CubfaninCA

I think most of those statements are sensible, with the exception of #5. Our corner IFs have enough pop to compensate for Ramirez, who IMO should never set foot on the green part of a baseball field. Johnny Damon, on the other hand, IS a FA. Yes, he's a Boras client; yes, he will ask for a boatload of money, but if you're going to deal CPatt elsewhere and break the bank anyway... I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree that Cedeno should start at SS next year. I think Damon will sign a 5 to 6 year deal elsewhere. The Trib doesn't like to take on anything longer than 4 yrs. so can't see Damon in Chicago. As for the Cubs power, I don't think Lee will have a year like this again. He's starting to slow down now. With Cub pitching being average, and w/ a thin group of free agent pitchers to acquire, I want to bulk up team OPS. Yes, Manny is an eccentric one, but I'd roll the dice on him.

Reading comprehension is a skill my friend. :) There probably are some on this board that do know more than Baker about hitting. However, some of the criticism of Baker just gets out of hand and tiresome at times.

Things to do before April 1, 2006: 1. Get Wood and Patterson out there for the rest of the year and get their trade value up. 2. Fire Baker. If Jim W. Hendry won't do it, fire Hendry too. 3. Let Nomar & Lawton go elsewhere. 4. Sign Giles to a 3 year Alou~like deal. 5. Go after Manny. Offer Wood, Patterson and another prospect or two. I think Boston will look to deal Manny in the offseason, and the Cubs are one of the few clubs w/ the budget to absorb Manny. 6. Give Pie the cf job and Cedeno the ss job in spring training.

I remember having this same debate about Wood years ago. Wood and Prior are very different pitchers. Kerry has always been higher risk. Maybe a higher risk...maybe but he still had a lot of value to offer to a team. Get rid of Prior and the Cubs go from middle of the pack rotation to one of the worse. Some have not realized how quickly the Cub rotation has fallen. I didn't mind seeing Clement go cause he was always inconsistent and $8 mil/yr. was too much, but am kinda missing him now, especially w/ Maddux fading.

Have you read this thread??

Being a great hitter doesn't mean you will be a great hitting instructor. Dusty's prowess as a MLB player and his ability to assess and instruct can be mutually exclusive things. Dusty was a good hitter so he automatically knows what's best for Murton? BS. It's like that in all facets of life. For example, I have met awesome golfers who couldn't teach you a thing about how to swing a club effectively. I knew awesome mathematicians who couldn't help me at all with my math. I am a pretty damn good writer, but I have a hard time imparting writing knowledge on to students I tutor. The notion that if two people are analysts/managers and the one who has had success as a player automatically has more insight is a total and utter crock. The Cubs are one of the best slugging teams in the NL, and Baker's the same guy who managed Bonds. I don't like Baker, mostly due to his incredible stubbornness and constantly changing lineups. However, he's not as bad as some on this board say. He probably knows a lot more about hitting than many of the armchair coaches on this board, who probably never got past high school ball. Bonds was great before Baker got anywhere near him. Slugging is great, but what about the other facets of hitting? We have a poor and inconsistent offense. And Dusty's faux concern over R/L matchups is very transparent. It is funny how his view of it changes depending on the experience of the player. Remember how eager he was to pull Dubois when a RHP came in, but ver did the same to Holla when a LHP came in? Or today when Mercker came in to fave Burnitz while Murton watched. There is zero reason to think his keeping Murton away from RHP is anything other than an excuse to play his pet vets. Matt hit RHP and LHP with equal effectiveness in AA, so there's not reason to expect him to be suddenly traumatized by them now. There is no better time to see what Matt can do than the present. As I pointed out in another thread, the Braves brought Francouer up from AA at the same time as Murton was brought up, and he has had more AB's against RHP than LHP. And Bobby Cox sure knows a heck of alot more about winning and successfully managing a team than Dusty ever will. But since Dusty was a good hitter, he must know more about it than Bobby, huh? Is the Francoeur/Murton comparison a fair one?? I'll say this about the Cub minor league system. The well has ran kinda dry. There hasn't been much since Z and Prior. Who's the primary scout now?? My guess is that Atlanta's scouting system is light years ahead of the Cubs.

Being a great hitter doesn't mean you will be a great hitting instructor. Dusty's prowess as a MLB player and his ability to assess and instruct can be mutually exclusive things. Dusty was a good hitter so he automatically knows what's best for Murton? BS. It's like that in all facets of life. For example, I have met awesome golfers who couldn't teach you a thing about how to swing a club effectively. I knew awesome mathematicians who couldn't help me at all with my math. I am a pretty damn good writer, but I have a hard time imparting writing knowledge on to students I tutor. The notion that if two people are analysts/managers and the one who has had success as a player automatically has more insight is a total and utter crock. The Cubs are one of the best slugging teams in the NL, and Baker's the same guy who managed Bonds. I don't like Baker, mostly due to his incredible stubbornness and constantly changing lineups. However, he's not as bad as some on this board say. He probably knows a lot more about hitting than many of the armchair coaches on this board, who probably never got past high school ball. Here's a fun little job for you. Go find one post on this board by someone who claims to be a better hitting instructor than Baker. Find one post by someone who has said that they could teach someone to hit better than Baker. It's implied everyday.

I remember having this same debate about Wood years ago. Who you going to have as your #2 pitcher?? Maddux? Hill? Williams?? If there were some good pitchers available in free agency, I'd be more open to the idea, but Burnett looks like the best of the lot. I don't want to rely on another injury prone pitcher.

1) I don't think Prior's trade value is sky high anymore. He's injury prone and not as dominant anymore. 2) With Wood unreliable and probably gone after 06, the Cubs have to hang onto Prior. 3) With the minors not producing a whole lot, and Angel Guzman continually injured, the Cubs need to hang onto Prior.

Being a great hitter doesn't mean you will be a great hitting instructor. Dusty's prowess as a MLB player and his ability to assess and instruct can be mutually exclusive things. Dusty was a good hitter so he automatically knows what's best for Murton? BS. It's like that in all facets of life. For example, I have met awesome golfers who couldn't teach you a thing about how to swing a club effectively. I knew awesome mathematicians who couldn't help me at all with my math. I am a pretty damn good writer, but I have a hard time imparting writing knowledge on to students I tutor. The notion that if two people are analysts/managers and the one who has had success as a player automatically has more insight is a total and utter crock. The Cubs are one of the best slugging teams in the NL, and Baker's the same guy who managed Bonds. I don't like Baker, mostly due to his incredible stubbornness and constantly changing lineups. However, he's not as bad as some on this board say. He probably knows a lot more about hitting than many of the armchair coaches on this board, who probably never got past high school ball.

An 0-16 streak will only set him back as long as Baker's in charge. I recall a certain HOF 2B that started 1-23..... I'm sure a lot of guys who never made it for long had a 1-23 stretch. Did DuBois have one of those? For the record, Murton looks good. I just want to see what he does over a couple hundred at bats versus both lefties and righties. With Burnitz looking awful, I hope Murton gets a shot in the St. Louis series. Time to put him in the deep end of the pool.

Analyzing a situation doesn't mean you take cheap shots when not warranted, and it also means that you think critically, not be critical. Thinking critically, you would say that Aramis is playing through pain and thus shouldn't be expected to run flat out to 1B on a ground ball to third. His bat is more important that making it a close play, given the risk. Critical thinking tells you that Murton has command of the zone, and thus could be a valuable ML player, and at the very least is the best option in the OF right now when put against Holla and Macias. Critical thinking tells you that it's stupid to call up a guy who's missed 9 weeks with a bad ankle injury just for the sake of it. Critical thinking. Not just criticism. I realize that one makes for better talk radio, but I'm tired of people taking Stone's word for gospel. It's not, and it's seeming more and more obvious that he has a big axe to grind with this organization. Excellent post and very well said. His bitterness isn't hidden by his claims of objectivity. Please show me Bruce Levine's career MLB stats. Thank you. The vitriol is getting a little thick in here. LOL @ the critical thinking reference. Critical thinking means not jumping to conclusions about Murton either way.

LOL. You guys are relentless. I'm sure all you guys were better hitters than Baker. The kid came up from Double A, not Triple A. Maybe Baker can get him in there against Carpenter, Morris, Clemens and Oswalt in the next week and get him an 0-16 and set the guy back a year or two.

Well he's not having as much success as a reliever. Might as well start him, especially if Hill gets bombed on Wednesday, which I expect.

I think it's pretty speculative for Stone to say the Red Sox "didn't like" Murton. Perhaps they just did what they felt they needed to do to achieve a short-term goal: finishing a huge deal that put pieces in place that were considered necessary to contend for a World Series. And that short-term goal worked out pretty well. I like Murton for the future because he's so outside the mold of the "typical" Cubs hitter. I could actually see him being sort of Grace-esque in the future at the plate; contact hitter for average, good amount of walks, lots of doubles, power numbers are gravy. Maybe (?) we'll find out some day for sure. You'll probably never know exactly what the Red Sox thought about Murton for sure. He's not Babe Ruth or anything, but he has a nice approach at the plate and he swings at good pitches. I've enjoyed watching him, although it's been in very small samples. I'd like see what Murton can do against right handed pitching. All this talk about Murton being the next Mark Grace is premature. He's mostly facing lefties. With Burnitz really slumping, Baker should give Murton a few more starts in left, with Lawton in right. Burnitz could be out of gas. Just for clarification, I never said Murton was the next Mark Grace. But he has an approach to hitting similar in ways to Grace's, which in itself was quite dissimilar from that of most Cubs of, oh, the last 2 decades. I of course agree that Baker should start Murton more consistently, and should have been starting him ever since Hairston got hurt, and some before then. (You don't know if you've got a Rookie of the Year unless you play a rookie.) But of course we all know this isn't going to happen. I'll give Baker some credit on Murton. He's put him in situations where he's at an advantage. Murton came up from Double A, so you don't want to throw him in the middle of the water right away. People can scoff at this, but Baker was a major league hitter and knows a little something about hitting.

I think it's pretty speculative for Stone to say the Red Sox "didn't like" Murton. Perhaps they just did what they felt they needed to do to achieve a short-term goal: finishing a huge deal that put pieces in place that were considered necessary to contend for a World Series. And that short-term goal worked out pretty well. I like Murton for the future because he's so outside the mold of the "typical" Cubs hitter. I could actually see him being sort of Grace-esque in the future at the plate; contact hitter for average, good amount of walks, lots of doubles, power numbers are gravy. Maybe (?) we'll find out some day for sure. You'll probably never know exactly what the Red Sox thought about Murton for sure. He's not Babe Ruth or anything, but he has a nice approach at the plate and he swings at good pitches. I've enjoyed watching him, although it's been in very small samples. I'd like see what Murton can do against right handed pitching. All this talk about Murton being the next Mark Grace is premature. He's mostly facing lefties. With Burnitz really slumping, Baker should give Murton a few more starts in left, with Lawton in right. Burnitz could be out of gas.

If the Cubs are under .500 by the end of the year, and Baker's not gone, the Trib should fire both Hendry and Baker. It takes a big man to own up to mistakes, and if Jim Hendry can't do so, can him. As for Murton, could Theo Epstein and Bill James have made an error?? Ok probably not. :)

Answer ~ Ain't my fault.

If Hendry keeps Baker, the Trib should give him the axe as well. All these great trades are for nothing, if you hang onto the worse manager in the game.

A logical move would be to shut him down, get surgery and be ready for Oh-Six. But this organization lacks a lot of logic. A logical move is to trade Wood before he's gone in 2007 for nothing. A logical move is to not to give him another chance as a starter. Been there and done that way too many times. And before anyone posts NO TRADE CLAUSE!!! Keep him in the pen next year, and I have a feeling his agent will tell him to accept a trade so he can start to maximize his value in free agency.

Sheesh could have pitched Wood in the 6th and 7th, but that would mean that Dusty would have had to organize a game plan.

Great. Use Wood in garbage time. Very smart.

Put Andruw Jones, Pujols. Tejada, ARod, Lee and Manny in the lineup and the Cubs still wouldn't score. Nomar has brought the curse w/ him. No wins since his return. Just more bad luck. Hope he can survive on $500k next year.

Let Jimmy Walker manage the bottom of the 7th. Maybe he'll pull Rusch for a pinch hitter.

It was a tough call on who else to put in there. It could've been Hendry I guess. It definitely would have been LaTroy if he was still around. Perez, Macias and Hollandsworthless are definitely the "Dusty Boys" though. There, we go, better? Actually, Hendry and the front office have done a good job of putting togather a great roster. It's the people in the dugout who are under-performing. I dont understand why Hendry doesnt give Dusty the "Streinbrenner treatment" and say something like, "The Chicago Cubs front office and the Tribune Co. have put togather a team that should be winning a lot more than they are. If this team does not start winning, then changes WILL be made in the dugout." Perhaps Hendry can't acknowledge error like The Boss.