Soul

Simple question. If we don't want to read articles like this, then why do we put up with the continual, abysmal mismanagement of this ballclub?

Thats why he has added 25 points to his AVG since this weekend?, only idiots thought he would stay cold all season Aram would get good money wherever he went, a decent 3rd baseman that hits for power and average for 10 million, or whatever he is going to make next year, I am not so sure that other teams will shell out that kind of money for a guy that can't play a full season and doesn't always show the desire you like to see in a guy you are paying that much money to, well maybe the Red Sox, but they already have Manny, and Aramis is no Manny. You dont think other teams outside of the red soxs would give more money for a guy who hits 300, 30+ home run, OBP at or above 350 and around 100Rbis in a year that would be typical though, go get rid of someone who has been consistent and get someone who was good 3 years ago and hope he turns out to be that player again ( Jock and Pierre) I still want to keep him. Not sure he's going to approach those numbers this year. We'll see. It's a more difficult lineup to hit in than he's used to. Well---not since his Pittsburgh days anyway.

That's apathy. I'm not there yet. I'm still too busy being angry. :)

Because at this point we'd be extremely lucky to get back half what we paid to land him in the first place. It would be yet another transaction in which Hendry bought high and sold low. (Or, to be more precise, he bought low but paid an inflated price, then went ahead and sold low.) Pierre has been terrible, but there's a good chance his numbers will at least somewhat improve. (They really can't get much worse unless he starts making no contact instead of weak contact.) In addition, I wouldn't coniser Pie fully ready just yet, and he could definitely use a bit more time in the prospect oven. I'd just let Pierre play through his struggles, and hopefully he'll improve to the point where he'd make decent trade bait at the deadline if we're out of it or is doing well enough to contribute to the team if we somehow claw our way back into the playoff race. I suppose. If he's hitting this way at the deadline we're still going to lose our shirts though. It looks very much like the Marlins knew something we didn't and declined to let us in on the joke :wink:

Why move him out of the leadoff spot when we can move him out of town? Get rid of this joker. Bring up Pie. Do it now.

That's not really the pace though. It's like when people were saying the team was still a game over .500, so you can't complain. Yeah, the overall record was "fine" but the trend was downward and it was plainly obvious. Greg has had 5 game stretches like he did to start the season in the past couple years. I want to hope that this won't be the same season, when he racks up the mediocre-to-bad starts almost as quickly as the good. He was great to start the season, but we knew it wouldn't last. The question was how much he'd decline. Right now it's looking like the answer is "quite a bit". It's got to be tough getting up to pitch when you realize what kind of ballclub is behind you. I know he's a professional, but there's nobody helping him out there. Our pitchers go to the mound, and it might as well be the island in the TV show "Lost." No rescue in sight.

To believe, there must be something to believe IN----otherwise we're just gullible. Wood and Prior are just as likely to revisit the DL later in the season as they are to pitch solidly to the end. I'm sorry but until they prove something, that doesn't qualify as "hope." Wade Miller is a big, smiling question mark. Derek Lee will be nice to have back, but it may be too late by then and honestly our offensive woes go much deeper than Lee's absence. There's a reason the Marlins got rid of Pierre, and a reason the Twins got rid of Jones. My God, Hendry got rooked to high heaven on these guys. He's a lightweight by any measure. This is quickly becoming a disaster. Good teams don't go on 7-10 game benders where the entire team is just junk. You may lose a few in a row, but not like this. Not like this.

Agreed. And regardless of what actually happened in '04, the point is which team was a better assembled ballclub? The '04 Cubs were, when they were put together, a contending ballclub. This year's Cub team was a 3rd place club from the beginning. Part of that is because we didn't know Prior & Wood would be D/L junkies in '04. But no matter. We do now, so we knew they wouldn't be here in '06----and big suprise they aren't.

I generally agree with Wastra, but on this I have to disagree. Hendry coveted Baker from day 1 in his tenure. He brought in his guy to manage the team. I believe (admittedly a guess on my part) that Hendry is just fabricating the team that Dusty wants. Dusty wants a veteran lineup, he gets it. Dusty wants a speedy lineup, he gets it. With a few notable exceptions (Murton/Cedeno) Baker has gotten the rosters he's asked for. The exceptions were the guys that Hendry feels strongly in favor of. No question on the rule 5 goofs, I completely agree. Jones has picked it up lately (a little) but that signing fits the Baker mold perfectly - speedy veteran with good fundamentals, poor plate discipline and a decent glove. To me that is a Baker signing more than Hendry. I honestly believe that Hendry believes in Dusty so strongly that he'll deliver the roster that he asks for, with a very few exceptions. Look at how things have changed regarding young players - the knock has always been that Baker won't play kids. It's was only when Hendry stepped in and forced Murton and Cedeno into the lineup that they played consistently. I don't mean to put all the blame on Dusty, and Hendry certainly does deserve some shots, but most of the failures are Dusty forcing Corey to hit leadoff, and putting Neifi in the 2 hole, or sac bunting unecessarily. It starts with Dusty. I think Hendry is beginning to see this which is why Dusty hasn't been signed to an extension. By the end of the year I honestly think we'll be looking for a new manager. As I said, Dusty is a poor manager, and the fact that he IS our manager is Jim's failing. I was just sayign that I don't think the level of sucktitude of THIS year's team is really all that much Dusty's fault compared to Hendry. And if Dusty is pulling the strings on personnel decisions so completely behind the scenes, then again Hendry has failed miserably as GM. If Dusty's making those decisions, then he's obviously terrible, but I have no reason to believe that. Hendry has never shown the ability to assemble and manage an effective roster, there's no reason to think the only thing holding him back is Dusty. Dusty is a problem, but he's a lesser problem than Hendry, who is the reason Dusty is here in the first place. I would prefer that the Cubs fire Hendry today, and hire a new GM quickly, who in turn fires Baker. Well, yeah. But Hendry's extended I figure dump Baker. Better than nothing. Maybe Hendry will hit on his next choice. We know Baker's bad so there's no reason to want/expect him to stay. Unless Hendry decides to continue the charade, in which case we're just screwed.

And they don't even take the field to "Jump" anymore. I haven't been to a game yet this year, but it's not going to be the same when they run out to "Hit me baby one more time" or whatever the song of the month happens to be. :roll: They had to stop using Jump because it increased the suicide rate too much after watching the team. One of those unintended side effects.

From the article: The guy's a psycho. Why didn't someone interview Altobelli before drafting him?

I always thought the White Sox were underacheivers for years. Then they got Ozzie. Fire Baker. Today.

It was said precisely because management is NOT pushing pitchers back. Which sort of contradicts what Clanton is saying now doesn't it? Not really. The Cubs have turned on the caution sign only recently. This laissez-faire attitude toward recovery time is somewhat of a new thing for the organization, and it might only be in relation to the major leaguers. Yeah, that's true. Probably. Does Hendry sound like he uses that kind of language though? I've never heard of him doing that----doesn't sound like the guy (and I've been very critical of Hendry). Maybe it's all true. I don't know.

yeah, sandberg's in the hall because of his bunting prowess. 31 total sacrifices in his career. If he were playing for Dusty, he'd hit that total in four or five months. Bunting is what second basemen do, dude. So then why can't Hairston or Bynum do it? Sandberg at least knew how. These guys obviously haven't put in the work on basic fundamentals. And Dusty isn't insisting that they do. That's poor, IMO.

It was said precisely because management is NOT pushing pitchers back. Which sort of contradicts what Clanton is saying now doesn't it?

He'd have to turn it around in a way that belies his career nos. He gone. I'd love to see Pie brought up sooner rather than later. Seriously, we don't need Bynum on this team badly enough to deny Pie a shot on a team that's listing badly. If someone gets hurt, we muddle through for a game or two until someone else is called up. This should be done TODAY.

Hmmmmm..... No organization is a democracy, folks. They're all dictatorships.

Not by much, but Yes..he's a better hitter than Guzman or Hill. That makes him better than Hairston, too. Which by default puts him above Brynum. Awww hell, let's put Woody at 1st base and move Walker back to 2nd :lol:

As has been pointed out, Wrigley now has a higher capacity than US Cellular. And how in the world do you define "more popular" if it has nothing to do with attendance. Let's not let the facts get in the way. :roll: The Cubs have been Chicago's team for the last twenty years or so, but it hasn't always been that way. Before 1984, the Sox often outdrew the Cubs. The Cubs haven't always been the dominant team in the city. Just because many of us on this board aren't old enough to remember what it was like in the past doesn't mean the past didn't happen. Anyway, if the Cubs want to turn things around, firing Baker would be a start, I guess, but why should we be confident that his successor would be any better? The same person who hired Baker in the first place would be the man to pick his replacement. Baker doesn't always put the best nine players on the field, so I'd like to see him go. Hendry doesn't do enough to put the best 25 players possible on the roster, so I'd like to see him go, too. I would point more to the total fan base of a club, rather than present attendance. I do remember the days when Wrigley wasn't an automatic sellout though. It was kind of nice----you could actually get decent tickets without having to buy the moment they came on sale. Good prices too. I am confident the successor to Baker will be better simply because it can't get much worse.

Well I can't see that happening. If Brenly was to come down out of the booth, they'd have to hire a new color guy. It doesn't make sense to bring him down just to send him back up. And a manager that has won the World Series is probably not gonna be an "interim" guy... He could be when no other team has shown any interest in him. I wouldn't worry about a color guy, either. They could do a number of things. They would probably just stick Dave Otto in there until a permanent replacement was found. I can handle Otto for 30 games.

Unbelievable numbers. There wasn't a person on here, myself included, who didn't think Pierre was at least an upgrade over CPatt. Now look.

How about Bob Brenly? I think both Johnson and Dierker would be better choices than Brenly. If we move Bob down, who replaces him in the booth? Bring Stone back. BTW, I think Brenly would be a fine choice, and a welcome change of pace from Dusty/Baylor. Dierker & Johnson would be good as well. I'd also take Valentine. I think the ultimate point is, there are managerial options available. There's no reason we should be sticking with Dusty Baker. I wish the guy well, but he's done a pretty poor job here, IMO.

You are indeed correct sir: http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=FBN-DVORACEK-04-28-06

There was nothing wrong with Gould. He was automatic within 40 and a lot of his misses (40-49) came in EXTREMELY crappy weahter conditions (as was the case with the SF kick). Gould had the 29th most points from kickers last year. He was 23rd in FG%. He was 3/8 from 40-49 and his longest was 45. He didn't even attempt a 50+ because the coaches knew he didn't have any business kicking in the NFL. He got the job by default when the veteran melted down. And he was very bad at kickoffs. They need to replace him. Agreed. I'm glad the kid came in and held down the fort (somewhat) when Brien turned out to be a dud, but the fact is he's not an NFL-calibre kicker. We can do better. Not only that, but we will have better kickers than Gould in training camp. I would think it very tough for Robbie to make the team this year.

You're right Fred. But, it does put us right back where we started before Baker got here. In other words, Dusty sucks and hasn't done diddly poo other than be the beneficiary of a nice (and lucky--?) trade by Hendry in 2003. Since then, we've slid right back down into the tank circa 2002. Dusty MUST GO NOW. And don't cry for Dusty. He can take his millions and build some beach house somewhere----sip drinks for the remainder of his life and teach baseball to his kid. I should be so lucky. But he cannot be the manager of this ballclub any more.