Analysis Of Dusty Baker As A Manager
... excerpt from a new book by Hardball Times' Chris Jaffe called "Evaluating Baseball's Managers". Interesting stuff, and a different take on Baker than we've heard before.
about 2 years ago
Al Yellon
74 comments
5 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I don't buy the batboy stuff
But, otherwise, very interesting. I wish there had been more discussion of Baker’s use of the bullpen.
I do
Different circumstances but I know during my life when I am happy with life, my golf game has been much better Also anytime my dad attended a tournament I played in I usually played a lot better.
by Cubsfan Waveland on Dec 1, 2009 3:13 PM CST up reply actions
you're not a professional athlete
I would have a major issue if I heard any Cub say he struggled because his kid couldn’t haul around the team’s bats.
Don't know anything about you but
if you don’t think family problems or just missing time with your son when he is growing up can’t affect a professional ahtlete, I think you are greatly mistaken. Would playing in a few mini tour events qualify as a professional athlete? I view that as the same level as class A ball.
by Cubsfan Waveland on Dec 1, 2009 8:49 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
+1
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
right ...
so two or three guys who have kids who are batboys make the entire 25-man roster better. We’re not talking about take-your-kid-to-work season.
I'm not saying the kids
should be there everyday but say the team has been on a 10 game road trip and comes home to play a Friday day game at Wrigley and the kid is there. He spends time playing catch in the outfield well before the game or they just sit in the dugout, chatting and watching as others take batting practice. Does it make a measureable differnce in the box score probably not but it would be the same type of differnce to me like having good club house guys makes a difference. You can’t measure it but it exists.
by Cubsfan Waveland on Dec 2, 2009 4:40 PM CST up reply actions
that's NOT what we're discussing
I have nothing against letting players’ kids come to the park before the game on a Friday. But we’re talking about batboys — unless I’m not remembering what I read yesterday very well,
All of that factors in
and I think they should allow the kids to be the bat boys or girls if the players sign a waiver not holding the Cubs responsible for any accidents.
by Cubsfan Waveland on Dec 2, 2009 5:53 PM CST up reply actions
I would imagine an age restriction would work too
When Baker’s kid nearly got run over he looked far too young to be a batboy. I’m guessing the same kid 2-3 years later wouldn’t have made the same mistake.
Great. Wonderful
If only players’ kids had been batboys in the Dusty era! We would have won four straight championships!
Uhh , , , okay
I never stated it had any effect on the games themselves. If I wrote the article in question, I certainly wouldn’t have included a trivial and hard to prove/quantify factor like batboys (even if I thought it might be a factor).
It does seem a little silly to specifically ban players family members when they’d otherwise meet the same qualifications as other people’s kids who do end up as batboys.
Very interesting
I can’t figure out if the author is bashing Baker or not. He basically says that the reason he succeeded in SF was his style was a match while he failed in Chicago because his style was not a match. He, the author, really didn’t assign blame although he was highly critical of Baker’s time in Chicago. Interesting, that could be a real good book.
"Dad gum right this games gonna be played under protest. . . I guarantee this is gonna be one protest that's upheld." --Hawk Harrelson, 6/24/07
I think he was neither bashing nor praising him
Basically stating he was a good fit for the Giants and bad fit for the Cubs, and was never as good or bad as advertised.
Well said...
RynoHoF. Great example of why it is important for team management to understand the collective demeanor of the players. I dug Dusty and his toothpick, but it was clear that it wasn’t jiving in the clubhouse. Thanks for the post, Al.
"And Dunston hits a fly ball to left-right center field!" -Harry Caray
Seems like a good article...
…I think Baker is a good manager… to experienced players who already know how to win. When it comes to young players, like when he managed the Cubs and now the Reds, well… he can’t do much…
He seems to also require a team with a thicker skin than our 2004 squad
I’m not sure our team being entirely more experienced guys than we had would have resulted in a different fate had they continued to get involved in the ridiculous superfluous events of that season.
I liked this line:
“Baker’s experience with the Cubs was very different, as the Bay Area’s genius became the Windy City’s idiot.”
Any manager would have looked like a genius with a super-human Barry Bonds on their team.
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies." - Mike Royko
Well, in baseball it doesn't really work like that.
You still have to have a good supporting cast of players around a superstar player in baseball, and you obviously have to have good pitching. Over the course of 10 years in San Fran, Dusty always had a good mix of veterans who knew how to play, and were basically able to police themselves, so to speak. When they lost that ability to police themselves (basically when Bonds became more and more withdrawn from teammates, and some of them like Jeff Kent started to call him out on it) that’s when he left. The ironic thing is that with the 2002 season, Dusty was able to leave a winner, and narrowly missed taking home the big prize. (Where does that sound familiar?) So you can’t really give credit only to having Bonds all those years as to why Dusty was, for the most part, successful in San Francisco.
Really, the only sport where one superstar player can make you an instant contender, I think, is basketball, where an entire offense can basically revolve around one guy. In baseball, your star player only bats four times a game, needs guys on base in front of him to do any real damage, and can only make a play in the field when the ball is hit to him. In football, a good quarterback doesn’t mean a thing if you don’t have a good O-line, or good wide receivers, or a good defense, as we’re finding out the hard way this year in Chicago.
"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004
It's the "police themselves" thing that did the 2004 Cubs in.
The 2003 Cubs were able to do so because they had strong player-leaders in Damian Miller & Eric Karros. Those two were shipped away after the season, and the 2004 Cubs had no such player-leaders. The results were predictable, especially when Baker insisted on using LaTroy Hawkins as closer.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
And Hendry still hasn't learned his lesson from that
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Dec 1, 2009 2:46 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Wait... what?
The results were predictable
Predictable? Really?
You predicted that the Cubs would turn from the top team in the NL into a bunch of choking, whiny douchebags if they let an aging Eric Karros and a catcher who’d put up an OPS of .670 go?
Or maybe it’s because they replaced Eric Karros with clubhouse cancer Derek Lee, who obviously lacks any leadership qualities whatsoever?
how do you define "best team in the NL"?
I get what Al is saying. The 2004 team struggled through injuries ALL season, had a favorable schedule to end the year, and chocked under pressure when they should have easily landed the Wild Card. I don’t think ALL of that was a leadership issue, but no team leader was able to stop Kent Mercker from calling Steve Stone during a game, etc.
Aside from leadership issues, the 2004 Cubs struggled at the end of games, particularly in the final week. Farnsworth was great in 2003 and bad in 2004, Borowski was hurt and Hawkins was a disaster.
I’d say lack of team leadership AND a bad bullpen were the two main things that “did the 2004 Cubs in” to use Al’s phrase. But the lack of a leadoff hitter, the hurricanes in Florida that forced weird travel AND the decline of Sammy Sosa were causes too.
Right.
It wasn’t JUST the lack of clubhouse leadership, obviously.
But dismissing that as a factor because the two players involved weren’t high on the list statistically is ignoring the value of such leadership when the manager lets the inmates run the asylum.
Damian Miller was highly regarded by the pitching staff as a defensive catcher, too. We all know how Michael Barrett ranked in that category.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
lack of leadership/bad chemistry
… was part of the 2004 collapse. No question.
Of course I'm dismissing it
But dismissing that as a factor because the two players involved weren’t high on the list statistically is ignoring the value of such leadership when the manager lets the inmates run the asylum.
It’s 100% conjecture. You and I have no idea what kind of leadership role those guys played in 2003, and we have no idea if they’d been able to control a runaway clubhouse driven to a breaking point by injuries, poor play, and distractions of their own making.
You and a lot of people tend to assign the “leader” tag to likeable guys who make for a good interview.
This clubhouse obviously had leaders, the problem was that they were vain jerkwads. No person in this world has the power to make Sosa, Alou, or Mercker not assholes, no matter how handsome and likable they are.
It was more than that, as elgato said
Mercker, Walker, Alou, Hawkins, etc. were much more concerned about B.S. than STFU and play ball – which is what a strong leader would have told them. Baker’s job, to be certain, but he doesn’t have that kind of demeanor.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Dec 2, 2009 6:49 AM CST up reply actions
And they weren't the best team in the NL
They didn’t win the pennant, and didn’t have the best record in 2003.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Dec 2, 2009 6:50 AM CST up reply actions
Right, there were actual baseball reasons the Cubs failed
The idea that they needed the sage leadership of a couple of mediocre players to right the ship is preposterous. There were a lot of things not named Eric Karros that could have told Kent Mercker not to call the broadcast booth – his manager, his agent, his coaching staff, his general manager, common fucking sense – any number of things.
These weren’t rookies who didn’t know what they were doing, they were all veteran baseball players, in some cases superstars who felt they ruled the roost. The clubhouse had leaders – Alou, Mercker, Sosa, Wood – but they led the Cubs down the path to douchebagville. You really think that a league-minimum catcher was going to call out Sammy Sosa on his bad behavior?
nope
I also don’t think anyone would ever consider Sosa a clubhouse leader. Or Mercker, for that matter.
That's conjecture on your part, isn't it?
Maybe you’re right about elgato, but here are some players that I like that don’t appear (granted, I’m not in the clubhouse) as leaders other than by example:
Derrek Lee
Ryne Sandberg
Andre Dawson
Guys that I think would get in someone’s face:
Gary Matthews
Kerry Wood
Scott Servais
Note there is little, if any correlation to the vocalness and the ability.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Dec 2, 2009 10:42 AM CST up reply actions
That's a good point.
If only the 2004 Cubs had someone like Kerry Wood on their team, maybe this wouldn’t have happened.
Who knows if he tried
And he missed time, as that was the first annual “Wood and Prior to miss a few days” celebration.
The point is not that those guys are the be-all end-all, but they help – and you need some of them when the manager isn’t willing to be a leader.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Dec 2, 2009 11:14 AM CST up reply actions
This is the entire point I'm trying to make
Who knows if he tried
Who. Knows. I certainly don’t, and I’m a know-it-all. For all we know Sosa’s boombox got smashed when Kerry Wood was trying to do that leadership exercise where Kent Mercker falls backwards into Kerry’s arms and he accidentally missed.
We have no idea from the outside in what a clubhouse dynamic is like, let alone what the disastrous 2004 clubhouse was like.
So to call the 2004 season “predictable” because they let go some guys we speculate were leaders because they make for a good interview is just silly, especially given that those 2 guys were replaced with significantly better players.
Michael Barrett was not a better catcher.
Derrek Lee, obviously, was substantially better than Karros/Simon.
But the marginal increase in offense with Barrett in the lineup cannot overcome the gargantuan decrease in catcher defense. The guy practically invented new ways to fumble away big defensive moments.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
I admit that's certainly possible
But the marginal increase in offense with Barrett in the lineup cannot overcome the gargantuan decrease in catcher defense
But that said, if you can actually prove that statement, I’m sure there are a lot of very intelligent people who have a job for you. Catcher defense is incredibly difficult to value.
Fangraphs has Barret at over a win better than Miller, which is less than I would have expected but still a relatively large gap. But there’s no UZR data for 2004 so that’s pretty much just taking their offensive value and adding the positional adjustment for catcher to their WAR.
It's certainly difficult to value.
However, there were at least a half-dozen games which were actually lost on plays where Barrett committed really interesting, exciting new errors that none of us had ever seen before.
There’s a pretty good reason why he was never a starting catcher again, and why he was out of the league a year and a half after he and Z fought. Injuries, sure, to a certain extent, but also his defense wasnt’ worth it, especially when his bat disappeared.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 2, 2009 1:03 PM CST up reply actions
There’s a pretty good reason why he was never a starting catcher again
Yeah, he forgot how to hit. He’d still have a job if he was still putting up the kinds of numbers he did here. He keeps getting chances even though it’s been a long time since he’s contributed.
Those numbers were clearly his "prime".
And they were atypical for his career. Barrett put up an awful lot of .650 and below OPS seasons both prior to 2004 and after 2006. His offensive stats for most of his career are Damian Miller-ish.
And he only played in 37 games total after 2007, so it’s not like he keeps getting all that many chances. Various injuries (and, as you mention, being unable to hit and horrific on D) did him in – he was DFAed last year with only 7 games played and months on the DL. He’s probably done.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 2, 2009 1:40 PM CST up reply actions
My personal favorite
Throwing behind the winning run when the runner was dead to rights between third and home.
However, there were at least a half-dozen games which were actually lost on plays where Barrett committed really interesting, exciting new errors that none of us had ever seen before.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Dec 2, 2009 1:27 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, I'll concede that point in your last sentence.
The truth is somewhere in the middle.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Dec 2, 2009 1:23 PM CST up reply actions
It wasn't just getting rid of those guys
It includes who they were replaced with. Put a bunch of a-holes together, and the bad attitudes are going to feed off each other.
A strong manager nips that bullcrap in the bud, but Baker relied on a player to do that – when he didn’t have one that would, the system broke down.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Dec 2, 2009 10:40 AM CST up reply actions
I just re-read your comment
And you covered my first sentence, kind of.
Yes, had the injuries not happened, they likely would have been able to overcome the B.S. I don’t think anyone would dispute that. However, take away the B.S. and focus on the task at hand, and they may well have been able to overcome the injuries. One could be controlled, the other couldn’t – so guess which one people will dwell on?
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Dec 2, 2009 10:45 AM CST up reply actions
*should have replied to Wreckard directly again
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Dec 2, 2009 10:46 AM CST up reply actions
Replacing Damian Miller with Michael Barrett has that effect.
I never appreciated catcher defense until I spent 3 1/3 years watching Michael Barrett literally fumble and throw games away. It can’t all be coincidence that the team got progressively worse during his time as catcher, and immediately better upon his departure.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
It wasn't just the fumbling, errors, lack of throwing out runners, etc.
Pitchers thought Miller called a better game than Barrett.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Also, for what it's worth, 2003 was an aberrantly bad OPS year for Miller.
He was generally a .750-.775 OPS guy.
Barrett was typically below that throughout his career, except for his 04-06 run with the Cubs.
Ironically, Barrett’s #1 Most Similar player? Damian Miller!
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 2, 2009 1:19 PM CST up reply actions
Dusty Baker is a solid manager
There is zero doubt about that in my mind. What he did over the course of 10 seasons in San Francisco was excellent when you consider all that team really had was Barry Steroid and Jeff Kent.
Dusty also got a lot out of the Cubs, despite being handed some deeply flawed rosters predicated on the strategy of Mark Prior and Kerry Wood being the horses to ride to World Series glory.
I like Dusty. So too does Walt Jocketty in Cincinnati. And that says something to me.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
I'll bite.
Dusty’s resume as a manager is solid, but you believe he was a good manager with the Cubs?
Lou’s resume as a manager is solid, but do you believe he’s been great with the Cubs?
A manager can have a great career, but a miserable stop on his journey. I thought book made sense. Either Dusty’s style was all he had or he adapted to fit the circumstances in SF. Either way, he didn’t adapt to the situation in Chicago as it changed year to year.
My opinion on Lou awaits this next season, but he hasn’t been what I expected.
at daver's request, Let's frontload this B**ch!
Lou Piniella doesn't really want to be here
That’s the disturbing thing. He is a man playing out the string anticipating his triumphant full-time return to home in Temple Terrace Florida and where he will be on the Steinbrenner’s payroll as special advisor to the Yankees.
Piniella doesn’t like Chicago or the Cubs all that much. I think when he does finally quit after next season he will say some things that some will find shocking.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
That wouldn’t surprise me. At times it seems like Lou came back expecting to still have the fire and desire to coach and then realized he didn’t and became lost.
"This season has been everything most of us feared it would be[.]"
Mike Rutherford, Card Chronicle
http://www.cardchronicle.com/
He had that fire just fine in 2007 and 2008.
It was last year when he seemed to lose it.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
But why not walk away from the last year, then?
I can’t imagine the Cubs wouldn’t allow him to leave, and the Yankees would probably pay him the same that the Cubs are going to.
I know he seemed distant at times, but this doesn’t add up.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Dec 2, 2009 8:57 PM CST up reply actions
The question is whether Lou is soured on the Cubs
or just had a really bad year. Clearly the MB situation affected him personally, and you know he doesn’t like losing. But to suggest that Lou is above the Cubs; 2009 failure is absurd. After all, if you’re right, then this is a manager who serially doesn’t like the teams he chooses to work for and that smacks of foolishness. I don’t think Lou’s a fool – I think he just had a bad year.
I think Lou’s downturn in mien this season came with eating some humble pie. After all, who was it that
- cried in the offseason we need lefty bats and players with fire (= Milton Bradley)
- chose Fontenot over DeRosa
- chose Hoffpauir over Pie
- chose Gregg over Marmol for closer
- urged Theriot to add power to his game, demolishing his offensive game
- presided over one man turning a good clubhouse into a bad clubhouse atmosphere?
It was a bad year for Lou in many ways, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he blamed himself for things that were out of his control. After all, some of those decisions made sense in theory even if they didn’t turn out so well.
So, clear out the player Lou cannot manage and see how the Cubs start 2010 – he may come roaring back to life.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 2, 2009 9:11 PM CST up reply actions
I am so sick and tired of the lefty bat thing
The bottom line fact of the matter is that the Cubs have SCREAMING need for a left handed bat or two….just like they did last offseason. Lou Piniella is 100% RIGHT on this.
This team has absolute need for a lefty bat to sandwich in the middle of that lineup. Lou Piniella was absolutely right to kick Hendry in the ass on this subject and insist that something be done. The problem is the wrong “something” was done in the form of the toxic Milton Bradley.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
I guess you missed
After all, some of those decisions made sense in theory even if they didn’t turn out so well.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 2, 2009 9:57 PM CST up reply actions
You place way too much emphasis on the manager's "urgings" to players
This isn’t a Nintendo set. This is real live baseball. And though I am a bit dismayed with Lou Piniella right now, one thing I will never do is attack his managerial judgment all that much. Or assign responsiblity for things that he can’t control.
Jim Hendry has repeatedly handed Dusty Baker and Lou PIniella flawed rosters. And worse still, Hendry has changed his philosphy on roster so many times to make heads spin in disgust. First it was win via the enigmatic Wood and the kid Prior, then it was outmash the opponent, later it was injection of small ball in the form of Juan Pierre, blah blah blah.
Bottom line is that Jim Hendry sucks.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
I guess you missed
I wouldn’t be surprised if he blamed himself for things that were out of his control.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 2, 2009 9:59 PM CST up reply actions
And following your double-reply lead
I’ll add that your argument is just absurd here. Jim Hendry has shifted his philosophy towards Lou’s (which is a good thing). So, if you’re a Lou fan, why complain about that? Further, the roster decisions this year that flopped were all decisions Lou publicly pushed for.
Is he traded yet?
Right.
And Hendry did that in part because many of the moves Lou pushed for in his first two years worked — thus, Hendry did have some trust in what Lou wanted would work.
It didn’t work last year and so they have to go in a different direction.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Reply to BLou
As rarely occurs, we agree on Lou. I have been suspecting the same thing after watching this past year.
Did you believe Dusty was a good manager for the Cubs? I thought the veteran clubhouse in 2003 with Wood, Karros, Miller, Grudz, Alou, Gonz and a prima donna superstar in Sosa mirrored, somewhat, the situation he had in SF. He had success because he didn’t have to alter his style.
at daver's request, Let's frontload this B**ch!
I have to ask you directly, then
Because I know BLou isn’t going to answer. If that’s the case, why wouldn’t he just walk away, instead of sitting through another season?
I can’t believe the Cubs wouldn’t release him from his contract if he asked them to, and I also think the Yankees would pay him enough.
So, there’s no real monetary reason, there likely would be no contractual one, and I can’t believe it would be image, because another season of “phoning it in” – which is what would happen if BLou’s hypothesis is correct – isn’t going to be great for his image.
So, why stick around?
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Dec 3, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I think I have an answer.
You’re talking about Lou, right? He still wants to win the WS here, because he knows that would likely be his ticket to the Hall of Fame.
JMHO, but I think that’s one thing at work here, at least.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Sure, but -
If he’s lost interest/passion, then he doesn’t think they have a legit chance, right? Because if he does, and he has any fire at all left, that should be enough to energize him.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Dec 3, 2009 12:35 PM CST up reply actions
You and Al are discussing the same questions I have about Lou.
IMO, in addition to the money and HOF, I don’t believe Lou liked being perceived as a quitter when he walked away from the Rays. Just my guess, but if the Cubs had fired him, he’d have happily walked, but I don’t think he wanted to be seen walking away again.
at daver's request, Let's frontload this B**ch!
Agreed.
I think Lou’s perceived loss of interest last year, as mentioned somewhere above, may have been in part because he finally had the roster HE wanted — as in the players he wanted Hendry to acquire — and they failed.
Hopefully, they rectify those mistakes in the next month or two.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
