One good sign - Piniella appears to be in charge

by MPH73 on Jun 20, 2007 1:44 PM CDT

I don't think Hendry ever does this very necessary deal if he didn't have Piniella taking him to school with Baseball 101. There is no way Piniella could have dreamed, that the Cubs starting catcher since 04, could have been this bad defensively, and have such a poor feel for the game.

There is more to come folks, this is just the beginning of Piniella's influence on a GM that has not understood how to assemble the right parts.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 28 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I agree

I keep thinking of when, at one of his post-game press conferences, Lou cryptically said, "I know what I would do." I can't remember which game it was exactly, but it was following one of the more atrocious losses this season. (I know, I know...there have been so many.)

He was basically asking the media rheteorically how one could fix a team that was playing such fundamentally unsound baseball. And many of us interpreted the remark as a shot at Jim Hendry and the roster he assembled.

This Barrett trade may well be evidence of the kind of power Lou is starting to wield in this organization.

Your 2007 Chicago Cubs: We Keep Life Interesting

by daver on Jun 20, 2007 2:15 PM CDT reply actions

Part of it is, I think...

... that Hendry let Baker, with his "winning" reputation, have too much influence over roster construction the last few years. We are still paying for that -- it may take a little while before Lou has the right influence on Hendry.

Unfortunately, we don't have a "little while".

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Jun 20, 2007 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions

OK, this may be semantics

but could it be that Hendry does nothing but listen to his manager's and tries to put the team together that they'd like?

Maybe Barrett was Baker's guy too and that's why he was here so long. Hendry did get guys on the roster for Baker that Baker wanted, ie Neifi. Maybe this is just a continuation of that.

Barrett was a Baker guy, but he's not a Piniella guy, so he's gone. Personally, I don't think that this is an indication that there's a power struggle going on here.

by NO100 on Jun 20, 2007 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions

Barrett...

... was a Hendry guy. Hendry tried to recruit him to go to Creighton (same as Floyd). Barrett signed with the Expos instead.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Jun 20, 2007 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions

Barrett was defiitely a Hendry guy

but what I'm saying is that maybe Baker liked him as well. Instead of Hendry forcing Barrett on the Cubs organization, maybe he was wanted by Baker and now, he simply isn't wanted by Piniella. So, instead of forcing his will, Hendry is doing what he's always done and that is to get players his managers want or dump the ones they don't.

I guess I'm trying to say that this may be a sign that they are working together and not that Piniella is exerting his power over Hendry.

by NO100 on Jun 20, 2007 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Agreed.

n/t

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Jun 20, 2007 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions

If that's the case

Hendry is a worse GM than I already think he is. You don't keep a player at the catchers position that kills you in the field, just because your manager wants him. You make a decision what is best for the club, and you don't hesitate.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Jun 20, 2007 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions

First off

I agree that defense at the catcher's positon is extremely important. Barrett was never "my guy".

However, what this move may say is that Hendry is continuing to work as a team with his managers to bring in players that they, together, think could win. Whether that thought process is correct or not is a different discussion.

by NO100 on Jun 21, 2007 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions

confirmed...and the role McPhail told Hendry to do

In short the GM is actually the supporter of the on field management, 'they know best' in theory. Baker in retrospect didnot know best and the result was '04-'05-'06...

Piniella is turning the screws using playing time and one on one motivation. Pie has been a big change in the OF. Barrett is now gone. I suspect that RF will be solved sometime soon. The bullpen is coming around and the Cubs are winning games without the big HR.

Future tidings: I see Soriano being moved down the lineup, possibly 3rd with Fontenont and theriot being moved up and DeRosa at the 7th hole.

Harry Carey: 3 & 2, 2-out, no place to put him...tying run on 3rd...winning run on 2nd...THE PITCH....HEE POOOOPPPED....IT UP!

by Ivy Walls on Jun 20, 2007 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions

Agree with

moving down Soriano. Hate to see his 11 HR and only 28 RBI's. From the 5th or 6th hitter in the lineup on down does not present much punch. Moving Soriano to third in the lineup pushes Lee to forth, ARAM to fifth and Floyd to sixth. Not bad 3 through 6 than.

"You can't take life to seriously, you don't get out of it alive"

by wild bill on Jun 20, 2007 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Except all your

big hitters are right in a row and they're all right handed. Not a good idea. Let's just trust Sweet Lou on this one.

by cubsbak on Jun 20, 2007 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Floyd

is of course lefty. You can even go Soriano, Lee, Floyd and Ramirez.

"You can't take life to seriously, you don't get out of it alive"

by wild bill on Jun 20, 2007 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions

Floyd won't play

everyday. Also, it's important to sandwich Pie with righties so he doesn't have to face too many lefties late in games. Soriano batting leadoff is best. Let's trust Sweet Lou on this.

by cubsbak on Jun 20, 2007 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions

But let's not

assume that the catching position is "solved". I'd say that right now, there's a bigger hole at catcher than there is in RF.

I'm not saying that Barrett didn't have to go, but there's still work to be done there.

by NO100 on Jun 20, 2007 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions

Hendry may have listened to Baker

but the final decision is always the GM's, and he is responsible for the rosters he puts together. The problem is a flawed philosophy in what he believes in, because if he makes the move, he must believe it is the right one.

I will never understand in a million years, how the success of the 03 team (specifically August and September) flew right over Hendry's head. That team had great 1 and 2 hole hitters, a solid defensive catcher and was strong up the middle. This formula, has been around baseball for a long long time, and Hendry went away from it for 4 years.

Piniella is not Baker, and his patience will be much shorter when a team has such obvious holes. The next few weeks will be interesting.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Jun 20, 2007 10:52 PM CDT up reply actions

No doubt

The final decision is the GM's. Hendry has never backed away from that. I've never heard one comment to that effect.

Also, I don't know how the success of '03 got away from Hendry either. In his defense, I don't think that he went 180 degreees away from what worked in '03, but he did move away from that template. '04, '05, and '06 would have been much different if Patterson, Wood, and Prior had progressed as '03 would have indicated.

That doesn't excuse Hendry for not bringing in a SS that could even fill the tiny shoes of Alex Gonzalez on a consistent basis, deciding to keep Walker or Grudz, and Barrett over Miller.

I think a much worse example of moving away from a philosophy that worked is demonstrated by the White Sox. A big part of why they won in '05 was because they were a small ball, good defense team. Before '05, the Sox kept losing because they put a softball team out there year after year and got thier hat handed to them by Minnesota. Starting in '06 with the Roward trade, they became a softball team again and they get thier hat handed to them by Minnesota again in '06 and will again in '07.

by NO100 on Jun 21, 2007 9:20 AM CDT up reply actions

The White Sox...

... won in '05 because they had outstanding starting pitching. The "small ball" thing is a myth.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Jun 21, 2007 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions

I would agree

that the starting pitching was the most important factor. In addition, they had a great bullpen on which they could rely. But I think you may be discounting the whole "small ball" thing. I remember Podsednik causing a lot of problems on the basepaths, Iguchi doing everything that a #2 hitter should do, and staking the team to a 1-0 lead after the first inning. Then the pitching took over.

by NO100 on Jun 22, 2007 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions

Patterson

The best thing that ever happened to that 03 team was when Patterson ripped up his knee against the Cards. That brought Kenny Lofton to town who was probably the best leadoff man the Cubs have had in my lifetime.

In my mind failing to resign Kenny in 2004 was one of Hendry's biggest blunders. It was very forseeable that Patterson would fail based on his minor league numbers and his brief major league appearances. Not resigning Kenny as insurance after what he did in 2003 and just handing the job to an unproven Patterson was just plain stupid. That 2004 team makes the playoff with ease if Lofton's in center and leading off. It makes me angry just thinking about it.

by cubsbak on Jun 21, 2007 10:37 PM CDT up reply actions

Hindsight is 20/20

but Patterson was outstanding before he tore his knee. At the time, I had no problem in not resigning Lofton. I would bet that most baseball people had no problem with it either.

Now, sure, it would have made sense, but based on the knowledge at the time, I can't fault Hendry.

by NO100 on Jun 22, 2007 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions

Outstanding?

But it was only half a season. And he'd been terrible before that and his minor league numbers were, for the most part, bad. And even in his so-called outstanding half-season he still struck out 77 times in 329 AB's with only 15 walks. That's pretty miserable.

I disagree with you completely. I bet most baseball people would not have given center field to such an unproven commodity, unless maybe they were running a team like the Pirates where they don't have the resources to bring in established talent. Based on knowledge at the time, which was that Lofton was indispensable in the Cubs 2003 run and Patterson was unproven I think Hendry was reckless and stupid for putting so much faith in an unproven player and not resigning Lofton.

by cubsbak on Jun 22, 2007 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions

In that half season, Patterson also had

a .298 average and a slugging percentage over .500. Stole 16 bases. Baseball America in 2001 had him ranked as the #2 prospect.

You are wrong. At the time, most people didn't give Lofton a second look for the Cubs. They said the Cubs didn't need him because they had Patterson coming back from injury.

In hindsight, yes, it was a poor decision. I'm not here to defend Patterson, but A) he was thought of in and out of the Cubs organization as a future all-star, and B) he showed serious signs of living up to that promise in the half year of 2003.

Looking back on it now, one could point to a lot of "warning signs". I agree they were all over, but there were a lot of signs at the beginning of 2004 to suggest that Patterson was going to be a fine centerfielder.

by NO100 on Jun 22, 2007 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions

No

You are wrong. Yes, 3 years earlier baseball america overrated Patterson because of a big year in low A ball. But his numbers were bad ever since, except for that half season in 2001. And as most educated baseball people will tell you, batting average is one of the worst things to look at when projecting a player's future. His OBP (a much more reliable indicator) that year was nothing special. Yes, he hit for power, but as I've mentioned his strikeout total was unacceptable. Anyone could see that handing him center field was a huge risk.

I remember at the time thinking Hendry was taking a huge risk in letting Lofton get away and putting so much faith in an unproven player. At the time the Cubs needed a leadoff hitter and it was obvious to anyone that Patterson's OBP was too low to be effective in the leadoff spot. And I read articles at the time that said the same thing. I don't know who these "most people" are that you are quoting, but I'm guessing that you're just talking out of your ass.

by cubsbak on Jun 22, 2007 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions

Correction

half season in 2003 not 2001.

by cubsbak on Jun 22, 2007 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions

Corey was also 24 YO

at the time of his 2003 breakout. He was developing and one could surmise that he would improve in all areas. His numbers were improving. Also, let's not forget that even at the time, his defense was better than Lofton's. That's a consideration as well.

Was Patterson proven? Absoltely not, but reliance on an unproven player happens all the time with young players. All the time. It was a gamble that didn't pay off.

OBP isn't the only factor. Stealing bases, defense, slugging all factor in too.

In any event, it's foolish to pursue this anymore. I wish that the Cubs would not have relied on Patterson for 2004, but I can understand why they would. I don't blame Hendry for it. To me, and a whole lot of baseball people, it was a justified gamble.

by NO100 on Jun 22, 2007 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions

Let the

tweaking begin! Like I have maintained all along, this team can be solid if they change a few things. I am glad that Hendry might be listening a little closer to Lou. Okay fans, we have Pie in CF (many of us calling for that for sometime prior to it happening) Theriot (albeit on a slide the wrong way) starting here or there, and Jones playing less. Barrett gone hopefully brings more "D" behind the plate.

So what remains Lou? What else would you like?

"You can't take life to seriously, you don't get out of it alive"

by wild bill on Jun 20, 2007 2:28 PM CDT reply actions

If I had to guess....

he'd like a rightfielder who can provide some sock and play decent defense...Floyd is best option they've got but he's brittle and not great in the field...Jones hasn't hit at all and is challenged with his arm but catches the ball OK...Jones has a month to turn it around or he'll be dumped at deadline, i suspect.

He'd probably like A-Rod as well that remains a wet-dream for now probably screwed by the timing of the Trib/Cub sale and new owner, even one with deep pockets, not being in place in time to pull the trigger.

by writerinwrigley on Jun 20, 2007 6:09 PM CDT reply actions