SoonerCubFan

How would you feel if you were a lawyer and you were told at a meeting with everyone present that you suck at everything other than doing divorce cases and that is all that you are going to be able to do from now on. You will still make the same amount of money and might even work less hours. Sounds great right. I'm sure Jones has pride in doing his Job and I don't see what publicly coming out and saying anything would do. Hendry can look for a good platoon partner and when the time comes in spring training, Lou can have a private meeting with Jones and tell him. It will come out publicly at some point but it makes more since to down play it. I'm not saying that Lou is going to want to platoon Jones, but if he does, I doubt we will know until at least a suitable partner is signed Why does it have to framed that way? Using your meeting analogy, why couldn't it be presented as we're building the best team possible, matching our team to their best situation?? Everybody benefits from being with a winner, and salary is already established. Win-win instead of negativity. And, for those worried about the perception of going outside to acquire his platoon partner, I'd suggest we already have a near perfect partner in Murton. Lou could decide this in general now without ever making public mention of it, and we can add a big bat for the other corner OF slot.

Where's Arod, Soriano, and Schmidt? Seriously, I too think Murton could end up closer to the optimistic projection, and if healthy Z and Ramirez should easily blow by the mean projections, as should DLee. I suspect Barrett could fall off some and would amazed if Izuturis approached his mean projection.

Vance, Why would you want ARod over Cabrera? The guy is just 23, gets better every year in a pitcher's park, is fearless and playoff proven and is the only hitter in the game who could give Pujols a run for the money. Just curious ... Miguel would be my top choice by a long shot. Open question for all - I've seen Giles' name as a possibility for a while now, but have not heard why the Braves would even think of letting him go. Why is he presumed to be available? As for me, my wish list starts with retaining ARam. Bottom line for me is to have at least three (preferably four) proven 900+ OPS hitters. DLee and ARam plus one from Cabrera, Manny, Tejada, ARod, or Jones would be the core of a solid offense, especially if we also add in Soriano. We do that and, with Barrett at C, we could live with guys like Theriot, Cedeno, Murton and Pie or a stopgap vet CF to fill the other positions in the field and in the lineup to keep the budget at a reasonable level to also acquire 2 solid innings-eating, GB-throwing SPs.

Your scenario may be within reason, but I'd much rather have Cabrera for ourselves. He will surpass ARod's numbers for the next 5-10 years, and be much cheaper.

Perhaps an even more positive stat: Number of Larry Rothschilds currently acting as Cubs pitching coach: 0

I agree, but would expand the idea to cover two more themes I've been harping on since the late 1990s after viewing the model of the Yankees rebuild a dynasty. Building on your bolded thought, what makes the antiquated notions even worse is the habit of starting with a fixed budget. It's the combination of the two that compounds a Pierre trade with a Jones 3 year contract just because it fits a budget, then scrimp elsewhere by starting unproven rookies in critical position on the field and in the order. We must couple a new baseball strategy with a flexible and significantly expanded budget that allows a GM to pull in the right player whenever he's available, or to extend a player when we know he's exactly what conforms to our baseball strategy. Second, it still boggles my mind that the Cubs' ownership can't recognize that any relatively modest increase in payroll ($50M is a drop in the bucket) that would enable sustained exciting, WINNING baseball would reap orders of magnitude increases in revenues for the foreseeable future. Where do get this crap ? When the CUBS traded Sosa to Baltimore, they had to shift approx $20M of his contract from a future period to the present accounting period. This in turn, caused the Tribune Co. to have to restate their financial statements and it literally caused ripples throughout the financial community, and their stock took another hit...... but you tell us that $50M is a drop in the bucket. Geez..... I guess I just don't get it, eh? Just goes to show no good deed goes unpunished. Trib ups the payroll and outspends the rest of the division, fans bitch that the Trib won't outspend the whole NL. If the Trib outpent the whole NL fans would bitch that it's still less than the Yankees spend. I hope you're not lumping me into this view, because that's not even close to what I am saying. Maybe that's also not what most of those "bitching" are really saying either.

Probably, because we'd get a new (hopefully better) baseball strategy to which to build a team around.

I agree, but would expand the idea to cover two more themes I've been harping on since the late 1990s after viewing the model of the Yankees rebuild a dynasty. Building on your bolded thought, what makes the antiquated notions even worse is the habit of starting with a fixed budget. It's the combination of the two that compounds a Pierre trade with a Jones 3 year contract just because it fits a budget, then scrimp elsewhere by starting unproven rookies in critical position on the field and in the order. We must couple a new baseball strategy with a flexible and significantly expanded budget that allows a GM to pull in the right player whenever he's available, or to extend a player when we know he's exactly what conforms to our baseball strategy. Second, it still boggles my mind that the Cubs' ownership can't recognize that any relatively modest increase in payroll ($50M is a drop in the bucket) that would enable sustained exciting, WINNING baseball would reap orders of magnitude increases in revenues for the foreseeable future. Where do get this crap ? When the CUBS traded Sosa to Baltimore, they had to shift approx $20M of his contract from a future period to the present accounting period. This in turn, caused the Tribune Co. to have to restate their financial statements and it literally caused ripples throughout the financial community, and their stock took another hit...... but you tell us that $50M is a drop in the bucket. Geez..... I guess I just don't get it, eh? In the proper context, where investments are compared to potential revenue and to the entire Cubs budget (all stadium costs, all employees, travel expenses, announcers, grounds crew, managers/coaches, minor leagues, etc.) it doesn't look so daunting. I've said quite clearly that it is a COMBINATION of being smart and having financial flexibility. In no way am I suggesting a simple-minded increase not founded on sound baseball sense. I'm sure proper safeguards could be in place for stockholders. And, don't get hung up on the $50M hypothetical. Looking at this years FAs and retaining Ramirez, it would be hard to envision going to even $120M. Heck, I'd love to see us get to where 1/2 of our team is made up of outstanding young players and we could even reduce the payroll to $60M and still win. The whole point is not a fixed larger budget, it is a flexible budget that enables us to get the right players for the circumstance.

Let's just say the Cubs continual patchwork strategy ain't it. There are a few few proven models. Pick one and fund it.

No, I don't say the Trib is cheap, I say they're not maximizing their investment. A budget is bad if it limits opportunites, and is all relative to the situation. The Cubs are a major market, and have opportunities for downstream revenues unlike perhaps any team in sports. They don't have to live on a fixed budget like some teams. Yes, spending smarter is job #1, but that includes investing more when necessary to optimize your product. They go hand-in-hand, not independent.

What does that mean? Most every team has a more or less fixed budget in any given year. Hendry often failed to use up the entire budget in the offseason, planning on taking on salary mid year. I say build the best team you can from Day 1, then play the midseason trades however you can. Don't handicap yourself from the start just to make room for theoretical future moves. I mean exactly what you later go on to say - build the best team can when you can, and don't handicap yourself. Hendry shouldn't have to bypass a better player just to stay under budget, whether it's offseason or for a theoretical midsummer move. Every year we see the same thing develop with the Cubs. They start with a fixed budget, attempt to fix last years most glaring weakness, then have very little left to fix other problems. I still say start with a good baseball plan and get the best players available that conform to that plan with no fixed budgetary constraints. Winning will take care of revenue and profits. Every successful enterprise makes up front investments that end up being dwarfed by later success.

I agree, but would expand the idea to cover two more themes I've been harping on since the late 1990s after viewing the model of the Yankees rebuild a dynasty. Building on your bolded thought, what makes the antiquated notions even worse is the habit of starting with a fixed budget. It's the combination of the two that compounds a Pierre trade with a Jones 3 year contract just because it fits a budget, then scrimp elsewhere by starting unproven rookies in critical position on the field and in the order. We must couple a new baseball strategy with a flexible and significantly expanded budget that allows a GM to pull in the right player whenever he's available, or to extend a player when we know he's exactly what conforms to our baseball strategy. Second, it still boggles my mind that the Cubs' ownership can't recognize that any relatively modest increase in payroll ($50M is a drop in the bucket) that would enable sustained exciting, WINNING baseball would reap orders of magnitude increases in revenues for the foreseeable future.

Exactly the essence of the reply I had in mind when reading through the initial post on this thread. The Yanks use their payroll not just to bring in prime players from other teams, but also to keep the cream of their own. THAT is how a payroll should be used. But even more essential is having a BASEBALL strategy to which a budget is fluid enough to permit, not a fixed budget to which a team must be assembled, which has long been the Cub way.

Wow, sarcasm? Name one instance where Clemens has exhibited anything below class-act standards, personality wise. throwing the broken bat at mike piazza as he was running to 1b. "I thought it was the ball" I've hated Clemens ever since. Thing is, he also threw a ball at Piazza's head that same World Series as well.

Agree 100%. And, if Pie starts tearing up AAA in the first half and Pierre is still around, a summer trade can be a plus as well. No lose situation going the arby route.

Let's just say that if we lose Ramirez and have Murton and Cedeno starting, I'd prefer to see Felix Pie in CF and possibly Eric Patterson at 2B as well. Either go all out and get a handful of proven All Star talent, or go all out and build for future years. Quit half-a$$ing it. As for the young pitchers, I like Hill and Guzman, and Marshall looks decent enough. What I don't understand is the lack of interest in Mateo. To me he looks like he has the best makeup of the group and has good enough stuff and control and has had solid MiLB numbers. I was loooking forward to Marmol, but agree that he needs some AAA time to harness his stuff.

I agree, this is the real issue, and your assessment is correct. To me, the whole focus on Baker is missing the larger point as Hendry is far more instrumental in maintaining or changing the philosophical approach than Baker. This starts with not accepting at least 2 of the above positions as concrete. If he doesn't, it doesn't matter who the manager is, and all of your assumptions are indeed all there is left to hope for.

Did this blurb mention where that reluctant issue came from - writer? manager? Even so, the Cubs are starting Mateo, Hill, and are reportedly leaning toward Marshall for Sunday, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Since the Cards' record is much worse against LHPs, this seems like a good approach to me. Let Ryu get in some more work in relief and match him in his best circumstance. Everything is not always a problem.

False. Well, now those are some meaty facts, backed up with a lot of objective data. I'm as convinced now as the day he was hired. It's popular, so it's gotta be true.

And that's what all of this devolves down to - second grade level observations that have no basis in what actually gets accomplished on the field. Quotes can be used any way anyone wants to use them, and can come from reporters with their own agenda. Yes, Bynum's mistake was also boneheaded, but did anyone bother to ask about Bynum?? If so, did any comments get purposely left out because they weren't sexy enough?? Just because some have preconceived opinions about both Baker and certain players doesn't mean it's reality. Every young player in the past 4 years have gotten plenty of opportunity with the Cubs, some more here than in their new organizations. Some have been put into important roles at a young age. If anything, Baker has used young pitchers too much, and has had no qualms with using them.

Well then you just don't read his quotes very much. He said, that was just a young, very young mistake. He routinely talks about young mistakes, failings of youth, rookie mistakes, etc etc. But his veterans just hustle at the wrong time, or were trying to make something happen. It's a pattern, and if you can't spot it, you are purposefully ignoring it. That's where you don't understand where I'm coming from. I read his quotes as often as anyone. I just never bought into the whole supposed veteran fetish that was rampant the day he was hired. Having a soft spot for the then burgeoning farm system, I was especially sensitive and did my own research during the 2002-3 offseason. I found that the Giants had a very weak farm system during his tenure there (virtually zero Top 10 prospects, very few Top 100), and the few talented guys they did have (Beck, Aurelia, Mueller, Reuter, Ortiz, Estes, Clayton, etc.) all were brought along nicely on a team that was always in contention. ZERO evidence for a "veteran fetish", quite the opposite IMO. The issue was that was the reality of what his GM was providing him. In short, I had far fewer qualms about his willingness and ability to blend young and veteran players which was the state of the Cubs circa 2003. Since he's been here I've been amazed at how the very quotes I "miss" get scrutinized and interpreted far differently from what I see, this thread being a perfect example. I've seen a ton of PT for guys under 25 during these 4 years, very few who've proven worthy. Everyone wants to suggest that Baker is somehow stunting Murton when Murton sucks for a while, but when he turns it around Baker gets zero credit. I would suggest that there is a whole lot of pattern missing and purposeful ignoring going on IRT Baker, some preconceived and some just because it's the cool thing to do. Baker has legit faults in some areas, but his handling of "youts" isn't one of them.

People who are 100% anti-Baker or bandwagon hoppers will use anything to be upset. It's to the point now where it's almost a contest to see what minor little snippet can be posted the soonest to create the latest furor, which detracts from and drowns out the real issues. IMO using such phraseology can actually serve as a way to protect Theriot is his mind, another form of excuse to which Baker has a proclivity.

If there was interest in fairness Dusty wouldn't routinely blast young rookie mistakes and gloss over veterans making the exact same mistakes. I don't subscribe to the notion that "that wasn't a good play" even remotely approaches blasting. And, I've seen no evidence that it is routine, other than there being a lot of opportunities to be asked about such plays. Also, I've seen comments made about poor decision making with veterans when asked. I don't like many of his lineup decisions and his tendency to overwork his productive horses to win today, but IMO this whole "Baker Hates Young Players" angle is WAY overblown and not backed by much tanglible evidence all the way back to his San Fran days.

The anti-Baker, Neifi, blah blah blah stuff is really quite boring at this point. Is there no interest at all in fairness? Baker's comments seem pretty tame, much more so than what Theriot probably heard in the dugout/clubhouse. One poster had it right, Baker was asked about this specifically. He didn't run to the mic on a whim, and if Theriot had made it as easily as Pierre did no one would have even mentioned it.

Very well written and reasoned post to which I agree almost in toto. All managers are pretty much a function of the organization (front office down to players) to which they belong. If the players suck they suck, if the players are good, they're good. If Baker hooks up with another talented team for another 10+ years he'll have numbers similar to HoFers like Durocher, who had great players most of his long career, yet underachieved with terrific Cubs team from 1967-1972. But, most likely he'll be in the Gene Mauch/Ralph Houk group of managers on the outside looking in.