Lou's Obsession Continues
by DGU on Sep 14, 2009 3:12 PM CDT
Email
Print
From Andrew Simon at MLB.com:
Heading into Monday's series opener against the Brewers, the Cubs are on pace to score about 140 fewer runs in 2009 than they did in 2008. Piniella believes the culprit is the fifth spot in the lineup. "That's a spot that needs to be solved this winter more than anything else," he said. "It's been a big problem for us."
The average #5 hitter in the NL is hitting .260/.337/.433. The Cubs' #5 hitter on the season is hitting .256/.345/.434. On the other hand, our average lead-off hitter has an anemic .322 OBP, .013 pts less than the league's average. Our average #8 hitter has an awful line of .244/.311/.327, nearly .060 pts worse than the league average. Last year, our #8 hitter produced at a .295/.359/.421 clip.
But I'm beating a dead horse here. Lou doesn't get it. This isn't really a debatable point any more. The question is where the obsession leads next. Read Lou's quote again:
That's a spot that needs to be solved this winter more than anything else.
Maybe Jim Hendry realizes this winter that he has to stop listening to his manager so much. But let's assume he doesn't realize it. What are the options?
First - you probably have to dump one of our OFs. Soriano won't be moveable. Bradley and Dome will be. If you're shopping free agents that are left-handed and potential #5 spot hitters, you're not shopping in the best aisle. Johnny Damon, Bobby Abreu, Hideki Matsui, Rick Ankiel, Aubrey Huff, Ken Griffey Jr - do any of these strike you as options better than Milton Bradley?
So, maybe the Cubs decide to trade Derrek Lee instead. If he'll waive his NTC, then you open up some more options: Hank Blalock, Adam LaRoche, Nick Johnson, Russel Branyan, Carlos Delgado... but other than being left-handed, do any of those strike you as better than Derrek Lee? Plus, what help is it if you "fix" the #5 spot at the expense of the #3 spot?
The Cubs could try and trade for a young under-achiever like Jeremy Hermida or Mark Teahen, but how is that fair to put the pressure of Lou and his obsession on a player like that?
In 2008, Lou's #5 hitter was the third worst hitter on the team. His lineup construction was miserable, covered only by the fact that nearly everyone was a productive hitter on the balance of the season. His worst hitter hit 2nd and there were better hitters hitting 6th and 7th all season long than the #5 hitter.
In 2009, the problem has been OBP sinkholes at leadoff and at the bottom of the order. Both Theriot and Soriano have been miserable as lead-off hitters, giving us .286/.315/.286 and .228/.295/.421 respectively.
Here's to hoping that Jim Hendry ignores Lou Piniella and finds a middle infielder who can lead off this off-season. Lead-off has been a much bigger problem than the #5 hitter.
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.
185 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You're right about obsession.
Last offseason, it was “we’re not lefthanded enough”. How’s that working out, Lou?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Not all that well
Since the only way we got significantly more left handed was by replacing DeRosa with Fontenot, who the organization thought was able to step up after posting over a 900 ops last year as well as being 5 million dollars cheaper than DeRosa, and likely had as much to do, if not more, with him being given the full time job, than his left handedness. Obviously, last year was just a case of solid selective use.
"Lou's Lost It" seems a little extreme...
… i’d still rather have him than many other managers.
But he’s wrong on this one. When it comes down to it, batting order isn’t as important as everybody seems to make it out to be.
The difference between a conventional batting order and the best tested order (descending OBA), though, is comparatively small- about .4 games a season, or two games every five seasons. In practical terms, that probably means that lineup decisions based on tactical considerations (not putting all your lefties in a row, keeping a player at leadoff because he feels comfortable there, etc.) may outweigh the minor benefits of using a theoretically optimal order. Four tenths of a win is about four runs over the course of a season, and a player doesn’t have to hit a whole lot better (or steal a whole lot more bases, etc.) to be worth four extra runs.
It’s all about putting the best players possible on the field, in positions where they are comfortable and can produce, and letting them do their thing.
Follow me on twitter @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 14, 2009 3:34 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
"Lou's lost it" is extreme and not what I'd vote. But it's interesting to see how many others would.
Last year’s obsession with getting the ideal batting order led to the exiting of Felix Pie and Mark DeRosa, who didn’t fit the batting order Lou wanted. Who will we discard this year in the quest for the ideal #5 hitter?
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
rec'd
I am getting tired of always defending Lou, because I don’t believe that anybody is always right, but Lou is getting blamed for everything but Global Warming this year. I’ll bet that there are a fair number who vote “Lou’s lost it”.
I admire Lou as a fellow manager, and I see him as a key part of the Cubs success the last two years. There is a lot that I can’t evaluate about how good a job he is doing, because part of his job is managing the personalities and personal problems of his team. But I think that he has gone a long way into making this a professional organization.
The other part of the Lou haters that I think will come back to bite us, is that they think that just about anyone can come in here and do a better job. The candidates that they propose, however — Trammel, Sandberg, Brenly — give me a lot of pause.
But I don’t want to leave this comment without saying that I have long admired DGU’s thoughtful, analytical posts, and would not dismiss what he says lightly.
"When you're going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
by vonde6 on Sep 14, 2009 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
As a "fellow" manager?
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 Sep 14, 2009 10:26 PM CDT up reply actions
vonde is a burger king manager i hear
people who swing at the first pitch should get punched in the face
by jesus christos on Sep 14, 2009 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions
obviously, not a baseball manager
I didn’t realize “fellow manager” would be seen as bragging, but it really just makes me identify with Lou. But not a burger king manager either, thanks.
I manage professionals. But if you have not managed people, you have no idea how much time you spend on pissant stuff, and the dink stuff that people need to be happy.
"When you're going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
I think anyone who has followed baseball for a substantial amount of time knows what goes into being a manager.
Those of us who have read books by managers, listened to countless interviews over the years, read numerous stories about the locker room and what know quite a bit of what Lou is doing. And, do you have to fill out a line up card? Just curious, because our team’s stat freak manager does, and given the attention he pays to statistics, you would think he wouldn’t do things like playing Aaron Miles more than he should be playing (not at all). You managing professionals is quite a bit different than Lou’s job as a manager. Just because the two of you share the same title in some regard, doesn’t mean you can completely identify with the guy.
www.facebook.com/craighudak
by Craig in South Bend on Sep 15, 2009 6:35 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't get this
I don’t think that my job is the same as his, I just see the similarities. But telling me that I can’t identify with the guy is like saying that I can’t like him or dislike him or sympathize with him — it makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes, I do have to “fill out a lineup card”. I need to decide who works with who else on what projects. I know what each guys strengths and weaknesses are, and how to assemble a team that works together, where everyone gets what they need to succeed. And how to interview and hire people who can form strong teams. This is not a metaphor, this is managing people.
I agree that if you have just read books about managing people, and listened to interviews of managers, you have not experienced managing people.
In your one, concrete example about filling in Aaron Mile’s name, I think that you are right. A stat freak would have shipped out Miles by now, wouldn’t he? The fact that he has not been shipped out makes me think that there are other factors at work there, like the team wanting to chew long and hard before eating all of that salary.
"When you're going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
I didn't take it as arrogant. Just curious.
And I do know to what you refer . . .
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 Sep 15, 2009 8:22 AM CDT up reply actions
In speaking about an "obsession"
I mean to imply a few things because obsessions are what can take a normally productive and skillful person and unbalance what they are able to do. Lou has a lot of managerial talent. He’s done good things for the Cubs. But he’s obsessed about this left-handed 5-hole hitter and it has led to a lot of mismanagement, trying to force people into roles they aren’t cut out for and dismissing others because they don’t fit the obsession.
I also agree with your caution on Sandberg and Brenly. Lou is better than a lot of other potential managers.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
This is why your GM...
…has to have the skills to be able to filter through all the information he gets (from managers, scouts, etc.) and determine the best course. If you don’t have this from your GM, you will constantly be treading water.
All Hendry has to do is say; “I disagree, and this is the direction we are going to go”. At that point, it’s the managers job to work with the players the GM gives him.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Right.
Hence my fanpost suggesting Hendry do that.
So, do you have any thoughts on Lou’s view of what the team’s real problem is?
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
For the most part...
…managers will tend to be more “knee jerk” as to what the team needs, and that is true for even the best managers. Like anyone else, the GM hears them out, digests all the information and makes a call.
I have said for the longest time, Hendry stumbled upon an offense that could beat you in a variety of ways for the last 2 months of 03, and for whatever reason, he has forgotton what that was. A team becomes much less “slump proof” and “scouting report” proof, if you are strong in the one and two holes. Your big hitters may get shut down for periods of time (especially in the playoffs), and if you are solid at the top, you pressure the opposing pitcher and are better able to scratch out runs.
I would prioritize the top of the order first, and to hell with what Lou or anyone else says.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on Sep 15, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I wanted to vote Lou is wrong and Lou lost it
I just went for lost it.
I’d comment on what I think should happen, but I know Lou and Jim have something stupid up their sleeve. I’ll just sit back, wait, and laugh.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
140 runs less
And remember, Soriano was lead-off for most of last year. That’s hardly an OBP guy.
The injury to Ramirez, the complete flop of Soto and the mistake of Bradley were the reasons for this season, not the leadoff woes.
It would be nice to have a #5 hitter, but we may already have one, if Soto can come back or if Bradley can somehow function there.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
I agree in part.
The drop in runs came from 4/8 of the hitters not producing for various reasons, mostly injuries with some mismanagement thrown in. I’m not arguing that the leadoff hitter is The Problem. I’m arguing that a leadoff hitter is much more of a problem than a #5 guy.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
The leadoff hitter...
…has been an issue since 2003, and it has been glaring. To go another level, the one and two holes have not been strong since 03 as well. Signing Soriano to be a leadoff guy was just another example of forcing a square peg in a round hole, and obviously didn’t involve a sound thought process.
But I know, someone put a gun to Hendry’s head and said sign just sign the guy.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
As for the leadoff issue
Soriano was, at least, a big improvement on Juan Pierre, given than Soriano brought nearly everything to the table that Pierre did plus a whole lot of power. Hendry has clearly learned a thing or two about OBP and leading off since then. He was seeking Brian Roberts, we know, who would have been ideal.
As for the attempts to draw this conversation into an older conversation, I’ll simply say, you’ll have to do better than some scrawny strawmen to get me to engage.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
this is why we need to remove the HR baskets
and insert something much bigger
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
Bottom line...
…here is that Lou is not the GM, and never has been. If Hendry has chosen to do whatever Lou wants (and Bruce Miles says that is an exageration), than that is Hendry’s choice, not Lou’s.
This enabiling of creating excuses for Hendry’s roster selections is really reaching all new heights, almost to the point of being laughable. I’m sure there are plenty of other GM’s who would love to have their mistakes deflected to the manager.
Accountability has never been a strength in the Cubs organization and I don’t believe that will ever change with Hendry running the show.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on Sep 14, 2009 3:50 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I believe we've had that conversation.
This is a different conversation.
So, briefly, Miles is almost certainly right. Hendry is his own man. But Hendry is influenced by his managers. I’m not sure how that impacts the questions I’m asking here. Lou is, if nothing else, a window into what the organization is either thinking or being urged to think.
Here’s the added problem: the public statements Lou makes impact the way other GMs deal with Hendry. You can’t get anything for Michael Wuertz when Lou makes it clear he can’t stand Wuertz.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Then the GM...
…needs to take control of the situation and give specific direction.
I also recall the Cubs releasing a video tape of one Sammy Sosa that didn’t exactly boost his trade value either, because they didn’t get too much for him. If anything helped to crater a guys trade value, it was that move and I’m sure Hendry could have stopped that if he choose to. In essense, it was done to diffuse any fan reaction from trading a guy they babied for many years, and that is not the way to run an organization.
In summary, all GM’s listen to what their managers have to say, and they also all have the power to go in a different direction if they so choose. A manager also listens to what his coaches have to say (pitching, hitting etc.) and the final decision they make always falls on the manager (as it should). It would be real refreshing for people to read a GM’s job description and hold that person up to that same level of accountability.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I agreed with you as far as that goes.
Jim Hendry needs to make it clear that Lou can say all he wants and it won’t impact Jim Hendry’s leadership. This is a perfect issue to do it on because Lou is obviously wrong enough that an MLB.com writer feels bold enough to point it out.
I also share your distaste for the handling of Sosa’s exit. But Sosa was, if nothing else, a special case. Lou has torn down the trade value of at least two or three players a year. If you have a problem with Hendry on Sosa, you should have three times as much of a problem with Lou.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
I agree...
…Lou should be cognizant of how player’s values are percieved, and control his words etc..
With that said, I’d guarantee, that if Hendry went to Lou and said; “Lou, we are going to try and trade this guy, so let’s make sure we don’t do anything that will crater his value”, that Lou would oblige.
Lou has already shown in his time here, that he has mellowed quite a bit from how he handled himself 10 years ago, and I have no reason to think he couldn’t change the way he has handled some of these guys – if told to.
This is one reason I believe Hendry is not GM material, because he is not one to take charge of a situation and make expectations crystal clear. He bends over backwards to satisfy players, managers and most of his coaches, and accountability has suffered on multiple levels.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
+10 billion
It’s so tiresome of hearing people bash Lou’s roster decisions (like the fabled “left handed obsession” that didn’t really happen), when it’s simply not his job to do so. MPH, you’ve made solid points in other threads about how the organizational philosophy and minor league production for this team has been close to awful. Now people are complaining about the roster construction, but deciding to pin it on Lou.
Bottom line, If I tell my boss that our company just took a huge loss because I listened to an employee underneath me, well, I’m still SOL. It’s MY responsibility, just like it’s JIM’s responsibility.
If I tell my boss I can't use the material he got me to do a project
despite telling to go out and get that material for me and have very little idea how to use that material I should be looking for another job or if I am old enough and rich enough thinking about retiring.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Sep 14, 2009 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
What material is this?
Lou asking for Ibanez and receiving Bradley? Again, there’s this idea that Lou is in charge of constructing the roster, and as MPH points out above, that idea has been reported as exaggerated.
It’s Jim’s job to see that the material fits. Bradley has had trouble with the media scrutiny all year and his power numbers haven’t been what we were looking for. Lou asked for a guy who could play right and hit from the left side. It’s Jim’s job to find the best fit, and unfortunately, he didn’t do so hot.
Lou did NOT ask for Ibanez
That is a myth. He WAS on board for Bradley . Did Hendry force Lou to spend most of the season letting Soriano lead off
and keep playing even though he he could not hit ? Did Lou not banish Wuertz and Eyre and make sure they were so maligned we got NOTHING for them and it forced the Cubs to go shopping for more relief help ? Who do you think thought Fonty could be a 2B for a full season, that Riot was OK for lead off , that Marshall was best if used for ONE out
and the BP and bench were depleted by the 7th inning ?. I know it is endless but if you watched this season and thought Lou was making could use of the roster and managing games well I give up.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Sep 14, 2009 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions
Hey, I agree it hasn't been a good year for Lou
But it’s absurd the amount of heat he gets for Jim’s mistakes.
And I realize the whole “BP and bench were depleted by the 7th inning” by hyperbole, but you gotta let that game you saw in Philadelphia go. Seems like everyone was always whining when Fox wasn’t getting at bats late that would deplete our bench. Seems like everyone was always wondering why we carried 12 pitchers if Lou didn’t care to use the 12th one unless it was a last resort in late extra innings. So much for depleting.
As for the myth of Lou asking for Ibanez, well I’ll trust the newspaper over you. Sorry.
I think Lou and Jim made the decision that Font was able to be full time. I think they were wrong.
I’m pretty sure I recall reading that Jim was interested in trading Lee, but Lou wanted to keep him. But maybe that’s a myth too.
A 36 year old reliever had a 7 era in twelve innings in 2008 so Lou wasn’t keen on using him. Fine. I think he could’ve done a better job with Wuertz, no doubt. I think he could’ve used Marshall more as well, but weren’t we using him as a long man as well? Probably don’t want to give him too much work. Still, he should’ve been give one role.
Riot shouldn’t be leading off, let alone on this team. Neither should Miles. Blanco has a nice glove, but I don’t think he’s gonna hit enough to make it worth it. Jim’s job is do something about that.
Really, it goes back to Wreckard’s post a while back about who was to blame. Is it Lou’s fault we have an albatross in left? That Jim didn’t get a backup 3rd baseman (blah blah that was Lou’s idea, I’m sure of it!!), that Soto wasn’t all that interested in showing up in shape and playing well? When I look back at why this team did so poorly this year, Lou’s gonna have his share of blame, but he’s gonna be way down the list.
Never letting go of the Philly game
Because you will NEVER convince me that a good manager uses his entire , fully healthy bench in a 9 inning road game. It opened my eyes to a lot of things. Among other things it taught me to value REAL leadoff hitters who even if they did not get a hit to start the game made the pitcher work for an out and throw a number of pitches to show his stuff.
As for Bradley , Ok believe it or not I got the info from Deep Goat ( relayed through a friend but it was accurate and yep I know who the goat is ) Yes I know everyone is now laughing but it was reliable info that basically every top person ( Hendry, scouts etc) had Bradley at the top of their off season list and Lou agreed. He did not sau that Lou ASKED for Bradley or anything just that he was completely on board with the plan to get him.
Beyond the fact that Lou has badly misused the roster he had and it awful at in game managing is the intangible that he neither inspires nor kicks ass with the team. As I pointed out before , if you have read comments by Eyre, DeRosa, Wood & Wuertz they all basically said they did not understand Lou and he did not really communicate with them. Lou
had a great roster the first two seasons, this year obviously a lot of of problems but to me this just emphasizes that he is not good at managing and is living off his reputation. As my mantra has been since that game in Philly, the Cubs have to win despite Lou not because of him.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Sep 14, 2009 11:01 PM CDT up reply actions
So I'll never convince you a manager can have a bad game.
Alright.
So Lou didn’t ask for Bradley? Got it. It’s Jim’s job to construct the roster anyway.
We sure did stink it up the first couple months of the 07 season. Seemed like the media made a big deal of him flipping out and showing fire, and how that then inspired them or kicked their asses. Seemed like that carried into last year as well.
It was not just a "bad " game
It is not as simple as a "bad " game ( the Cubs WON the game on an error in the 10th with Z pinch hitting).
To me it was about a manager who can be so blind that he used that entire roster in the 9 inning road game. After that I watched more closely and saw how over and over again he would waste pitchers, pinch hitters etc without thinking of the effect on the rest of the game. His obsession with righty / lefty match ups , REGARDLESS of the specific situation etc. My point on Bradley was to rebut the belief that Lou ASKED for Ibanez but was "forced" to take Bradley. Hendry is responsible for constructing a roster but the manager is supposed to USE that roster to the best of his ability. Banishing players to a "doghouse " and forcing the GM into a weak position in making deals is what Lou has done.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Sep 14, 2009 11:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Well I don't recall him doing it again...
so I’ll simply call it a bad game.
Scott Eyre was injured in 08 and didn’t look good the few times he went out there. I doubt Lou really hurt his trade value.
Wuertz? Perhaps. It’s not like we were going to get anything incredible out of him. And why did we have to trade him anyway? Jim could’ve kept him. That is his job, after all.
The doghouse is one of the more ridiculous things I keep seeing pop up around here. Sometimes guys aren’t good, so they don’t play. Others aren’t good and they do play, but there’s a difference between not being preferred and being completely banished.
Bradley was signed to be the number five hitter. He hasn’t done so well there. Maybe Jim shouldn’t have been so impressed that Bradley courted him. Either way, his production is the onus of Jim.
Again it was a game that clarified Lou's use of players
I don’t know if he was ever stupid enough to use the entire roster in a 9 inning road game but I do know that he repeatedly over manages and uses up the bench and bullpen too quickly and then does not have the players he needs and that is TOTALLY on Lou. The game I remember most for obvious reasons is when he put in Fuld to pinch hit in the 7th inning of a scoreless game with the Padres with 2 out and no one on. Fuld got a hit but the Cubs did not score. The Cubs lost the game in the 9th in large part because Jake Fox playing LF misplayed a ball for a double. It was a ball that one can reasonably believe Fuld could have fielded. Of ALL THE GUYS ON THE BENCH IN A SCORELESS GAME why do you choose your light hitting ( especially off the bench) DEFENSIVE OUTFIELDER when you have a way below average guy in LF? Lou is not stupid , he uses Fuld mostly to go in as a defensive replacement but in this game in a fairly meaningless situation he uses him and make him unavailable when needed. Aaron Miles would have been a better choice. We can all find many, many examples like this with both batters and pitchers. Lou simply does not manage more than one batter/pitcher at a time and he goes WAY overboard on the lefty/righty match ups. Now OK IF he had a better roster like last year you might slide by on this but he doesn’t and he is supposed to be the brilliant manager who SHOULD think ahead. I really wonder if we are watching the same games. I get wanting to dump on Hendry , I don’t get thinking Lou has done a remotely decent job even with the players he had to work with.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Sep 14, 2009 11:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Well then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree
I think you go overboard on your criticism of Lou, but hey, that’s your right. I think the job Marmol has done as the closer when nobody wanted him to take on the role is a commendable move by Lou, but instead all we get is posts of how Lou never used him right.
Regardless, if people don’t think Lou has done a good job, that doesn’t really bother me. It’s when people say absurd things like “Look Lou, YOU made us more left handed (not really) and it’s YOUR fault (no)!” and of course the “Lou isn’t showing any fire because he constructed this roster and he knows it’s his fault!” Those kind of statements are just ridiculous, and they allow Jim to skate by all over again.
Um I think Marmol was very badly used
but as a set up guy not a closer. One of the other total brain fart moments for Lou was when he let Marmol cough up the lead by WALKING IN THE TYING RUN . The entire rest of the BP was available as Marmol could not find the plate and Lou failed to even WARM ANYONE UP. So LOU YOU MADE THAT decision among many misuses of the bullpen this year. I have no clue why Lou is not showing any fire and while going and fighting with an ump is just show , shrugging your shoulders during loss after loss and saying " what did you expect me to do ?" is to me inexcusable. I think Lou and Hendry share the blame on the “left handed” fiasco but Lou is not some guy standing on the side lines willing to let Hendry do what he thinks best LETTING Lou pressure him into bad moves is on Hendry .
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Sep 15, 2009 1:09 AM CDT up reply actions
Enough with this left handed fiasco stuff
Why can’t we just say the “fontenot replacing derosa” fiasco? The former paints a false portrait.
And you just made my point with your agenda. You’re picking out random spots where Lou’s decisions have backfired. It happens to every manager. But taking a risk by putting a reliever who has been so wild that erratic is a compliment into the closer role, which has worked out great thus far? Nary a word.
And again, here are all these assumptions of the kind of pull Lou has over free agents and other moves. Does Lou have opinions? Sure. But the final say is still Jim’s, and as stated, Lou’s influence is exaggerated. “Letting Lou pressure him into bad moves…” like what? A call to get more left handed? Well that’s pretty broad. It’s not like left handed hitters are impossible to find. JIM just didn’t get ones that could hit.
Um
If only the ‘Left handed fiasco’ was limited to Fontenot over Deorsa, the team would’ve been better off.
Do you not recall the ‘need’ for the backup catcher to be a lefty? That is was important for the utility guy in iles be able to hit from the left side? Joey Gathright. That’s a chunk of change wasted right there on trying to get more left-handed. Obviously the greatest, and frankly most unbelievably moronic, offense was replacing DeRosa with Fontenot. But do not posture that is was the only move in that regard.
I don’t think Lou has been particularly good this year. When both Blanco and Theriot are starting, I can’t for the life of me understand why they are flopped on the infield. I don’t understand what makes Lou believe that Theriot is an even passable leadoff hitter, considering he was walking less than Soriano when his season ended. I don’t understand why Fox is losing playing time to Bobby Scales, when Fox has a realistic chance to contribute at the MLB level in the near future, etc.
And I question some of the moves of previous years. Why did Howry keep getting inserted into tough spots in meaningful games as late as August? Why didn’t Lou give Eyre, a veteran reliever, more than just a few outings to see whether or not he was going to be a useful piece? etc.
But the bulk of the blame has to be on Hendry, this man is just bad at his job.
by WittyUserName on Sep 15, 2009 7:23 AM CDT up reply actions
About Gathright...
… the Cubs could have kept Felix Pie and accomplished the same thing. But Lou seemed to have a blind spot about Pie.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
And why did he have a blind spot?
Because Pie wasn’t going to be able to bat 5th and CF/RF was the only spot Lou could get his #5 hitter from.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
But Pie would have been a more suitable backup than Gathright.
And, he could have slid in and played every day with Soriano out.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Oh, I know.
I think the only way you can make sense of dumping Pie was if the Cubs thought it was the only fair thing to do to give him a shot to make it with full time play.
Otherwise, how you look at Felix Pie + left side IF bench and say, I’d rather have Micah Hoffpauir and Joey Gathright is beyond me.
But I was talking about Pie in 2008. Pie didn’t fit Lou’s plans back in ‘08 because Pie wasn’t possibly going to develop enough to hit #5. It’s a very interesting comparison of how the Cubs played Pie and how the Cards played Rasmus in their first seasons.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
I remember a lot of comments from you regarding Pie
Interesting to look back on that now.
www.facebook.com/craighudak
by Craig in South Bend on Sep 15, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Oh I agree
I’d much rather have kept Pie than waste money on Gathright. At least Pie had upside, even if it was dwindling.
But I’d probably have rather had hung onto Olson than have either of Gathright or Pie.
by WittyUserName on Sep 15, 2009 9:27 AM CDT up reply actions
Considering the circumstances...
…which is Lou was brought in to win now, and that also jived with all the dough spent on FA’s, I don’t believe Lou had the luxury to be as patient as many believe he should have been.
I’ll also add, if you want to talk about blind spots, I would call out Pie’s development as being a big one, and the main reason he wasn’t ready to go with a team that was designed to win now.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I just picked two moves that annoyed me the most
but this season is FILLED with the misuse of the roster and that is on LOU. I don’t believe Hendry makes a major move without consulting Lou who certainly has the ability to say NOT that guy but the real issue for me is HOW HE USES WHAT HE HAS and I think most people here have seen he uses it very, very poorly. I swear I was NOT the 2nd guessing in game moves type until that game in Philly. Obviously a MLB manager knows a little more than I do about making moves but when you can watch game after game and it like a car wreck when the manager sits down a player who has been hitting/pitching great for someone he somehow has a "gut " feeling will do better. It could be putting in a kid who has not pitched in two weeks in a crucial situation or repeatedly leading off a player who is inferior at lead off or whatever. Again I wonder if some of us have been watching the same games. Obviously my posts are getting very repetitive , two years of posting the same stuff will do that.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Sep 15, 2009 8:43 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't have the time or desire to look up the old boxscores
but there have been several games over the past few years where I thought “damn, Lou isn’t going to have anybody left” because of how he was pinch-hitting and changing relievers. After the game reporters would invariably ask “what would you have done if the game had gone 17 innings?” and he would reply that the reason he made the moves was so the game would be won without going 17.
There hasn’t been a manager yet that I haven’t seen fans ranting about their in-game strategy, and Lou is no different, particularly in a year where they won’t make the post-season.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
Agreed.
Like I said, there are enough complaints about guys like Fox and Patton not playing in lengthy games.
Is Lou some sort of brilliant managerial mind? I wouldn’t say so. But it’s ridiculous the people who sit here and say “my god, this guy is just BAD”. Things could and unfortunately have been a lot worse.
Let's assume your correct...
…in your assessment of Lou. If that is the case, Hendry should have canned him and went in a different direction, and since he didn’t, that again is on Hendry. Now, looking at the complete picture with Lou, I think he is a much better manager than Hendry is a GM, but that’s just my opinion.
I don’t doubt that Lou’s best days as a manager might be behind him, but you could still do a hell of a lot worse than Lou. Going forward, it wouldn’t bother me a bit if Lou was told his services weren’t needed in 2010, but it would be a collosal mistake, to allow Hendry to hire manager number 3.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I'm fine with Lou not returning as well
If Jim were to get fired, I’d absolutely prefer to start fresh with a new manager if we have a new GM as well. No need to keep around a guy who only plans to be there a year if we’re starting fresh.
My gut is...
…they are both back in 2010, but I sincerely hope Hendry will have a baseball man as his new boss that will be both assessing the entire organization (minor leagues, player development, scouting, etc. etc.) and also keeping a watchful eye on Hendry.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
For goodness' sake!
1) Lou says, “Top offseason goal must be fixing the #5 hitter.”
2) I report this and argue it shouldn’t be the top goal.
3) Argument swerves into, “It’s Jim Hendry’s fault.”
I’m having trouble following here. Is the argument that it’s Jim Hendry’s fault that Lou is out there giving interviews about what’s wrong with the club?
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
I think it's more so your posting perogative
That MPH and I are making the focus. I think you’re one of the best and most rational posters here, but you seem to have a history of making a fan shots of a couple things, namely:
1. Jim is good at his job.
2. Lou is not.
I don’t mean to speak for MPH, but I think it seems strange to both of us that there’s such a blame passed onto the manager who is simply working with what the GM gave him. It’s Jim’s job to construct this roster. Period. Lou doesn’t like the production he’s gotten from the number five spot? Jim says alright, but I think the leadoff spot is a bigger problem. Jim is in charge. If Lou doesn’t like it, then Jim can just tell him to pack his bags. He’s the boss.
Hendry has skirted accountability...
…in this town for a number of years, and some of it comes from the fact that folks don’t want to expand the energy to look past the one guy who is in the spotlight, the manager.
Many are saying that Hendry is the only GM to bring the Cubs two division titles in a row, while failing to give the manager any credit for the same. In fact, the 2007 club does not make the playoffs without Lou’s recommedation to launch certain guys in early June, and also identifying new guys who could contribute- Marmol, Fontenot and Theriot.
Now, we have a dissappointing season in 09 and all we hear is Lou didn’t like this guy, or he wanted to get left handed etc. etc., with a rare mention of the fact that Hendry’s freaking job is to assemble the roster. The media has also given Hendry a pass for the most part, because he is a likable guy, and no one really wants to dig into the totality of his work as GM.
Well, if you want a nice guy who is not a very good GM, the Cubs have the right guy.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Bingo.
Jim has done some good things. Lou has too. But now people want to run out another guy three years after he was hired, just like Dusty. If people want to feel that way, heck, go ahead. But where’s Jim’s accountability?
And my god, if Lou constructed this mess of a roster, then what exactly is Jim’s job?
THERE WAS NONE ......
That is one of the problems I have with the Hendry era . No one appears to have overseen his actions . Lets hope the Rickett’s group can fix this .
It's odd
because your final paragraph is my fanpost’s final paragraph.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Well sorry for diverting your post into a different topic
But in truth, my responses and shift into the idea that this is Hendry’s responsibility weren’t brought on so much by your post as by the inevitable responses to the first half of it, that Lou’s responsible for constructing this roster and this is going to be another time when HE goes out and gets guys not fit for this team. And as you can see, Al does it in the first response.
I think that either Lou has had a big impact on the team's direction in the past
or that he has made public what the whole team was thinking. Hard to tell.
So, sure, part of my post is – we can’t keep following this 5-hole hitter obsession of Lou’s. And implied in that is a criticism of Jim Hendry for following/agreeing.
But we don’t know what Hendry thinks heading into ‘10. It’s worth discussing what Lou thinks.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
This is my very point...
…which is why I continue to be baffled by; “Lou wanted this or Lou wanted that” as one of the reasons the Cubs are in this pickle.
People certainly put all accountability on Piniella for lineups and in game decisions (even though he may take a recommendation from a coach or two along the way), why the hell can’t Hendry be 100% accountable for player selection?
When you look at the totality of his work, I firmly believe Hendry is a weak link in the organization, and if it isn’t fixed, most people will be trying to run the next manager out of town in 2-3 years.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Why, oh, why
did the Cubs think Bradley was a good fit for the No. 5 spot? I know lineup construction is overrated, but Bradley is more apt to take a walk with a guy on second than he is to drive the guy in.
Blame it on Lou!
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Hendry signed the guy
And there were other left-handed options.
I strongly agree...
…and a quick 5 minute review of Bradley’s career numbers, could have told a 10 year old he wasn’t a left handed run producer.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Here's my guess.
Scouts from the Cubs saw Bradley play a few games where he did drive in runs from a RBI spot last year. A quick check of Bradley’s game logs from 2008 shows he hit fourth most of the year for Texas.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I'm sure that played a role...
…as did the sales job Bradley put on Hendry.
As it turned out, there was ample information available to show this was another “square peg/round hole” risk, and that came to fruition.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Bradley had 148 PAs in 2008 with RISP
and had 45 RBIs, that’s a conversion rate of 30 percent. The big RBI guys are usually over 40%.
This year he is at 20.9% Not very good at #5
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
There is more to being a good 5th hitter than driving in runs
Bradley’s career OBP w/ RISP is about .390, meaning that makes a lot fewer outs than average in those situations. That not only gives the guys behind him a chance to pick up those RBI’s, it puts more runners on base for them.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 15, 2009 7:28 PM CDT up reply actions
I love the OBP guys and I love that Bradley fits that mold
but I disagree that Bradley should be in the 5th spot for us. Yes, he was great at getting on base for us in the 5 hole, but 6-7-8 for us has been a black hole and no one was driving him in when he got on base. Maybe 2-3 would be ideal for him to hit in.
As for the 5th spot, I do believe you want a guy that can drive in runs at that spot in the order. Why do you think the cards took off when they acquired holliday, that gave them Pujols, Holliday, Ludwick in the middle. And all those guys had a success rate of 45% or over of RBIs in RISP.
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
why not fix
6-7-8?
Bradley gets obsessed on because of the contract, but he IS NOT the reason the Cubs are slightly above .500 instead of up 7 games on STL.
Soto, Fontenot, Sori, and Rami are the culprits.
I'm a big Bradley backer.
I blame this season mostly on Lou, Sori, Soto, Fonty before I even try to even mention Bradley and his first half struggles.
I’m just saying he should be a 2-3 hitter in our lineup this/next year.
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
agree
with you.
Just saying had the 6-7-8 guys actually performed, he wouldn’t have looked that bad at #5.
I just think it’s crazy that when he hit well in the 2-hole that Lou would move him around. I thought him a Dome made a nice 1-2 in front of Lee and Rami.
Amen
Bradley’s bad start and bad attitude has caused many here to focus on him, but there are guys who have been a lot more disappointing.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Sep 16, 2009 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Bradley hit 3rd or 4th most of last year -- in the AL
I’m so sick of this argument. Of all the batting spots 1-6, he has spent the LEAST amount of time at #2 in his career.
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
I like Bradley but he isn't or shouldn't be our 5th hitter.
Bradley has never been a big rbi guy with RISP. (he has really fallen off the deep end from his career norms but even if he was at career norms, he would be behind all the big rbi men)
And Lou is off his rocker if he has to have a lefty in the 5 spot(I’ve changed my own mind on that point). Look at the cards, they are doing just fine having 3 or 4 righties in a row.
Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America. ~Bruce Catton
BR!
2 more weeks left for my Comedy Show: See what others are saying about it!
by digitalbenjamin on Sep 14, 2009 4:34 PM CDT reply actions
Yesterday's Obsession:
We need a leadoff hitter.
Lou, you need a better team and it’s not just where you put someone in a lineup. How about straight up trying to upgrade a position. I don’t want to repeat what I’ve said in the last few months but Jeff Baker has been solid but he can be upgraded.
The black holes...
In the 6th, 7th, and 8th spots this year were bigger issues than the #5.
Someday we'll go all the way...
I agree with you, DGU
but for what it’s worth, I do see Bobby Abreu as a much better option than Milton Bradley. But I know i’ve said this many times before, and to steal a line from your post, no sense beating a dead horse. :)
"Yes, dear. You're right. I'm sorry." -Bob Brenly
Agreed, Abreu is a much better option than Bradley
And we could’ve easily added him and keep Derosa for the about as much as adding Bradley & Miles.!!!
"He can't hit, he can't field, he can't run—all he can do is beat you."
Abreu has one more HR this year than Bradley.
And I sincerely doubt that Abreu would have signed for so cheap if we were still in the market.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
And 55 less RBI!
Maybe so but obviously, he’s the better option.
"He can't hit, he can't field, he can't run—all he can do is beat you."
LOU = OLD AND SENILE
It’s finally true.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
I don't believe that and I never did.
Lou is certainly not senile but he is stubborn to the extreme detriment of the team. He is set in his ways, refuses to adjust and seems to have lost interest in this season.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Sep 14, 2009 11:31 PM CDT up reply actions
If there are clearly better...
…options than Lou to lead this club, than shouldn’t Hendry tell Lou thanks for your efforts, but we are going in a new direciton next year (that is if Hendry has the power to do that).
If he doesn’t and he allows a guy like that to manage the club, what does that say about Hendry’s ability to take charge and do what is best for the team?
What is your opinion on how he handled Baker? Did he allow him to stay past his ability to be effective?
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Yes re Baker
I said the same thing about Baker in terms of Hendry’s major flaw being a GM who lets his manager dictate the roster instead of building a team and telling his manager this is what you must work with. Problem is that both Dusty and Lou were the kind of guys who expected to have a major input in the roster . I am not trying to absolve Hendry of blame and his philosophy of letting managers have an undue influence on the rosters is a key problem.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Sep 15, 2009 12:51 AM CDT up reply actions
He obviously kept Dusty Baker for far too long.
Baker should have been cashiered after the 2004 debacle. Not just because of the late-season collapse, but because he spent the entire season doing crackpot insane things, playing favorites with “his guys”, building a “to the barricades/us vs. them” mentality for the team, mocking the testicular fortitude of anyone who believed in pitch counts, and defending the indefensible behavior of some of his players.
It became abundantly clear that Baker was going to be gone at the end of the 2006 season – really, before the season even started. And still, Hendry preferred to go through the motions with an odious manager, even as the season augered in for one of the worst Cubs teams ever, either to save money or to avoid “rocking the boat” or burning bridges.
Dusty Baker needed to be purged from the system, and Hendry refused to take any action until he could be rid of Baker through inaction, by letting Baker’s contract expire and opting not to re-up. That “decision to make no decision” sums the kind of milquetoast non-leadership that has been the hallmark of the Hendry Era.
(And I seriously used to support the guy.)
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
In retrospect, yes, you are correct.
However, there was no way they were going to eat two years of a four-year deal.
No one could have won anything with that awful 2006 roster, especially after D-Lee’s injury. It worked out for the best, to change managers and rosters after that year.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I'm not sure how your definition of being a detriment to the team is any different than my definition of being senile.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
You can't see the difference ?
Senile implies Lou is literally physically impaired with an illness. I think he just a bad manager. When you call Lou senile you give ammunition to people who think you are making a nasty personal attack rather than being critical of the job he is doing.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Sep 15, 2009 12:44 AM CDT up reply actions
WELL SAID...
Do we have any evidence Lou will change in 2010 ?? Of course not it"s Lou’s world .
I thought this was about something else
I was expecting a post about Lou Holtz and his delusions that Notre Dame is still relevant in college football.
Well, that too. But, I haven’t been impressed with Lou this year. The last two years, even more so for last year, the Cubs had a much better offense to cover up some of Lou’s more baffling moves.
The middle infielders should be fine
Theriot has pretty much proven that he’ll be at least an average player, and Fontenot is due for a lot of positive regression. Aramis and Lee are both very good at the corners, probably 3-4 WAR players, and Fukudome, Soriano and Bradley are all above average as well, going forward at least. Ditto Soto.
To be honest, it looks like every single position player on the Cubs will be at least average with some decent upside. Offensively, the Cubs should be looking for some outfield depth (they should really consider getting Murton again) and probably some infield depth as well.
The rotation looks very solid. Z, Lily and Dempster could probably be counted on to be 3-4 WAR pitchers, and Marshall is a decent #5. The pen is awful of course; however, building a good pen doesn’t take much. Hendry just needs to be able to get some good, but undervalued relievers.
As a Cards fan the Cubs scare me next. They could easily be a 95 win team with some good luck.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 14, 2009 11:39 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
Positive regression
Well said, and it is likely that Hendry will keep this team together for next season, hoping for a healthier year and better outcome. They can probably find at least a couple of the good, undervalued relievers in their own farm system.
However, just-above-average everywhere doesn’t cut it without at least one superstar. Lee is as close as we come these days. A healthy Aramis can be that guy. Otherwise, who hits against good pitchers? For much of the season, the Cub hitters have been less patient than last year.
I see why you think the Cubs need outfield depth, but Fox > Murton IMHO. Fuld is a good fit as a defense and speed oriented backup to Soriano and Bradley, with their bad legs. My fear is that the Cubs braintrust will decide that this year was a failure not just because of injuries, but also attitude, and set out to move Bradley as their top priority. If so, they won’t spend the money to replace him adequately, and if/when Soriano spends time on the DL again, Fox, Hoffpauir, and Baker will not fill his shoes.
The way Wrigley has played the last few years, the Cubs probably should focus more on pitching and defense. My solution, which isn’t much of one, is to try to deal Soriano to eliminate the uncertainty from his health and streaky hitting. Get a centerfielder, move Fukudome back to right (his D is not good enough in center), and Bradley to left. Play Blanco more or acquire a defense-minded shortstop, either dealing Theriot or letting him battle Baker for PT at second. Then overload the bullpen with candidates and keep whoever’s hot.
Fontenot (fon-te-no): Cajun for "scrappy"
by cubzfan on Sep 15, 2009 7:22 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Thank you, zambranofan and vivelpujols - rec'd to both.
It’s good to read posts with insight and on topic, one Lou’s brought up for us – The Offseason Plan.
I’m afraid zfan is right that dumping Bradley and ending up with a worse option is a very likely outcome if the Cubs can’t change directions. Dumping Soriano could be good, if it was possible, and led to improved CF defense. I’m just not sure anyone takes him right now with the injury questions. I do nurse an ongoing hope that the Cubs could convince the Angels to take Soriano.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
The thing about dumping Bradley is
They will end up eating most of the contract, meaning you don’t free up money at all. It will be a gross overreaction to please idiot fans.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
I'm not so sure the Cubs will have to eat most of the contract
or, for that matter, that they’ll be able to eat the contract.
We also know that it won’t be to please fans. If they do it, it will be to please the manager. He’s said, “#5 is the problem.” How do you fix the #5 spot in the lineup w/o dumping one of Dome, Sori, MB, Rami, or DLee? Well, we could have tried to trade for VMart, but that ship has sailed. So, one of our corner guys has to go. Or Hendry tells Lou it’s not the biggest off-season problem.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Ideally, and this happens in a non-Lou Piniella world
Soriano or Soto take the spot.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
My problem with Fukudome in right is that his bat doesn't really fit there
The reason I think Milton’s does still is that he has a career track record to fall back on that says he is a better hitter than what he’s shown this season. Fukudome is on track to have the same numbers as last season if he doesn’t pick it up. Those numbers work for me in center, but not in right (again I realize Milton and Dome have the same numbers, I just think Milton’s track record gives him a better chance of producing).
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
It would be interesting to see what the market for Dome would be
if the Cubs tried to move him. The problem is that the potential replacements on the free agent market don’t seem to be great fits – do you believe Ankiel or Damon are the CF and #5 hitters the Cubs are looking for?
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
I can totally see Hendry signing Ankiel
My answer is no, especially Damon who is more or less a corpse in LF right now.
I’d prefer to keep Dome in center for the rest of his contract- his numbers fit there to the point where, combined with a solid RH platoon guy, he is above average.
The conclusion that you, and most here, have come to is that a corner OF has to go. If you are an advocate of overhaul (perhaps the wrong word choice) then I understand that. Still I think this current roster has one more run in it next season, then you can trade who you want. I think it comes down to Lou being told to shut up, forget the left handed crap, and seeing which one or Soto or Soriano is more productive in the five spot next season.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
I don't think a corner OF has to go.
I agree that we could go into next season with the same roster. The Cubs managers, though, will have to have a change of strategy if they do that. Look at what they did to last year’s team? If they thought that team had to be changed, what will they think about this year’s?
I’d trade Soriano because I want out from under his contract. I would not trade Bradley, because I don’t think there’s a better option out there.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Agreed - It's such a Hendry move.
Once the Cardinals have wrung every last bit of production out of a player and he’s turning 30, you can bet that Jim Hendry will be there, wallet in hand, ready to double the guy’s salary and set him up for life.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
You win the award for Best Hyperbole
based off a 5 M contract to a bench player.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
I was thinking of John Mabry.
Although $5M is definitely “set for life” kind of money.
I think that we can all agree that Hendry’s prime focus over the last 5 years has been re-assembling the 2003 Marlins.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
It will be really interesting to see what the Cardinals do this off-season.
But I think the Brewers are falling back, the Reds look farther away at the end of 2009 than they did at the beginning of 2009, and the Buccos and Stros don’t scare me at all.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Though it doesn't sound like it from his quote,
maybe Lou is talking about shoring up the lack of a #5-hitter mentality. “There’s a runner on base. He’s going to score.” – that kind of RBI mentality. If that is what Lou means, then I agree with him that it has largely been a vacancy this year.
I agree with some people’s opinion that the value of the RBI stat over the course of the full season is overrated, but situationally, with a runner on 3rd and 1 out, getting an RBI is everything. There seems to be a lack of focus on simple things like this which has left the Cubs playing like rookies for long stretches this year.
Good pitching beats good hitting, and vice versa.
Am I the only one here that likes Lou?
I may get mad at some of his decisions and scratch my head wondering what he’s thinking, but I still like him. I hope he’s back next year.
"Fasten those seatbelts"-Pat Hughes
There's a lot I like about Lou.
I hope he’s back, but I hope his offseason plan isn’t followed.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
I like Lou
And I often wonder whether I am the only one as well.
Coming into this season, I saw more persistence in his Cubs teams, where they continued to believe that they could make it to the post-season when things looked bad. The kept going at it in 2007, and caught the Brewers. In 2008, there were a lot of great comeback games, and when they started to slump, that great series sweep in Milwaukee.
As far as the post-season goes, I have a hard time pinning that on Lou. He had the luxury of trying both approaches to the post-season, playing hard up to the playoffs and getting some rest prior to them, and neither worked one bit. The players still need to play the games.
"When you're going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
I think Lou has worn out his welcome in Chicago
Here is the laundry list of reasons why I think this is true:
1) Lou pulled Carlos Zambrano from Game 1 of the 2007 NLDS against Arizona to save him for a Game 4 that never happened. Zambrano was holding the D-backs down and when Carlos Marmol came in the game to relieve, he showed us his tendency to melt down in big game moments that we’d see time and time again, though not with consistency. Zambrano could have gone one more inning or even finished that game.
2) Lou’s doghouse has helped other teams. Ask the 2008 Phillies about Scott Eyre, who landed in the doghouse after one bad outing against the Rays. Yet Alfonso Soriano kept getting to hit leadoff for as long as he did (see below).
3) Lou can’t properly assign positions/batting order/pinch hitting. Alfonso Soriano hit leadoff for far too long than he deserved to do so (and that was never). Kosuke Fukudome was performing well at leadoff until Lou decided (correctly) that Milton Bradley should be hitting at second with his high OBP, but his obsession with right-left sequences in the batting order made him move Fukudome out of the part of the batting order where he was most productive. Ryan Theriot does not have the range to be a shortstop and should be playing second base. He certainly shouldn’t be hit leadoff. Let’s not forget his reliance on Aaron Miles to pinch hit when letting the pitcher bat would produce better results.
4) The Cubs went 0-6 in the playoffs under his leadership. This needs no further explanation.
5) Lou’s ideas don’t work. “We needed to be more left handed,” was his explanation for the 2008 playoff debacle. 2009 proved that the Cubs didn’t need to be more left handed to win. They simply needed to hit more with runners in scoring position, which is what they did not do in the playoffs. Imagine that. The Cubs wasted time with Aaron Miles and Joey Gathright because of Lou’s ideas. The Cubs cut Gathright early, but Miles shouldn’t be on a major league roster.
6) His “What can I do?” attitude is tired. He should have been called on this at post-game interviews, but he’s sniped in the press. Here’s my answer to Lou: Do your job. I know injuries aren’t your fault, but you needed to show more leadership this season. You did not pressure the team to put Soriano on the DL earlier in the season. You do not pay attention to stats like you should. Baseball is a game of adjustments and sometimes this requires adjustments on your part. Going with precedence doesn’t always work. You have to be able to think outside the box sometimes if you’re going to be successful at this job. Simply relying on your opponent to choke (1990 A’s) isn’t always a recipe for success.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
by Ace Venom on Sep 15, 2009 10:41 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Lou has plenty of faults that I discuss, but I've got to take issue with several of these points
1) Can we get over this already? Taking Zambrano out didn’t shut down the Cub offense – Brandon Webb did. It’s very simple – if you don’t score, you don’t win. What difference does it make who was pitching.
4) So what? They MADE the playoffs. Piniella can’t hit, field or throw strikes for his players. The Cubs won 1 game under Don Zimmer in the playoffs. Do you think that makes Zimmer a better manager? I don’t.
5) These moves were not made independently of Jim Hendry – you know, Piniella’s boss.
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 Sep 15, 2009 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions
Why?
1) That game was tied. Marmol screwed up on that one and the decision to relieve Zambrano so early? That’s on Lou.
4) Yeah. They made the playoffs. I’m happy for the division titles, but what I’m not happy about is the fact that they didn’t win a single game in the playoffs. I hate the whole “he can’t field, etc” arguments people throw out there. It’s worn out. You’d have a point if it happened only one year, but two years in a row? When that poor performance came from a 97-win team the year after they went 0-3 in the playoffs? Sorry, but I’m not so forgiving. I was calling for Lou to be fired at that point because playoff management is different than regular season management. Overall, Lou really isn’t a good playoff manager despite the 1990 Reds. The 2001 Mariners and 2008 Cubs are proof that he’s not a good playoff manager.
5) Yet how many of these moves were made because Hendry once again bowed to a celebrity manager? I certainly believe Hendry has to go too, but that’s another argument.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
What's weirdest about Lou's failures with the 2001 Mariners and 2008 Cubs...
… is that he was credited for completely outmanaging Jerry Manuel and the 2000 White Sox in their division series a year before.
Then again, it’s just Jerry Manuel, so maybe that’s not such a great accomplishment.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Al...
…you are giving far too much credit to the effect a manager has on a playoff series. Even the managers with the best records have been swept out of playoff series or beaten by teams with inferior records during the regular season, and I’ll guarantee, it had little to do with whether they turned stupid after getting a team to the playoffs.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Great managers have run into that problem
However, what you don’t want is to consistently have that problem. Lou Piniella falls into the category of very good managers. He’s not a great manager and never was. His resume is impressive enough that it makes you wonder why some of these teams didn’t win pennants. I think the 2001 Mariners and 2008 Cubs fall into that category. However, Joe Torre proved he could outmanage him time and time again when it mattered. Torre has had his problems since 2003, but he’s cemented his cause as a HoF manager. Piniella, on the other hand, has not found major playoff success since 1990, the only year he won a pennant. It seems like a recurring pattern to me. The manager does indeed have an influence on his team and it’s not something you can determine statistically.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
So tell me...
…what was Torre’s problem before he got to the Yankees? If he is so good, why did his win/loss record blow before he happened up on the Yankees payroll?
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
The information isn't hard to come by
The Mets during the time period weren’t exactly in the best shape. He did fine with the Braves and fair enough with the Cards. While it may seem like he couldn’t win until he got with the Yankees, there could be a lot more to the story than simply giving him a team to manage. You have to be able to win with the pieces you are given. Torre was given that and what resulted were six pennants. Given this information, you can conclude:
A) Anyone could have won with those Yankees teams.
B) Anyone with any measure of competence could have won with those Yankees teams
C) Joe Torre actually knew what he was doing when he managed those Yankees teams.
If you choose option A, then that’s the cynical choice. Option B seems nice, but it ultimately sells Torre short. You need the horses to get to the end of the race and when Torre got them, he could. Give Piniella the same horses and the results are different. Torre may not be the best example, but he’s proven that he can do a better job at postseason managing than Lou Piniella because he outmanages him every time. So do you discount this fact and simply give credit to the horses or do you acknowledge that managers have an impact on the game?
This isn’t just limited to baseball. The difference between a bad leader and a good leader can yield completely different results despite having the same pool of workers and resources available. Leadership qualities aren’t something you can define in a formula. You either have them or you don’t. Not all leaders are created equal. Some are simply better at leading than others and can oftentimes find more success than other leaders will. You can’t quantify this in a formula, but you can observe it.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
I think you know what I am getting at...
…Torre managed for 10+ years before he got to the Yanks, and thean all of a sudden he became a HOF manager and one of the very best.
Let me put it this way, the players on the Yankees made Torre, not the opposite. If Torre would have continued to manage for other clubs, chances are he never sniffs the HOF.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Or if Maris never batted in front of Mantle, or if...
We could play the what if game all day long. It doesn’t change anything. I know exactly what you’re getitng and I think you sell the job of the manager short. Can you sit here and honestly tell me that Lou Piniella or Bobby Valentine would have had the same level of success with the Yanks as Torre?
The door swings both ways. The players have to perform, but the manager has to know what to do with his talent. Torre proved that he could do it more times than Piniella has. Piniella’s best chances to pad his resume came with the 2001 Mariners and the 2008 Cubs. Neither team won the pennant, but those same horses that couldn’t get through the playoffs happened to be the best teams in their respective leagues those years. Is it all on the players? You can only get away with blaming the players so long before patterns start forming wherever a particular manager goes.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
Let me put it this way...
…who do you think needs the other the most:
A manager needing the right mix of good players to win?
or
The right mix of good players needing a certain manager to win?
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
If the players could do it themselves...
…you’d see a lot more player managers these days. Your options are limited either way. The players need the manager and the managers need the players. The players need the right manager for the job. It’s as simple as that. Lou is not the right manager for the Cubs. Do I know who it is? No.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
Also
The manager needs the right players for the job too. As good as Piniella is (giving him some credit here), he couldn’t lift Tampa Bay because they wouldn’t give him what he needed there.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
Actually, that's what my answer is
I just didn’t get around to writing that.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
I would agree...
…but the scale is weighted much heavier on the side of a manager needing certain players to have success, IMO.
Bob Brenly was the right manager to win a WS with the Dbacks and then he was fired, what changed?
Cito Gasten was the right manager to win two WS with the Bjays and then he was fired, what changed?
McKeon was the right guy to win a WS with the Marlins in 03, and then he was let go, what changed?
Torre had a mediocre record in over 10 years of managing and then he wins 4 WS championships, what changed?
Leyland was the right guy to win a WS with the Marlins in 97 and then within a year, the team blew, what changed?
I could go on and on and on with this because there are so many similar examples. What changed in all these circumstances was the players, and the players that are on the roster will be at least 80% of the reason a team wins or not.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
The real question is whether or not you can continue to find success
You’ve given examples (with the exception of Torre) of flash in the pan success. Joe Torre’s case was that he was practically run out of New York, but he still managed to beat Lou Piniella again in the playoffs despite the 2008 Cubs being the better team on paper.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
Precisely!!!!
Short term success was based on how those players performed to win championships, something that has been quite difficult for the Cubs to accomplish.
The moral of the story is this, you could pick from a slew of managers and you can win if you have the right mix of players, but good luck doing the opposite.
I know and understand how and why managers are either considered a genious after a great year and then dummies after a losing year. It is the easy route to take, and many want to believe there is either one person to blame, or a messiah that can come in a magically fix things.
The reality is this; baseball is a general managers league, and they have the greatest impact on whether you win championships and have long term success. Different managers can come and go, but if the organization is strong, there are a variety of managers who will have success in that organization.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I wasn't exactly agreeing with you
I didn’t note this, but you never mentioned Tony La Russa in your argument. Why is it that he can be a winner anywhere when guys like Torre couldn’t do it?
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
Excellent question...
…and I think the answer is multi-pronged:
He has simply been the best overall manager in the game the last 20 years.
Pitching is king, and he has had by his side a guy who has made chicken salad our of chicken shit many times over. I can’t reiterate, how valuable this has been for LaRussa.
Overall, he has had pretty good players and has been with some above average GM’s during his tenure.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Your argument implies
that managers can’t change – grow in knowledge or lose interest or get the right chemistry with a certain team or burn out.
Management work is very taxing and I suspect certain managers that are good in one year burn out in another.
Besides that, I agree that the majority of a winning club comes from the players. That’s what makes it particularly frustrating when a manager runs off players and/or tanks their values.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Very valid points...
…and I would believe that some managers lose interest or burn out, if they feel the organization is making it difficult on them to win consistantly.
Cox, Scioscia, Torre, LaRussa and Francona are some of the guys who have lasted a while, and I’ll bet they wouldn’t have if they felt their organization wasn’t helping them to win, and or the GM of that organization didn’t bring them in because they fit the organization’s philosopies with the goal of managerial continuity being one of them.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I dunno.
It seems to me that a manager can have much more effect on a short series than on a long season. Managers who think outside the box — think Jack McKeon in 2003 — can beat superior teams.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
We're thinking on the same level here
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
So Bobby Cox...
…must not be a very good manager, because he only won one WS after making the playoffs 13-14 times.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Deflecting the argument doesn't prove your point
You keep deflecting the argument. Managerial success is also based on pennants. Cox has five pennants out of those seasons you mention, which looks much better than Piniella’s single pennant. While Cox only won the World Series once, he put his team in a position to do it more times than Piniella ever did. And don’t say just getting to the playoffs is enough. You have to win the pennant.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
Cox's teams...
… made the WS five times in the 14 years. That’s a pretty good record.
Remember, once you get in, the playoffs are a crapshoot.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
That's a big part of it
Even the World Series is a crap shoot to an extent. For all the times the Cubs appeared in a World Series, they only managed to win the World Series twice. Frank Chance was definitely the best manager the Cubs had in the 20th century.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
The crapshoot theory...
…goes against what many are saying about managers being outmanaged in the playoffs. Which is it, a crap shoot, guys getting outmanaged or players performing or not performing?
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
You can use a military analogy
If a private fails, he might just get himself or a few of his buddies killed. If a general fails, he can get a lot more people killed than just a private. Great generals have lost just like great managers have lost baseball games. It’s going to happen.
Managing a baseball team is far from easy. When you’re in the playoffs, your decisions are ultimately magnified in the face of elimination. Lou has simply made a lot of bad decisions in the playoffs over the years. Torre, Cox and La Russa have made mistakes, but they’ll get to Cooperstown because they ultimately made less mistakes than Piniella did.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
I would go the other direction...
…and say players who decide to go ice cold in the playoffs or perform to higher levels, impact the outcome a hell of a lot more than a manager.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
2007
The game was tied. Indeed.
YOU STILL HAVE TO SCORE! That’s not why they lost the game. Even if it was, it was one freaking decision, for cripes’ sake.
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 Sep 15, 2009 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions
So was playing Fukudome in the 2008 playoffs
As much as Fukudome has bounced back this season, he went into so much of a skid in the second half of 2008 that he was essentially a bench player. Rather than be a bench player in the playoffs like he should have been, Fukudome started in two games and ended up playing in the third (no fault of Piniella’s in Game 3). Piniella also apparently did a horrible job of handling his team after the Game 1 loss if the errors in Game 2 were any indication.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
I agree with this.
The one game that Fukudome should have started was the one game that he didn’t (3).
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 Sep 15, 2009 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Piniella has a boss?
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Yes.
Her name is Anita.
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 Sep 15, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions
So...
…another Cub manager has worn out his welcome, what a shock.
I take it, you think Jim Hendry should just keep doing what he has been doing and everyone can live with that? Most GM’s get to hire 2 managers before the flashlight turns in their direction, and that only scratches the surface with Hendry.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I never commented on Jim Hendry
I honestly think he needs to go, but I didn’t want to bog down my discussion with that. Don’t assume I’m letting Jim Hendry off the hook.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
Point taken.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
2007 NLDS Game 1
It wouldn’t have mattered if Z had thrown 10 shutout innings – the Cubs simply weren’t going to score that day.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
For some reason the link didnt show up
http://fireloupiniella.wordpress.com/
"I can accept failure, but I can't accept not trying" - Michael Jordan, the one and only...
I hate to say it, but...
…there is a huge difference between a #18 pick overall in the draft and a #12. If we’re not going to win the playoffs this season, I’d suggest losing a few games to make this possible. Also, it would make it possible for us to pick up type A free agents if necessary and not give up picks as compensation. These are professional ballplayers, and they don’t think like this, so maybe it’s just a pipe dream.
I expect a flurry of FAIL comments underneath this, but I like the idea of having a slightly better chance at rebuilding rather than just winning for the sake of pride.
Proud recipient of a hot dog shot from the Iowa Cubs hot dog gun.
FAIL
Here’s your first.
The likelihood of the 2009 Cubs getting to the postseason, as low as that is, is still better than the #12 pick being significantly more impactful than the #18 pick.
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 Sep 15, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
The Cubs actually have a decent chance of making the playoffs next year
by vivaelpujols on Sep 16, 2009 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions
So do many other teams in the National League
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
And the Cubs have a better chance than most of them
by vivaelpujols on Sep 16, 2009 9:31 PM CDT up reply actions
With their payroll...
….being the highest in the NL, let’s hope your right!
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
What can I say...
…the facts are the facts!
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
YES THEY DO.....
But they need to start planning now. And Lou and the GM need to be on the same page !!!
what does that have to do with the OP's suggestion that the Cubs intentionally tank?
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 Sep 17, 2009 6:39 AM CDT up reply actions
Winning for the sake of pride?
Please. As long as there’s a chance, win games. No one is going to tank the season to move up six spots to pick a guy who might never be a major league star.
FAIL is right. This is a terrible idea.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Are you kidding?
At least half of the first 12 picks in the draft won’t sniff the big leagues, and your worried about moving up 6 spots?
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
I think the point he's trying to make
is the difference between pick 15 and pick 16. If we have pick 15, we can sign Type As w/o losing the first round pick.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Gotcha...
…but I wouldn’t elevate that to the level of tanking games.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
This is exactly the point...
Though if we’re winning, then cool, let’s win them all and somehow make it to the playoffs. Yay, go Cubs!
Otherwise, the realist in me wants to sign someone like Placido Polanco, Octavio Dotel, Marlon Byrd or Chone Figgins without losing the first round draft pick. If we don’t make the playoffs, I at least hope we’re below that 16th place threshhold.
But you’re right, yay, go Cubs…
Proud recipient of a hot dog shot from the Iowa Cubs hot dog gun.
Wrong
You will lose picks, just not the first rounder.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on Sep 20, 2009 7:37 AM CDT up reply actions
Scoring runs in 08'
Last year’s team had 5 fulltime equivalent high OPS hitters. Ramirez, Soriano, Soto, DeRosa, Edmonds 1/2, and Fontenot 1/2. Talking 08’, so Lee didn’t make the cutoff. Five isn’t too many once slumps, injuries, days or rest and matchups are factored in. When there are not enough of these hitters, like this year, then too many runners are stranded.
Right.
One of the huge differences between ‘08 and ’09 was our monstrous bottom half of the lineup – the guys after the #5 hitter. There was no rest against last year’s lineup. Lou must just be too close to the team to see what the real problems are.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Perhaps
A few points I’d like to make though:
1. While the bottom of the lineup last year was excellent, two guys we have at the bottom this year, Soto and Soriano, likely aren’t going anywhere. Soriano is untradeable, and it’s too early to give up on Soto. Those are two guys who were huge for us last year and just fell off a cliff this year for various reasons. I’m sure Lou is well aware of that.
2. Lou, like you mentioned earlier, could say leadoff needs upgrading. But he’s also mentioned Fukudome as a possible guy there next year, and I don’t see many complaints about that. If people do, then I guess that’s a different discussion.
3. Most people agree that our middle infield needs upgrading. But if Lou says that to the media then Theriot and Fontenot’s value goes down just like Wuertz and Pie’s did. And you’ve made clear your opinion on that.
Bottom line, Lou likely has lots of ideas on what needs to be done to improve this club. While you disagree with his opinion of the number 5 hole, I’m sure that’s not the only thing he’d like to see fixed.
You make good points, but
all we have for sure is Lou saying, we have to approach the off-season with the #5 spot in the lineup being the biggest problem.
Approaching last off-season from a lineup perspective led to dumping Pie and DeRosa, who look, now, from a defensive positional perspective, to be just the players this team need(s)/(ed). An obsession with a single lineup hole leads to that kind of blindness to other factors, the kind of factors you list. In other words, if it’s not an obsession then you’re 100% right. But if it is an obsession, we will continue to take two steps back in order to try to take one step forward, and maybe only end up taking one step sideways, if, for example, we just swap Milton Bradley for Aubrey Huff.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Also, Soto is showing life these past two weeks or so...
So, maybe he’s the spark in the #5 spot for the next few years. Now if he could only learn to bat left handed…
Proud recipient of a hot dog shot from the Iowa Cubs hot dog gun.
And fly!
Follow me on twitter @andrewjstone.
by AndrewJStone on Sep 16, 2009 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions
lou
i wonder if lou will really put up with all the crap for another year. managing in chicago must have him longing for the days in ny. i think he just might bai no matter what he says.
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.
