CubfaninCA

You know what CW is don't you?? If not, this may effect your #2 status on the board. :o Conventional Wisdom. If you want to play the martyr and hold yourself out to be the one shining objective person on the board in the face of group think fanatics, go ahead. I think its laughable that you identify a couple of posts as "conventional wisdom" of the board. Such flip comments very much discount the varied opinions and posts that people contribute. Perhaps someone didn't see or chose not to post in whatever thread or group of threads you are referencing regarding Aurilia and Feliz. Or, rather, perhaps they saw it and chose not to contribute because they simply weren't interested. Either way, commentary promoting oneself as a fighter against group think, conventional wisdom, or whatever the phrase may be is ridiculous. Objectively speaking, that is. Either you're taking this a little to serious or maybe you're a little upset when a few people rock the boat and challenge the idea that Baker can't develop players..... This subject has been discussed here since 2003 btw, so yes I feel like I can describe it as "CW" because the dominant opinion on this board is that Baker can't develop players. I'm just trying to bring more democracy. :o

What is the over/under of the #2 hitter bunting the runner on 1B to 2B and then the oppsition walking Lee? You don't want Burnitz up there w/ 2 men on?? I mean his .213 RISP average is stellar. :( A good cleanup man could have made a huge difference this year. The signing of Burnitz may be Hendry's worse move in the past 3 years.

Based on what? I haven't heard anyone within the organization say that they prefer Furcal over Nomar and don't want Walker back. Recent Chicago paper articles and Gammons. Gammons has been throwing out that the Cubs don't really want Nomar in the infield anymore, and there's been a few articles about Chicago being a likely destination for Furcal and the Cubs having interest.

You know what CW is don't you?? If not, this may effect your #2 status on the board. :o Conventional Wisdom.

His tactical skills suk. Even a common person can figure out that you bat the guy w/ the .350 obp @ the top of the order instead of the guy w/ the .300 obp. Baker's bizarro lineup's have probably cost this team @ least 50 runs this year.

You should get a paycheck for this work. Nice job. Any idear where Aurilla and Felix were ranked?? According to NSBB CW, Felix should have played more in 2002. Sabean should have never signed David Bell. Of course, Baker probably forced Sabean to sign Bell. Just like he forced Sabean to sign Ellis Burks and Reggie Sander. Should have just went w/ Calvin Murray. :o

But the fact of the matter is that if Murton had been given full-time status in early July when he was first called up instead of Hollandsworth, who had done nothing all season, then we may never have had to make the trade for Lawton in the first place. The fact is, we called up a young guy and Dusty wouldn't play him, even though he hit from the moment he arrived. Now that he is playing nearly everyday, Dusty is trying to take credit for it, when it is possible this team would be in a much better position had Murton played everyday when he arrived and not since mid-August. That's just an assumption though. There was no need to put Murton in the deep end of the pool from day one, and the Lawton trade was a good trade. Unfortunatley Lawton choked in Chicago. I don't see why putting a young guy in situations where they're at more of an advantage is scoffed at. Put Murton in there against righties everyday from day one and he could have started out 2-30. Yes, he could rebound like other's have, but also it could have stunted his growth. Basically, all I'm saying is this stuff about Baker not developing players is blown way out of proportion.

If we get Giles and Furcal, which we won't, there's no need for Floyd too. Murton has earned his playing time in left at a fraction of the cost to Floyd. Yep, Furcal and Giles is a pipedream, but IF a miracle occurs and the Trib gets some cajones, ya gotta still go w/ Floyd over Murton. The window of opportunity may not stay open too long. Realistically, I can see something like this next year, Furcal, Lofton or Pierre, Lee, Floyd, ARam, Murton, Barrett, Cedeno... Bye bye Nomar. I think the line-up I posted above is doable and would look very good. Sign Lofton to a one-year 1.5 million deal with incentives. Get Nomar locked into a one year deal with a 5 million base plus incentives. That leaves the money to go after Giles. The line-up would look like this: 1. Lofton CF (He keeps the spot warm until Pie is ready.) 2. Walker 2B (He's cheap and the ideal number two hitter) 3. Lee 1b 4. Giles RF (His great OBP would put pressure on teams to pitch to Lee) 5. Ramirez 3b 6. Nomar Garciaparra (He may be declining some, but at the right price excellent fit) 7. Murton LF (Great production for a league minimum salary) 8. Barrett C The line-up would be solid top to bottom with very few easy outs. There should be enoug money to sign Nomar, Giles, and Lofton and still improve the bench and bullpen. Cedeno becomes the middle infielder to sub off the bench. If Nomar or Walker gets hurt, we'll have Cedeno to sub in. Also, Nomar might give Ramirez a spell at third and Cedeno could get some starts in there as well. I think we could easily contend with the above line-up. Yep, real good lineup. Probably top 3 or 4 in the NL. However, it doesn't sound like they want the Walker/Nomar combo back and sounds like they prefer Furcal over Giles.

You compare Pierre to Jones, but there really is no comparison. Jones has always been a good fielder, though accused of being lazy at times. Pierre is average at best. Jones always had more offensive upside than Pierre. Jones isn't a one trick pony like Pierre. If the Marlins would trade Pierre for Patterson, I could see going that route. I highly doubt they will. While Patterson could have more upside, I assuming his days as a Cub are over, so I would do that deal. My guess is the Marlins would not. First, I don't see the Mets trading Floyd for Walker. They have Kaz and Reyes for the middle infield. Reyes isn't going anywhere and they're paying Kaz too much money to relegate him to bench duty. Finally, Walker's three-year line of 287/345/439 at 2.5 million compares favorably to Floyd's 280/364/502 at 6.5 million. I'm not opposed to Floyd, but I don't see why it's necessary to trade Walker to get him. Walker's production at 2b at the price we'll have him at means that unless we're making an extemely productive move, it makes little sense to trade him. Considering that Baker wants a lefty between Lee and ARam, and that Burnitz has absolutely killed this team w/ his awful RISP average, the Cubs could really use a cleanup hitter like Floyd. NY may not need Walker, but they could send Walker to Boston in the Manny deal. As for Pierre, he could turn things around and have a .374 obp like he did in 2004. I see no reason for doom and gloom. And yes they'll need to give Fla more than Patterson. Perhaps Rusch and either Mitre or Welly.

If we get Giles and Furcal, which we won't, there's no need for Floyd too. Murton has earned his playing time in left at a fraction of the cost to Floyd. Yep, Furcal and Giles is a pipedream, but IF a miracle occurs and the Trib gets some cajones, ya gotta still go w/ Floyd over Murton. The window of opportunity may not stay open too long. Realistically, I can see something like this next year, Furcal, Lofton or Pierre, Lee, Floyd, ARam, Murton, Barrett, Cedeno... Bye bye Nomar.

They won't do it cause Philly and Florida will get really ticked, but I'd like to see them sit Prior and start Hill.

Maybe if we start a sign Giles petition, the Tribune and Hendry will show some interest in Giles. I'll take this... Furcal, Lofton or Pierre, Giles, Lee, Floyd, ARam, Barrett, Cedeno

I recall people poo pooing the idea of getting Andruw Jones last offseason. The guy wasn't blowing it up, but was young and had solid career numbers. Pierre has a career obp of .355 and has tons of speed. He's having a down year. If he was 35, there should be some concern, but he's still young. If they can't get Lofton, I wouldn't mind seeing Patterson swapped for Pierre. Use Walker to get Cliff Floyd.

This is a loaded question. It is entirely possible that Baker's erratic usage patterns and luke warm confidence have stiffled the growth of some players at his disposal. It is impossible to know for sure, but I can't imagine any skill being cultivated by not getting to practice your craft with regularity. I think Patterson is worth a crap. He has regressed since Baker has come on board. I think Dubois' minor league numbers warranted more patience and a more significant demonstration of confidence by his manager. The same can be said for Choi. While they may not be stars, they aren't complete bums. How about the asinine usage of Hill and Harris when they were brought up over the last couple of years when their minor league numbers warranted playing time? Say what you want, but Bobby Hill has value as a bench player. He has sported OBPs of .353 and .343 over the last two years as a bench player. I find value in those numbers that Baker never did. I will conclude with just 4 paragraphs this time. Will spot you Patterson. I haven't liked how Baker's used him @ times. However, most responsibility has to rest on Corey's shoulders. He's been given shot after shot. It's not like he's been buried on the bench. Unfortunately, the fans are on him now, and he can't seem to block it out. Probably have to deal him and watch he become a good player elsewhere.

Maybe he thinks being objective compels you to object to everything. Figured the smartest guy on the board could come up w/ a better insult. :o Thanx for the shot though. Listen, you are the one touting yourself to be Captain Objective. It was a more a play on words (objective --> object) than a "shot" at you. By my count, there are two people smarter than me on the board. Maybe just one since Yanr was banned. Hope you're not leaving goony out of that count. :o I prefer being called Captain Fair & Balanced.

Thank god for the injection of some objectivity. Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz? Notwithstanding the fact that there is room for debate that these three are "solid relievers", as Tim said, the discussion is obviously directed at position players. That is a common concession that is made in the argument about Dusty's bias against young players. Stop trying to change the subject. Why don't you throw out some young position players Baker's been given to develop, who were worth a crap. Or you going to dance around it w/ another 6 paragraph lecture? Murton may be the best one he's had the past 10 years. Are they better than Eric Karros? Todd Hollandsworth? Glenallen Hill? Steve Scarsone? I'm glad they got Simon in 2003, and Hollandsworth stayed around too long. Baker's quite far from perfect, but not as bad as portrayed by those who say he can't develop anyone.

I'm sure its not. But, the thread took on its current vibe after I mentioned Choi and Dubois here: And you later responded, referencing the same two guys here: Even if my post was considered to be vitriolic (which I don't think it was), I don't see a lot of other vitriolic efforts in this thread. The first 16 posts or so were getting to be a little over the top. Just my opinion though. I must have glanced over your 2nd Choi/DuBi post.

Maybe he thinks being objective compels you to object to everything. Ok I'll edit myself. :)

Thank god for the injection of some objectivity. Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz? Notwithstanding the fact that there is room for debate that these three are "solid relievers", as Tim said, the discussion is obviously directed at position players. That is a common concession that is made in the argument about Dusty's bias against young players. Stop trying to change the subject. Why don't you throw out some young position players Baker's been given to develop, who were worth a crap. Or you going to dance around it w/ another 6 paragraph lecture? Murton may be the best one he's had the past 10 years.

All of that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Dusty started Hollandsworth and Lawton over Murton until he had no other choice. Dusty does not like rookies. We know that. I don't understand why you're getting so upset at other people who get upset at Dusty for taking credit when a player does well, yet at the same time, never taking blame for anything that doesn't go his team's way. First it was "other teams don't have a book on him" then when Dusty realized that Murton wasn't a fluke it was "I'm putting him in a position to succeed" and now "he's succeeding because of me." If you want to believe that Dusty is the reason for Murton's success, then so be it, but I don't think it's necessary to act shocked when other people get upset that he takes all the credit for it. Only the Baker haters see it as "Dusty taking all the credit." Baker complimented Murton by saying the kid's impressing him. I don't see how Murton deserved to play over a proven player like Lawton. I wish Baker would have taken Burnitz out of the lineup and went w/ Murton in LF and Lawton in RF, but lots of managers would have went w/ the vet Burnitz even though he was slumping terribly. As for being upset, the one's who seem to be upset are those who constantly nitpick Baker over not developing young players. Baker hasn't had much to develop. I guess the fact that Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz are solid relievers is irrelevant. So Murton deserved to play over the proven veteran Burnitz, but not the proven veteran Lawton? I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic here. And it's not as if Lawton was outperforming Burnitz at the time - the opposite is true. I think you're taking the devil's advocate thing a bit far here. That or you're arguing just to argue. Lawton's obp was around .375 when they acquired him and they needed a leadoff man, while Burnitz had been in a major slump since late June or so. Iirc Lawton had a bad stretch of 10 games or so w/ the Cubs.

My entire commentary is this thread isn't directed @ you. Just was taking on the idea that Baker can't develop youngsters.

All of that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Dusty started Hollandsworth and Lawton over Murton until he had no other choice. Dusty does not like rookies. We know that. I don't understand why you're getting so upset at other people who get upset at Dusty for taking credit when a player does well, yet at the same time, never taking blame for anything that doesn't go his team's way. First it was "other teams don't have a book on him" then when Dusty realized that Murton wasn't a fluke it was "I'm putting him in a position to succeed" and now "he's succeeding because of me." If you want to believe that Dusty is the reason for Murton's success, then so be it, but I don't think it's necessary to act shocked when other people get upset that he takes all the credit for it. Only the Baker haters see it as "Dusty taking all the credit." Baker complimented Murton by saying the kid's impressing him. I don't see how Murton deserved to play over a proven player like Lawton. I wish Baker would have taken Burnitz out of the lineup and went w/ Murton in LF and Lawton in RF, but lots of managers would have went w/ the vet Burnitz even though he was slumping terribly. As for being upset, the one's who seem to be upset are those who constantly nitpick Baker over not developing young players. Baker hasn't had much to develop. I guess the fact that Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz are solid relievers is irrelevant.

Quite clever considering I want Baker to be fired. :o Just trying to provide some objectivity for a change.

Well here's some specifics about the Giants from 1996 to 2002. I looked up their lineups and doesn't look like there was much room to develop players after 1996, as the lineup was pretty stacked from 97 to 02 (Baker went 121 games over .500 in those 6 years), and Baker actually started some youngsters (Pedro Feliz, Armando Rios and Calvin Murray). Of course, it's Dusty's fault that Murray and Rios never made it w/ any other team and that Feliz is average. PERHAPS SF just had a talent drought from 96 to 2002 w/ position players, like the Cubs have had for quite some time, or maybe Baker should have sat Snow, Kent, Aurilla, Mueller, Bonds or Burks, and play some alleged hot shot instead??? Funny thing is that Baker was right about Choi, Hill and DuBois, while the Baker Haters were wrong, but don't let the facts stop the constant bashing. Here's a link to the Giants lineup in 2001 and you can access the lineups from 1997 to 2002. http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/teams/2001giants.stm

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? Maybe he's being genuine?? This may come as a shock to some, but maybe Murton likes Baker and respects him cause he was a pretty good hitter. Scoff away. Still waiting for some specifics on who Baker ruined in SF.....