Sully refs Doggie Stalker's convention question
A question Jessica asked Hendry and Quade at the convention is mentioned near the bottom of this story. Interestingly, Sully quotes Hendry's somewhat rambling answer, but didn't mention the "I wasn't making those decisions" comment by Quade that (I thought) was especially illuminating.
over 1 year ago
elgato
41 comments
0 recs |
Comments
I don't get why either you or Al think that "I wasn't making those decisions"
is remotely “illuminating” which is probably why Sully didn’t quote it. It’s a pretty standard answer, because he in fact WASN’T
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
personally,
I take it as Quade deliberately distancing himself from the decisions that were made…..which in my mind means he didn’t agree with them….just sayin’ :)
"Well-behaved women seldom make History"---Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
by cooliogirl47 on Feb 22, 2011 10:04 AM CST up reply actions
Right -- Quade was distancing himself.
It’s possible that Quade originally agreed with Lou, but eventually figured that continuing to put Lee and Ramirez in the middle of the order no longer made sense. There can be shades of grey in these areas.
To be perfectly honest, I posted this mostly to give a shout-out to Jessica — not to stir up debate.
well, of course he was distancing himself from them
They were bad decisions. The reason Sully didn’t quote him is because it was EXACTLY the comment any new manager would make, especially considering he was on that staff.
It doesn’t seem like a newsworthy quote to me, and it certainly doesn’t seem like “holding people accountable” like Al claimed
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
I don't think that Sully didn't quote him for that reason.
It’s possible that Sully didn’t hear it — Quade kind of mumbled when he spoke. More likely, Sully just didn’t think it was pertinent to this story.
As for the “holding people accountable” thing … I thought it was more important that Quade showed that he disagreed with Lou (on something where Lou was clearly wrong). I really can’t think or another instance where Quade has done that publicly.
I disagree
it was EXACTLY the comment any new manager would make,
and disagree even more with
especially considering he was on that staff.
MLB is a fraternity. Coaching and managing even more so. You never know who your next boss is going to be, and it is wise to choose criticisms carefully as a general rule.
Find me one other instance of a manager criticizing his predecessor, especially one that he worked for.
by Shanghai Badger on Feb 22, 2011 10:45 AM CST up reply actions 3 recs
100% agreed, and this is why this is newsworthy.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
shout-out to Jessica...
really! I love it that she always seems to ask the most memorable and controversial questions.
"Well-behaved women seldom make History"---Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
by cooliogirl47 on Feb 22, 2011 10:16 AM CST up reply actions
Right — Quade was distancing himself.
Exactly. That’s how I read it.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
I'm not sure it has much to do with accountability, though.
I think it’s more telling about why Quade will be an improvement over Lou.
Lou has said that he wasn’t 100 percent last year, given everything that was happening in his personal life. Plus, Lou really seemed like he was completely out of ideas. I don’t think he was ever the same after the team dissolved at the end of 2009 (following the playoff sweeps in 2007 and 2008). It’s my opinion that he lost the fire to be creative, and started thinking that the Cubs were dead unless Aramis and Lee turned things around.
That Quade disagreed with Lou (albeit in a quick, non-expansive way) shows that Quade has ideas and has that fire to be creative. Given the first halves by Soriano and Soto, I’m pretty sure Quade would have rearranged the lineup — and maybe he would have forced Aramis and Lee to go on the DL instead of fighting through injuries that were crippling the team.
So maybe that’s where accountability comes in. But I think it’s more telling regarding the change in ENERGY from Lou to Quade. And that makes me hopeful.
The other problem was....
that Nady was D-Lee’s primary backup at first, and he was having an awful first half as well. A day off here and there may have helped a bit, but the way Nady was going, I would rather have had Lee in there. I think when guys have track records like Lee and Ramirez, you kind of fall into the trap of having the hunch that every day, “OK, today is the day they turn it around”. I know I felt that way. Give them their at-bats, and they will come around. Before long, it’s mid-June and you think, “Damn, they are still only hitting .200??” But still, with no one on the bench who could really be considered an able backup, that factored in too. But I agree that Lou had finally started to count down the days to retirement also.
"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004
That's why Lou could have moved the lineup around.
I know that lineup debates are pretty tired around here. But hitting Lee and Ramirez 3 and 4 for those first couple months was just lethal to the team.
Ironically that really was not the gist of my question
The question was about why the Cubs had had a least 3 players over 2 seasons ( Soriano, Lee & Ramirez) who were playing nearly every game despite batting at Mendoza line levels for MONTHS and LATER it was “revealed” that in fact all 3 had injuries they were unable or unwilling to admit to. Hendry virtually dodged the question and became defensive about the training staff when I clearly was not aiming at them.
As for Quade, I think there is something to his jumping in to say it would not have happened with him. The question was directed at Hendry but I said something like, I would be interested if Quade wanted to respond as well. Bottom line was Quade really did not have to say anything ,but he did.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Feb 22, 2011 10:55 AM CST reply actions
Good thing you didn't ask him about Bobby Scales.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
I think the answer to THAT question ...
was that Lou was cranky and tired after the team collapsed in August 2009. Lou was annoyed at Jessica because he knew that Jessica was right.
But realistically, it's not a very good question
1. Asking Hendry a question about Lou’s line-ups (now that Lou is gone) is wasting air.
2. Slow starts and hot starts are a part of baseball. Do you really want to miss out on Ramirez having a month like April 2009, because he has a slow start?
3. What alternatives did Lou have? Unless they both go on the DL, then Lou is playing Jeff Baker and Xavier Nady.
Players are not typically lifted from their line-up spot for a slow start. The player and manager hope they bust out of a slump and provide their previous production.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 22, 2011 1:01 PM CST up reply actions
What alternatives did Lou have?
He could have taken Aramis and Lee out of the No. 3 and No. 4 spots in the order — or he could have DL’d one or both sooner, so they would have been healthy and productive sooner.
by elgato on Feb 22, 2011 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Correct.
Which is what started this whole discussion.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
How does Lou DL a guy who says he's OK or just has a nagging injury?
And like it or not, a lot of veterans get leeway to work their way out of a slump. Jeff Baker and Xavier Nady were not exactly tearing the cover off the ball last spring.
I think these are easy pot shot questions when you see all the stats at the end of the year.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 22, 2011 2:14 PM CST up reply actions
We were making these points throughout April and May.
Leeway is one thing. What Lee and Ramirez got — which was made a little more distasteful given the fact that they both could have been in walk years — was too much.
Right.
Leeway, sure. But two months? Soriano got FOUR months in 2009. Too much.
Let’s hope guys stay healthy and productive this year. That’d solve this problem.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Again the fact that all 3 admitted AFTER THE FACT
that they had injuries that kept them from playing well is what really upset me. Soriano was in many ways the most obvious but not until Sept when he took himself out was anything done. Funny how everyone was furious at Dusty for allowing the players to run out of control but it is OK to just let vets play for months batting at .200 because they have to be trusted to play through it? Realizing that a player is injured and needs to either go on the DL is part of running a good ball club.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Feb 22, 2011 2:58 PM CST up reply actions
I agree, with a caveat.
I think what happened with Soriano had a different cause. Lou always seemed to regard Soriano as mentally fragile. Soriano HAD to be comfortable in a lineup spot, but other players could move up and down all the time. I think Lou didn’t want to mess with Soriano’s head, so he let him play through the injury.
When Aramis and Lee couldn’t hit last spring, Lou just kind of gave up and stopped being creative.
In all three cases, it’s Lou’s job to do what’s best for the team. When it became clear that all three guys were hurt — which the Cubs admitted after the fact — they should have been rested, DL’d or at least moved in the lineup.
Lou did move Soriano down in the order in 2009.
Soriano hit the wall and had a knee injury in April 2009.
He was off to a good start and quickly went downhill. It was clear to almost everyone that he was injured. Finally, in September, they admitted it and shut him down and he got scoped.
If that’s done in April, he comes back in May and maybe that season turns out differently.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
These were not SLOW STARTS
They were disasters for MONTHS and I think only A-Ram started that bad, the point was
guys were INJURED, they try to play through injuries and the team could not or would not take action when this failed. When A-Ram FINALLY went on the DL he came back much better. I am again not talking about weeks or a month but months and months of players not only playing
every day but playing in key line up spots. I think Hendry is as much to blame as Lou. At some point sooner than they did they have to realize a player is NOT just in a “slump” but has a physical injury that is preventing them from playing and then scramble to find the best replacement they can while that person goes on the DL.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Feb 22, 2011 2:53 PM CST up reply actions
2 months to be exact - not months and months
Is there a definitive number of games that you need for when to put a guy on the DL? is it one month?
Pena had a OK April in 2010, followed by a lousy May. Do you put him on the DL then? Because you miss a great June from him if you do.
And your first replacement in 2010 was going to be Baker or Tracy. Not some wunderkind waiting for a call. take your pick.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 22, 2011 5:03 PM CST up reply actions
Two months for who?
Soriano outside of one spurt against the Nationals was worthless after mid May of 2009 with virtually no power at all so the guy plays the next 4 plus months and he can’t hit field or run and then admits to the injury. A-Ram was just horrific for the first 2 plus months of last year. He had 5 homers in the first 10 weeks, then HE GOES ON THE DL and comes back hitting pretty good. So would you have just let him stay hitting like crap for the rest of the season because we had no decent back up ? How much help would that do.? Lee was just way below par all year though he at least was able to draw a walk which made him slightly more useful than the injured Sori & A-Ram but his fielding was off as well and it was clear he was not fully healthy.
The point is these guys were INJURED, they were not in “slumps”. Letting them keep playing everyday and in crucial batting positions was an unmitigated disaster. A good manager and a good GM realize this and they scramble to find a replacement while the guy heals.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Feb 22, 2011 5:48 PM CST up reply actions
It's not that straight forward
From everything I’ve read, A-Ram was not injured in April, 2010. He had a sore triceps in ST, but that is not reported in April.
His sore left thumb is first reported in May 20. A-Ram goes on the DL on June 8. The Cubs did not take X-rays on the thumb until May 25, which was negative. They tried to treat and rest the thumb, it didn’t do the trick. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.
Unless there is an acuter injury – yes, I watched Soriano hobble off the field after a hop – there is no straight line from poor play to the DL. This is medicine and it is clear cut.
Replacement player? That’s Baker or Tracy. And even Fontenot. There were no magic bullets out there to fill in. No great 3B sitting at home. And I’m thankful that Hendry didn’t waste a trade on a replacement player.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 23, 2011 1:17 AM CST up reply actions
Not let's go to Soriano in 2009
April OPS = .955, 88 ABs
May OPS = .657, 111 ABs
June OPS = .585, 106 ABs
July OPS = .992, 84 ABs
August OPS = .514, 81 ABs
September OPS = .286, 2 games
Yes, awful overall year. But the Cubs were chasing the cards for the division lead and actually in first for 3 days in August. There’s no way that Lou was sitting Soriano if he wasn’t injured. He has always been streaky and I’m sure Lou hoped that he could lift the club late in the year.
Soriano was shut down at the beginning of September and had arthroscopic surgery on his left knee.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 23, 2011 1:33 AM CST up reply actions
Soriano sucked and he WAS injured
He not only was terrible at the plate, he was terrible in the field and he could not run. Had he had the surgery earlier he might actually have been able to be of use
in July & August..
I don’t care who the “replacement” player is , when a player is injured you do not keep playing him day in and day out for MONTHS ( not weeks). I am not putting this all on Lou by any means. It was Hendry’s job to step in, scramble to get a replacment if needed and make sure that an injured player is not dragging the team down.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Feb 23, 2011 7:11 AM CST up reply actions
He said his knee was sore in May
Your vision appears to be perfect in this conical hindsight of Soriano.
Do you remember that Milton Bradley was a Cub and struggling to start the year? He threw a ball into the bleachers with one out on June 12.
A-Ram dislocated his shoulder on May 9th and was on the DL until July 6. Remember that?
D-Lee was terrible in April.
But you’re ready to grab the scalpel on Soriano as soon as he says his knee is sore. Sorry, that is not the way baseball works. Not when you look back at the whole team.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 23, 2011 9:22 AM CST up reply actions
Um i was BEGGING for Soriano to go on the DL in 2009
from early June on (as were many others) I got into fights with Dan on this on a daily basis. I was also begging for A-Ram to go on the DL in 2010 by mid May, same with Lee, I am not saying this after the fact. It was clear to anyone not named Piniella and Hendry that Soriano in 2009 and Ramirez & Lee in 2010 were not in “slumps” but had physical injuries they could not play through and were dragging the team down with them. Did the most of the rest of the team suck in 2010? More or less but that is hardly a justification for playing those guys and in 09 putting Soriano on the DL in May and having him healthy in July or August might have made a real difference.
You have the WRONG year for A-Ram. I am clearly talking about 2010, he dislocated his shoulder in 09. However when he did go on the DL in
early June last year he had been hitting at well below the Mendoza level
(.168) for over two months , after coming off the DL he was very good so
again how was letting him play injured remotely helpful to the team and how did good management let him do this for two crucial months?
You can accuse me of many things , but not of saying Soriano, Lee and A-Ram were injured and should have been on the DL after the fact.
That is kind of like saying I was late in criticizing Lou.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Feb 23, 2011 1:48 PM CST up reply actions
On Soriano in 2009
If you look back at 2009 and focus solely on Soriano, it’s easy to say put him on the DL earlier. Just as long as you ignore A-Ram out for 2 months in 2009, a slow start by Lee, and Milton Bradley’s slow start and daily drama.
You can’t expect the Cubs to see A-Ram go on the DL on May 9th, 2009 and then put Soriano on the DL for a sore knee later that month or in June. It was not going to happen.
From what I found, you thought Soriano should have gone on the DL in early July or late June. I do not see anything from you that said Soriano should be on the DL in May.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 23, 2011 2:21 PM CST up reply actions
"I owe ya one, Sweetheart."

Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
by daver on Feb 22, 2011 3:00 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
This made me laugh way more than it should have.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.




















