CUBZ99

:lol: Slap in the face to Boston. Maddux is becoming my favorite candidate.

Apparently, you missed that he played at age 21 this year. I guess my point is that he is apparently never going to fulfill the expectations of a high first round pick. Looking forward, why discuss the future Bakers and Dewitts of the Cubs system? He is young, but he has had 4 full years in pro ball without the distractions of college. I would love to see him "flip the switch" as many hope every year with Vitters. Sadly, I just see that ship as having sailed. Maybe I'm too down on him, though. You're not alone in being down on him, though you seem more down than most. However, we're talking about a kid who at a pretty young age handled AA pretty well. He cut his strikeout rate significantly. He's showing flashes of his potential power stroke. Realistically, he has two big hurdles remaining: Defense and patience. If he can make strides on each of those this season, he still stands a very realistic chance of reaching the majors and being an above average regular at 3B starting in 2013. You have to wonder if Vitters is the case of the Cubs actually doing the right thing with him for development sake, and not necessarily for the sake of his prospect status. It would be interesting to see what his prospect status would be if they would have continued to let him demolish the leagues he was successful in rather than be so aggressive with the promotions. At 18 he OPS'ed .863 in the NWL, at 19 he OPS'ed .886 at A- prior to being promoted, at 20 he OPS'ed .795 prior to promotion. Granted .795 is not demolishing the league, but it is pretty impressive for a 20 year old and there is no telling how much better his numbers would have been if he had spent the whole season there. The positive aspect of the early promotions is that it has clearly challenged him to get better. His stats show that he has continued to improve in each league he has been promoted to and to date he has not stalled out at any level. I'm looking forward to next year, and seeing how he handles the PCL league pitching. I think based upon how hitter friendly the league has been in the past, he has the ability to put up some great numbers.

I watched the AFL Rising Stars game this weekend and was surprised at how big Lake was. I thought he looked pretty impressive at the plate, and had a great first AB against Hulzten, who was really dealing. He worked the count to his advantage and it looked like he was called out on strikes on ball 4. Second AB he showed he could hit to the opposite field on his 2b. In the field he looked like there was some work to do. Early in the game he showed terrific range on a ball and then proceeded to make a bonehead throw. I would be interested to know what the pro scouts think, but based on his range, he shouldn't have any problem sticking at SS. Overall, I was impressed and have officially jumped on the bandwagon. Interestingly, McNutt came in for one batter and completely overpowered him. Seemed to have used 2 different off speed pitches and was hitting mid-90's. For some reason, he was removed immediately after striking the only batter he faced out.

Great video. I'm sure that he has already been on Theo's radar, but it will be interesting to see how involved the Cubs are with players like Darvish and Cespedes.

Their payroll is also dwarfed by a division rival, ownership threw the last group under the bus despite 2 WS and a bunch of success. 90 win seasons are a huge disappointment. The fan base is insane. Anything less than 2 WS titles in the next decade will be deemed disappointing. There's a lot of negative about that gig. In contrast, the Cubs were fairly decent to both Hendry and Quade while nudging them out the door. That may just make them look a bit more attractive than the Sox. That and as Tony LaRussa stated the allure of potentially bringing a WS title to the Cubs.

Any idea on whether Maddux and Wilson have a very close relationship or not? If Maddux helps us land Wilson on a reasonable deal, I think I would be willing to see how well he would manage.

you guys are too hell-bent on that. he took his shots back at a world that didnt treat him to greatly. he's bitter. so what. Wait. Hold on a second. The world didn't treat Ryne Sandberg too greatly? and he's clearly better then you and got the chance to shout back when he made it into the HoF. get over it. I think it is hilarious that some people got their delicate feelings hurt over his HOF speech. Here is a guy that busted his ass off his whole career, played without performance enhancing drugs, in a period where it was getting out of control, and was by all accounts a great teammate. In other words, he was a pretty damn good role model and a great player.

The sad part is that almost everyone knew that Quade should be canned, but based on how Hendry worked, I think there was still some apprehension that Quade might return. It is good to have a new front office.

I'm very much in favor of Headly over Ramirez, if the Padres are willing to move him for a reasonable price. He is a better defender and entering his prime. Any idea of what the Padres would require to trade him?

Welcome to the forum! The flip side of that argument is that he's been extremely young for those leagues and has likely been pushed to them before he was really ready. That and he improved the second time around in both leagues. I can't wait to see how he handles Iowa, as hitter friendly as the PCL has been I could see him putting up some big numbers.

Finally got home and got to listen to the Press Conference and Hoyer's interview on CSN. I am really impressed with Hoyer's attitude and plan for the future. One thing that I am really surprised that hasn't been receiving any criticism and/or discussion is how much time he spent talking about intangibles. During the CSN interview he spent almost the last 2 mins talking about the importance of having a clubhouse full of character guys and team players. He talked about teamwork being extremely important and changing the culture of the team. I was surprised how much he emphasized chemistry as a key factor in putting together a successful team. What is the general consensus: 1) He should get a pass because he is new and has won before; or 2) He doesn't believe what he is saying, but simply pacifying the average fan; or 3) something else?

I do agree that there are some troubling numbers from Z that don't necessarily give me a lot of confidence in him going forward. That said, Z is still a very unique pitcher in that his offense actually provides positive value (and significantly so at times). If you include his offensive WAR in with his pitching WAR, you have this the past 3 years: 4.6, 2.8, 1.9. That bumps his two year average up to 2.3 and his three year average up to 3.1. For the record, Fangraphs has his offensive WAR as 1.0, .5, and 1.0 the past 3 seasons. Interesting stats. I didn't realize his offensive stats rated out that well. For kicks I looked at other pitchers combined WAR and saw that Dontrell Willis had a combined WAR of 1.7 last year (or only .2 lower than Big Z). :lol:

I don't know how the hell you define productive or several, but that's nonsense. I would say a starter that only avgs 137IP with a 1.45 WHIP, steadily increasing LD%, steadily decreasing GB% and an avg 1.6 WAR (over the last two years) is not very productive. To put how bad he was last year into prospective there were 121 pitchers with at least 100IP that had a higher WAR than he did. I get that the Cubs shouldn't give him away for nothing, but lets not pretend that he was good or even decent last year, or that he hasn't been trending in the wrong direction.

He's either got a good chance of staying, or Epstein is doing a very good job bluffing it in order to keep his trade value reasonable. Either way, I like it. That's exactly what it is. I'd be absolutely stunned if Zambrano played another game in a Cubs uniform. I would not be so sure, and I don't know why anybody would be stunned. He's under contract to pitch for the Cubs. He's capable of pitching well. The Cubs are in desperate need of starting pitching. There's a fairly simple scenario for seeing him pitch for the Cubs. He didn't molest a Ricketts kid or anything. If the Cubs get offered anything of value for Zambrano, I'm sure they will deal him in an instant. He has not been a very productive pitcher over the last several years, and his numbers continue to decline. If however, it comes down to basically releasing him to get rid of him, my guess is that Theo will wait to see how he does when he comes to spring training and wait until the rotation is filled out prior to just disposing of him.

Interesting quote from McLeod re the Cubs system. http://insidethepadres.blogspot.com/2011/10/q-jason-mcleod.html Ouch. Doesn't sound like he was that impressed with the draft, other than the amount spent.

I have to admit I have never been that high on Lake, but him and Vitters have been real impressive during the AFL. I'm still worried about Vitters patience but I hope that this is something that both players can carry forward to next year.

Dempster made the best choice for himself and his family. There is no way he would get close to $14MM this year. He will definitely be motivated, this being a contract year.

I guess I just misunderstood the original post that I responded to: I even started my reply with : Sandberg would probably not be at the top of my list, and I am no way am stating that he is the best candidate out there. You asked for why people thought that case against him was weak. I still think the case against him is over-exaggerated and fairly weak. I don't think it is fair to say simply because I don't think he is a terrible choice that I merely want him because If anything you seem to disregard him and write him off simply because he is Ryne Sandberg. You even go so far to call him conceited and misrepresent his quotes. I get the fact that he says some corny old school things and that those things are taboo here, but in no way do I think he is the clueless manager that you pretend he is. At the end of the day, I think that if Theo hires him that we can all be confident that he is willing to buy into Theo's vision for the future.

Where did I say that being a great player equated to being a good manager? I said he was a good player and worked extremely hard as a player. Based upon his willingness to work his way through the minors and his supposed work ethic, I think overall that it is a positive. If you listened to Theo since he has been hired, he continually stresses work ethic and the hours that he expects those around him to put in. I can't remember his exact words but they were something to the effect that the Cubs will have one of the hardest working front offices in the league. One can only assume that he is going to want a manager that is willing to work as hard if not harder than he does. And as far as the comments saying hard work does not equal success, I agree, but it is typically a factor in achieving success. Later on you call him conceited and full of himself, and here you give him no credit for being humble enough to take a job that frankly was beneath him and work his way up through the system? And how does having minor league coaching experience disqualify him from the job? You may not value minor league experience, but it in no way detracts from his accomplishments. Feel free to do so, but it still doesn't make your argument right. The fact that he states that players need to learn how to bunt and hit to the left side with a runner on second, is pretty common sense. I'm pretty sure that even Theo stated that batters need to be smart and move the runners. And where does Sandberg say not to be patient at the plate? If the Cubs strategy under Hendry has been advocating swinging and not being patient, and drafting prospects accordingly, how is that Sandberg's fault? You seem to believe Sandberg is a dope and incapable of adapting to new thinking. Once again, the fact that he was able to swallow his pride and ride the buses in the minors and put in the work, tells me that he is more capable of adapting to things than you give him credit for. ]Now look at Ryno's HOF speech:http://www.cubsnet.com/node/526 You missed the point entirely. This quote puts your overly exaggerated obsession with claiming he is a small ball proponent into context. As you point out, his statement is common sense, however, others interpret it as "oohh he mentioned bunting and hit and run, he must love small ball". Once again, you interpret his quote to make it look as bad as possible. If a guy strikes out going for the fences in a situation where he could get a runner to third it hurts the team. Once again, a simple fundamental that little leaguers are taught. Seems a little high on himself, doesn't he? Is this the same guy you were portraying as humble because he was willing to coach in the minors? But not so high on himself that he would go back to the minors and start at the ground level? This sounds like a guy that has a perfect attitude for a manager. Have the Cubs struggled with those things? Sure, at times they have. Does every team struggle with those things at times? yep. To say the Cubs struggled with fundamentals "at times", is like saying Amy Winehouse struggled with addiction "at times".

I'm not advocating for the Cubs to hire Sandberg, however, I do think that for some reason that is a certain amount of irrational dislike/criticism toward the guy. Here are the things we know about Sandberg: 1. He was a damn good player and according to his managers (Zimmer, Frey etc.) worked his ass off all of the time. (Hard work being something that Epstein specifically mentioned several times during his press conference and interviews). 2. He didn't expect to be given anything. When he asked about a managerial position and was offered the Peoria position, he accepted it and rode the bus with the players and didn't complain about paying his dues. 3. His teams in the minors typically seemed to outperform the talent he was given. (Granted it is only the majors). 4. It is funny how things are put into context depending on the person hearing or reading certain things. During his press conference and post press conference interviews Theo made many statements about "playing the game the right way", "respecting the game", being a good teammate, stressing fundamentals, moving the runner over, grinding, outworking the competition, etc. etc. Most people applauded his statements. Now look at Ryno's HOF speech:http://www.cubsnet.com/node/526 Sure it is a little over the top, but some of the areas he touched are specific problems that the Cubs constantly struggle with, i.e. moving the runner over, watching for the 3b coach, etc., stressing fundamentals... I haven't read his quotes on not caring about on base percentage or dismissing statistical data, so I can't comment on that, but I think it is fair to state that until recently many other baseball types did not recognize the importance of them.

This is how every "good baseball man" advances in baseball, because all baseball men have nothing but good things to say about all good baseball men. Every pitching coach does a great job, every hitting coach is tremendously helpful, every manager has players that want to play for him, every scout is a savvy one. Those statements are completely worthless. As some have already noted, the Cubs players were gaga over Mike Quade last fall and he proved to be an incompetent boob. Also: Mike Quade had a lot of experience in the Cubs organization. Almost all of the meatball excuses for Sandberg can be applied to Quade. That is a horrible analogy. Mike Quade on his best day doesn't garner the respect from players that Sandberg does. We saw that toward the end of the this year, when they players used him as a doormat.

You take a couple of small insignificant items and try to put him in a box that he doesn't fit in. Show me where his teams play small ball more than other minor league teams. I'm not talking about one or two instances in 5-6 years where he asks a middle of the order batter to bunt. His teams are usually in the middle of the pack as far as bunting and steals. Statements from actual players that have played under him? His actual track record in the minors?

This is the classic strawman when it comes to Sandberg. I can answer that question, but you really should be asking yourself the inverse. Aside from being a very good Cubs player, what qualifies him to be a MLB manager? He's been in coaching for only 5 years, has never coached at the MLB level, and his playing career is mainly the highlight when bringing up his qualifications. As to your original question, there's a list of reasons I don't think hiring Sandberg is a good idea. For one, his philosophy towards the game, based on his quotes to the media(as a manager, HOF speech, etc), articles he's written for Yahoo, and the actual track record as a manager, is not one that I think is optimal in a manager. It reflects the type of overbearing manager that hurts the team by trying to press buttons with steals, hit and runs, and bunts. He isn't bilingual and I haven't heard anything overly positive(or negative for that matter) on his ability to handle latin players. His disposition(based on his ejections in the minors, his self-righteous HOF speech, his quotes on deserving a managerial opportunity, and the rumors of his personality) is not one that I consider to have the requisite humility to deal with players without alienating them when they disagree. In the same way, I'd expect his personality to cause problems in executing the front office's vision when it is not exactly aligned with what Sandberg believes. Are there similarly compelling reasons to think that he would be an effective manager of personalities, and able to execute the front office's vision to the minute detail? I don't believe so. I'm not advocating for Sandberg, but that is a weak argument. We don't have any idea of what the directives given to him in the minors are. From everything we have heard from any player that has played for him they liked him and appreciated greatly his coaching skills. Even though it is not as important in the minors, his teams always seemed to do well. He stressed fundamentals (something greatly lacking on the big league team) and held his players accountable. I think it has been proved over and over, despite the false perception on this board that the small ball stuff was greatly exaggerated. The actual statistics showed that his teams bunted about the same amount of times as other teams in every league he has coached in. Most of the criticism is based on his HOF speech and yahoo articles, but his actual coaching body of work is nowhere near as bad as it is portrayed. TT as someone who uses statistics, please provide statistics that show any of these accusations that your are leveling against Sandberg.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE THAT OLD TO REMEMBER HIS PLAYING DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hahaha I realize that, but there is a new generation of fans(including my kids) that don't remember his playing days and didn't see him play. The older fans you will create goodwill with are the 50 and 60 years olds. There's really not much business sense in doing that. If you are investing in goodwill you do that with the younger crowd. But the Cubs should be entirely about the best team, they have no use for goodwill at this stage of the game. I agree.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE THAT OLD TO REMEMBER HIS PLAYING DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hahaha I realize that, but there is a new generation of fans(including my kids) that don't remember his playing days and didn't see him play.