dew1679666265

His mother, apparently, took a turn for the worse recently and he chose to retire. There's no way Cubs management could have know that his mother's health wouldn't get better – especially if Lou felt it would at the time he returned.

The bunting with Ty Wright thing bothered me, but I'll admit I don't expect him to bunt in the first inning with a middle of the order guy if he manages the Cubs. I do think, from that event and from things he's said, that he prefers the more traditional type of baseball that emphasizes batting average and small ball.

I don't agree with all the complaints and fears about Sandberg, but I think his pro-small ball leanings are a bit concerning. The impression I've gotten is that he'd be more active in-game than I'd like, though I think he'd do well teaching and instructing the younger players outside of games. It's one reason I'd really like him in Trammel's current role (assuming Trammel leaves after the year) but not so much as manager.

No. The losses became irrelevant a long time ago. I really don't see what problem you have here.

It is all too clear now that Lou was indeed "ready." The reporting would have portrayed an organization under control, and not one in a constant state of chaos as we've seen since July 20. Lou is not a sacred cow. He's been fired before, and the Cubs have sent many baseball lifers out on the street over the decades. But you're complaining because the Cubs couldn't put together a "Lou Piniella Day" and have a clean break. There's no clean break or Lou Piniella Day if you fire the man shortly after he took a couple days off to be with his gravely ill 90 year old mother. It makes the organization look heartless and cold and comes off as really bad for the Cubs – especially since we suck anyway and Lou had announced his retirement. I just don't see how this year is any more embarrassing than any other 80-90 loss season and for any other reason than that we're an 80-90 loss team. The manager of a team announced his retirement from an awful team, discovered his sick mother was only getting worse and chose to make his retirement immediate rather than waiting til the end of the year so that he could be with his mother. I see nothing in that scenario that looks bad for the Cubs, other than that we suck this year.

What could the Cubs have done differently that doesn't make the organization look bad?

I went ahead and made the thread if you or a mod wants to sticky it.

Should the organization have forced Lou to retire at that point? Because he didn't want to retire at that point. They could have fired him or forced him to retire then, but that would have left a black eye for the organization because they forced a long-time, popular manager to leave before he was ready – they forced him into retirement, it would be reported. Should Lou have gone ahead and retired then? Sure, I guess. But there's no way the organization would have looked good if he had wanted to stay on and they wouldn't allow it.

This idea was brought up and nobody had done it yet, so I figured why not. The following are the many reasons given on this board as to why Ryne Sandberg should not be the manager of the Chicago Cubs: Comments made by Ryno Transmogrified Tiger comment about Ryno A selected Ryno managerial game Tennessee Top 1st * Tony Thomas hits a ground-rule double (5) on a fly ball to left-center field. * With James Adduci batting, passed ball by Jose Camarena, Tony Thomas to 3rd. * James Adduci walks. * Darwin Barney singles on a line drive to center fielder Gorkys Hernandez. Tony Thomas scores. James Adduci to 2nd. * Ty Wright out on a sacrifice bunt, third baseman Eric Campbell to second baseman Travis Jones. James Adduci to 3rd. Darwin Barney to 2nd. Threads of interest: Sandberg interview What's with all the Sandberg hate around here?

I understand it, but I do not applaud him for it. I cannot imagine a competent football organization conducting operations in this manner, and I wish the Chicago Cubs were not run like a beer league team. Do you think he would have resigned from a first place ballclub? Would he have quit in August 2008 if an immediate family member had taken ill? Charlie Manuel. I really don't think a manager resigning from a bad team when he was going to retire at the end of the season anyway is something that wouldn't happen in any organization. Lou retiring like this says more about this particular Cubs team rather than an overall statement on how the Cubs are run. The team sucks and he was retiring anyway. I don't see any issue with this at all. In fact, I wouldn't have a problem with a manager from a first place team going to be with an ill family member (especially gravely ill).

I think it's very much a generational split. For myself and Tennessee fans my age I know, it's far more important to beat Florida. If we beat Bama, that's cool, but it's far, far more exciting to beat Florida than Bama. Part of the reason for me is Spurrier and Florida's dominance over Tennessee, but part of it is that the Florida game is just so much more important. For most of my life it's been critical to beat Florida to win the East. If we lose to Bama, it's not as big a deal because we're not competing directly with them. At the same time, most of the fans a generation older than me (my parents' generation and older), UT/Bama is the be-all, end-all as far as rivalries. No other game matters as long as we beat Alabama. I presume that's because they lived through the Bear Bryant period of Bama dominance and still have a hatred from then. The Florida game is generally far more important for Tennessee as well.

This is interesting . . .

I'm a little surprised that Soriano isn't there for one of the 3 best OF arms. Should I be?

I was assuming the Cubs will suck next year. Truly best case scenario is that he pitches to a 2.00 xFIP and is the top LOOGY for the Cubs as we win the World Series, he becomes a Type A free agent and some other team signs him, netting the Cubs a pair of picks.

For decades, Tennessee's biggest rival was Alabama without question. Since the SEC instituted a conference championship game and started up protected rivalries, Tennessee/Florida has become much bigger. UT/Bama clearly isn't the rivalry Michigan/OSU is, but it's still pretty massive for my parents' aged fans. An Ohio State/Michigan Big 10 title game would be huge money and ratings, but you're right that it simply isn't likely to happen enough.

I know things change, but I'll still say it. Is C-USA ever going to win that game? They've got teams that potentially could be really good – UCF, Houston, Southern Miss, UAB. All but Southern Miss are in fertile recruiting grounds and Southern Miss is generally a decent mid-major. Given the chance of making a BCS bowl, I could see those teams' recruiting jump up significantly. And I could see the C-USA having won in 2007 (UCF or Tulsa) or 2006 (Houston). Neither would be sure things, but those were pretty good mid-majors. Before the 2004 realignment, the Marshall Pennington/Moss teams were really good, as were the Byron Leftwich Marshall teams (at least the offense was).

That makes sense.

Ricketts doesn't make the decisions on the draft, though. I'd be disappointed if I heard that Ricketts wouldn't allow overslot guys to be drafted, but I'd also be disappointed if he demanded that Wilken take overslot guys no matter what just to make a splash. Ricketts may well have limited Wilken's ability to take overslot guys, but given Wilken's tendency to take guys many are underwhelmed by, that may very well not be the case. Staying par for the course in some areas isn't necessarily a bad thing, anyway. Since Wilken arrived, the minor league system has improved significantly and looks to just be moving up. The international signings from the past few years are also beginning to bear fruit. I have no problem with Ricketts allowing for more money to be spent there, but still letting the guys who are building the farm system do their job their way.

i'll take "cezar izturis and ronnie cedeno as the cubs middle infield tandem for the next decade" for 500, alex. It's just one example, but look at this year's Mariners. All throughout the offseason, they were vaunted as a surprise team because they were building with defense and pitching, while pretty much ignoring offense. It didn't work at all.

Could it be that Wilken simply liked the guys he took better? I don't know the answer to that, but I think to write it off and assume he simply went the cheap route because he was ordered to is potentially assuming too much. You may be right, but my question was do we know for sure? My point in bringing up Simpson was that he was regarded much more lowly by most experts and he ended up being an underslot guy, but do we know that he was taken because that was the order from ownership? Or did Wilken simply like him more than anybody else at that spot (including overslot guys)? And if so, could that be extrapolated throughout the rest of the draft?

Do we know why more money wasn't spent in the draft? I've seen quite a few complaints about not spending more, but spending just to spend doesn't seem to be Wilken's MO. I'll admit I don't put nearly the attention into the draft as many guys on here, but looking at guys like Colvin, Simpson and others, Wilken seems to be a guy who takes guys he likes without the thought of whether or not he'll be an overslot or not. I may be way off here, but nothing's come out about ownership limiting the draft budget that I've heard. What do others think? Am I crazy?

I don't want to downplay defense that much, but I value offense a lot more in baseball. It doesn't matter how good your defense is, if you can't score runs, you're not going to win games. I can't back this up statistically (somebody else might be able to prove me right or wrong on this), but it seems far more likely that a team with awful defense and great hitting would win more games than a team with awful hitting and great defense. The thinking being that with great defense and no offense, you're relying on luck for the most difficult part of the game - scoring. With a great offense, however, you'll have to outslug some teams, but you are good at the most difficult part of the game. Defense can be patched far more easily than offense and good defensive players are much, much cheaper than good offensive players.

LeGarrette Blount punched another player yesterday, this time a teammate. I really hope Blount makes the team as the goal line/short yardage back. It'll really help lengthen CJs career.

I've heard he is, but it's still a gamble for a cash-strapped team that already has Z and Soriano on the books long term, a good number of high-ceiling prospects almost ready and four average to above average to good starters already. Keep in mind, this is only the third great season for Lee, before that he was posting what Z's done this year or worse. Also interesting: Lee xFIPs the past three years: 3.57, 3.69, 3.22 Demp xFIPs the past three years: 3.74, 3.81, 3.98 Lee has been better, and much moreso this year. But is it significant enough to shell out a 4/72 or more deal? Simply above average is probably more accurate. Out of contenders, they're ahead of the Phillies, Padres, Rays, Cardinals, Yankees and Reds in WAR. They're behind the Braves, Twins, Giants, White Sox, Red Sox and Rangers. So perfectly in the middle of contenders in pitching WAR. Fangraphs won't let me separate rotation from relievers, however, so I don't know if that'd increase their standing around the league. For rotation xFIP, the Cubs are behind the Cardinals, Phillies, Twins, Braves and Padres. They're ahead of the Rays, White Sox, Red Sox, Giants, Yankees, Rangers and Reds among contenders. That puts them sixth among 13 teams (including the non-contending Cubs). That's slightly above average. There's little reason to expect much, if any, of a dropoff next year, though.

Nah, the best case scenario is he repeats his 2009 ERA of 3.36 and we're able to sell him off to a contender at next year's deadline.