelming evidence that Prior is not an ongoing injury concern, Wood is, but the Cubs have some arms that can step in for him in case he does incur another injury, and that Nomar isn't a huge risk to miss more than 25-30 games, why do you accuse Hendry of living in a "fantasy world"? It is my opinion that Baker should go. Hendry clearly has shown the ability to acquire players that improve the team. It hasn't worked out the last 2 seasons, but I think he deserves more chances than that. Walker's contract isn't up. The Cubs have a team option on him for next season at 2.5 million. Whether they use it, remains to be seen. The CPatt question is a big one. He needs to show the Cubs something in the last month and probably play some winter ball and do well in order for the Cubs to not sign someone else to play CF this off season. Corey could do great in spring training and win a job on the big club even if a CFer is signed or acquired via trade.