Dusty Baker needs to be fired.

by Matt Allison on May 6, 2006 11:23 AM CDT Comment 46 comments

That sentence has been said everywhere in Cubdom the past few years, but there is finally a record of non-achievement to base it on.

This is Dusty's 4th year as Cubs manager, and again they are mediocre; the players are playing below their talent. It is obvious that when they win, it is in spite of Baker, not because of him.

Baker is a failure at the following, all cause for dismissal:

Motivation. The entire team has been in a hitting slump, which given their talent, is highly unlikely to occur at the same time.
Lineup construction. Dusty loves to play with the lineup, usually in horribly destructive ways, instead of constructive ways, i.e., a JJ platoon.
In-game strategy. Baker's ineptness on this point is legendary. This season alone has seen hilariously botched double-switches, as but one small example.
Handling pitchers. Baker likely ruined Mark Prior's career in 2003. At 22, Prior was forced into ridiculously high pitch count situations, often after the Cubs had the game well in hand.
Mental makeup. As a player, Baker had anger management problems. As an adult, he had problems with the IRS and was prone to sprinkling magic dust on Wrigley's infield. He has a plethora of pent-up racial issues, and a clear victim complex. He belongs in therapy not in the dugout.

Especially, considering this franchise's history, the Cubs dugout.

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.

0 recs | Comment 46 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Let's say...

you are Jim Hendry. Who are you going to hire to replace Baker?

I don't like hearing just problems and no solutions. I want to see who everyone thinks Hendry should hire.

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes.

by sparkles721 on May 6, 2006 11:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

At this point, if it'd put a fire in the team...

I'd take Chris Speier or Paquin Estrada.

Baseball, it is said, is only a game. True. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole in Arizona. Not all holes, or games, are created equal. - George Will

by stelmodad on May 6, 2006 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about

we take all coaches and let them take turns being manager. We could call it the College of Coaches.(Cubbie history can be so sad)

by jimhickman on May 6, 2006 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We completely missed the boat on Girardi.

But right now I'd take Jack McKeon. Maybe he could do for us what he did for the Marlins in 2003, taking a lackluster team and firing them up for a playoff run.

"Aw, how could he lose the ball in the sun, he's from Mexico!"--Harry Caray

by cubbiejulie on May 6, 2006 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see...

... why Girardi is so wonderful.

So far, his biggest move is to make all the Marlins get haircuts. Yeah, like that makes a team win.

by Al on May 6, 2006 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think he's smart

I thought he was smart when he played here, and he spent 5 or so years sitting next to Joe Torre everyday. That can only help. . .

"Aw, how could he lose the ball in the sun, he's from Mexico!"--Harry Caray

by cubbiejulie on May 6, 2006 5:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I used to be a big Girardi fan

But I have been watching him in Florida
and it is not a pretty sight. Basically he knew
and supposedly agreed with the total raping of
the team for the "young guys'. Ok I guess if you
want to write off the next two seasons and keep
your fingers crossed. He is CONSTANTLY leaving
in starters too long. Willis got eaten in his last
start and is doing little better today. I don't see
a lot of "charactor" building or whatever letting some
young pitcher get shelled. I also don't think his
displinarian style best suited for a bunch a very
young players who at the least ought to have some fun.
In fairness the core problem for the Marlins is Loria
who is a terrible owner but Girardi is doing his bidding
so he gets what comes to the team

I don't think we missed the boat on him

by jessica on May 6, 2006 6:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A follow up

Willis just got pulled after giving up 6 in 4 2/3rds
raising his ERA over 5. This team is possiby going to
destroy him. It is a tragedy

by jessica on May 6, 2006 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let's ...

bring back Charlie Grimm.

by cubfanindy on May 6, 2006 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only manager

Id rather have Dusty over is Charlie Manual, so you have the entire pool of currently working managers sans one, the standard guys who've been on off season interview circuit recently (Ron Washington, Fredi Gonzalez, etc), out of the league guys (Lou Pinella, Bobby Valentine, Davey Johnson), you have the recent re-treads (Larry Bowa, Lee Mazilli, Art Howe), and you have the off-the-radar Minor League guys including my personal favorite Gary Carter coaching at Port St. Lucie in the GCL.

Is that enough?

by Santos Sorrow on May 6, 2006 12:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yep

Let's get some fire in the dugout. I'm sick of the so-called player's manager and no accountability for anyone.

by IowaCityFan on May 6, 2006 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lou Pinella

Lou gets my vote. I have said a few times this week that in given situations Dusty needs to go out and raise hell with the umpires, get himself kicked out, and light a fire under these underachievers butts. The whole team looks apathetic and beaten in the dugout. Let's see some fire. Let's see Lou go ape on these guys. I've seen enough hand holding. I've heard enough excuses, and I've certainly grown tired of the victim mentality that permeates the Cubs clubhouse.

Madog93. There is only one good season of the year -- BASEBALL SEASON!

by madog93 on May 6, 2006 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

I second the Lou vote. Lou knows what it takes to win, and he won't put up with lacksadasical play that Baker enables.

There are plenty of options out there to finish up 2006. Baker must go.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 6, 2006 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's the problem with that theory...

... you are assuming that because you don't see someone out there with steam coming out of his ears on television, that Baker is not doing those sorts of things in private.

It is true that the team looks flat. They did NOT look flat the first three weeks. Every team can go through a downward slump from time to time, and given the injury to Derrek Lee, that's not surprising.

Criticize his lineup selection and bullpen use, and you have and so have I.

But don't be fooled by a manager who comes out and yells and screams on TV, and think that's the answer to everything. It's not. Often, in fact, teams that replace such managers do real well. Example: the 1982 Brewers, managed by Buck Rodgers, who was a screamer. He was replaced midseason by Harvey Kuenn, one of the game's genuine nice guys. They relaxed all the way to the AL pennant.

by Al on May 6, 2006 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

if you look at what baker says

and what he does, it's very apparent that his entire m/o is the deferral of responsibility. his constant lying to avoid answering hard questions honestly -- from racist crap about the heat to calling todd walker to left handed batting practice pitchers -- goes straight to the heart of it. the man doesn't believe in taking anything head-on if there's a weasel's way out.

lying for players publicly whiel taking no one to task privately is how he got this rep as a "players manager". and the excesses that his players run out to -- smashed boomboxes, on-field petulance, player feuds, and of course unimaginable coddling of prima donnas like bonds, wood and sosa -- are a deep testament to just how pathetic a figure baker cuts in the clubhouse.

i agree that seeing him calm in the dugout says little.

it's watching his teams and players come apart at the seams on and off the field that says everything.

by gaius marius on May 6, 2006 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

usually

Al, I usually agree with you and appreciate your level-headed approach to the Cubs and their deficiencies. This time however I respectfully disagree. This team needs a fire lit underneath them. The whole team looked listless last night when they showed the dugout. It is paining me to watch this bunch, and for the most part I do like these players. I want to see them do good. In 04' and 05' it was hard to get real excited about some of the guys that were on the team, especially in 04'. This group is not that group, and I'll agree that they did not look flat the first few weeks. They looked like they cared and believed in themselves. They have completely lost that look.

Madog93. There is only one good season of the year -- BASEBALL SEASON!

by madog93 on May 6, 2006 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Any team...

... that's not hitting looks like that in the dugout. I say again, you don't know, nor do I, what Dusty Baker says to them in private.

Don't think that what you see on TV is an indicator of everything that is going on.

by Al on May 6, 2006 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

all I've got

What I see on tv is all I have to go by, and all I see on tv is bad news. Like I said I really do like this bunch of guys and enjoy watching them when they are hustling and playing good baseball. You are right though, and all we can do is speculate about what goes on behind closed doors. I also agree with Gaius though that what we have heard about behind the scenes shenanigans the last couple of years does not sound good. Dusty seems to lose control of teams and then does not have the ability to regain that control. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in that clubhouse and really hear what goes on. That might not be such a good thing though, because I might lose respect for some of the guys. It is probably for the best that we don't know to much.

Madog93. There is only one good season of the year -- BASEBALL SEASON!

by madog93 on May 6, 2006 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not how he looks in the dugout

It's his lack of care with Wood and Prior's arms in 2003

It's thinking that "shaking up the lineup" is stitting your two best hitters and playing Bynum instead.

It's lying about talking to Walker in the off-season when the two never spoke.

It's not being able to decide between Hairston and Walker.

It's bringing Darrin into press conferences with him when he knows he's going to get tough questions.

It's believing that black players are better because they can handle the sun.

It's the refusal to play young players unless he has no choice.

It was insisting on leaving Corey at the top of the lineup and Sammy in the cleanup spot no matter how poorly they hit.

It was running Hawkins out there in save situations no matter how poorly he pitched.

It's letter Mercker and Sammy run wild in the clubhouse in 2004.

It's picking a fight with Stoney because he had the gall to tell the truth.

It's almost never putting on a hit and run, suicide squeeze, or double steal in the last 3 years.

It's thinking that walks "clog up the bases."

It's the over-emphasis on lefty-lefty and righty-righty matchups.

It's the refusal to go with the hot hand (when we have one) because it violates some archaic matchup rule.

I will be the first to admit that we haven't had the talent on paper for the last two years. But the bottom line is that Dusty does bear some responsibility for how this team has performed. Good managers get the best out of their players and put them in situations to succeed. Dusty's moves many times defy all logic and almost never have the intended results. Timne for some new blood.

"Aw, how could he lose the ball in the sun, he's from Mexico!"--Harry Caray

by cubbiejulie on May 6, 2006 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

There's a time for relaxed and a time for steam. Now, Lou might be a little too much Bobby Knight than the perfect combination, but the only person I've ever seen Baker really mix it up with is LaRussa, and that's clearly an ego thing, which only further demonstrates Baker's limitations.

No, I don't know for a fact if Baker lites into someone in private. But I've never read anything that suggests he does, and given all the other leaks out of the clubhouse and all the players who've needed it in the past, I think it's reasonable to assume his "What's up, Dude?" attitude in public is the one he also takes in private.

It's one thing to look flat. The Cubs in the past week have scored enough runs to have one decent inning. They look dead. And it's the manager's responsibility to keep the team from falling apart when something like the DLee injury happens. A manager who fails to do that - among all the other Baker liabilities - is a manager who is not an asset to the organization.

It's time, once again, to go in another direction. My preference is Lou, but first and foremost, is the removal of Baker so this team at least has a chance to play on a consistent basis the way they played against the Cards on opening weekend.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 7, 2006 12:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know...

who you want. I just wanted to see what everyone else thought.

The entire pool of working managers? I vote for Ozzie Guillen then! :)

Cubbie Blue always sPaRkLes in my eyes.

by sparkles721 on May 6, 2006 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again I'll preface that I know...

enough about baseball to be dangerous or at least fool-hardy, especially in conversations like this. But at this point, I'm under the belief that there needs to be dramatic change in the Cubs organization.

We've struggled under injuries, but that's baseball and we're not likely going to find another trainer to blame.

So the answers will likely rest on a change in leadership. Since Hendry has been tapped for another go around, if change happens it will likely come in the form of management or a "blow up" of the team structure.

To this casual eye, it seems Hendry and management bet on the momentum and structure of the '03 Cubs - centering on the once studly lineup of Prior, Woods, and Zambrano - adding Maddox for a few wins and some positive PR. Who would have guessed then that Maddox would be the dominant hurler on this staff and that fans would be in a place now where they could hardly remember what Prior and Wood look like.

Houston and Florida went through radical changes and it seemed to bring them a pennant and a chance at "The Title." While I'm not a vengeful fan, I don't like watching these games and I don't like the trend we've set over these past few years - relegating us all to questioning rather than enjoying the game of baseball.

As it stands now, we seem to be following in the Philly tradition of team assembly (expensive underperforming teams) - something I like to avoid.

Anyway, long reply, but it has not been fun to be a Cubs fan for quite some time.

Baseball, it is said, is only a game. True. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole in Arizona. Not all holes, or games, are created equal. - George Will

by stelmodad on May 6, 2006 12:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Blame the manager

I'd respond to this if it wasn't so laughable.

by wicubfan on May 6, 2006 12:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed that

macfail and hendry are where a lot of the blame lies. and let's not forget the players.

but dusty's hardly helping anything now. if he can't be a tactician and he can't be a strategist and he can't help out in situations like this -- what the hell IS he good for?

by gaius marius on May 6, 2006 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The head-rolling

should have started with MacPhail, who doesn't exactly have a stellar record to point at for his tenure with the Cubs.

Then Hendry for putting this sorry team together.

Finally Dusty, who has consistently guided the patchwork teams to underperform.

What does not kill you makes you stronger.

by Pa on May 6, 2006 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Every season

they put together a team that if everything goes right and no one gets hurt, they'll have a chance. The problem is that something alwas goes wrong and usually someone gets hurt for an extended period of time. Then all of a sudden the replacements and bench are significantly weaker than the team you started with. People then immediately blame the manager. The manager usually gets too much blame when a team is losing, and too much credit when they are winning. Like a poster on this site has posted many times.."you can't win the Kentucky Derby with a mule." or something like that

by wicubfan on May 7, 2006 6:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You could say the same thing...

... about just about any team, not simply the Cubs.

by Al on May 7, 2006 7:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not right

You think the manager is playing? These are professional athletes not junior high kids, they motivate themselves for the money. You think they like playing like fools in front of thousands? They are in a slump, not unmotivated. Lineup construction and strategy is as good as the players you put in the situation. When it goes good, you look good,when it goes bad, you take the blame. It's not like guys succeed 70% of the time in baseball, great hitters fail 70% of the time and when a manager puts them in that situation it's a roll of the dice to see what happens. As far as protecting pitchers, if Wood or Prior were real studs they would be out there pitching. Guys that pitched in the 60's and before laugh at these guys and pitch counts. Be a stud. Last rant.....I've coached high school sports for 29 years, if you think it's easy to coach that long OR just stand in front of thousands of people and make decisions that go the wrong way sometimes and right way sometimes you're dead wrong. Everyone thinks they can do it and that is part of the attraction with all sports. Just because you played once, or watch on TV or coached little league, everyone thinks they can do it better. I hope Dusty kicks butt the rest of the year and is around for a long time. I hope his players find a way to put it back together for him and get all the knowitalls off his back. If Lee doesn't go down we would not be having this conversation.

by mrcubsfan on May 6, 2006 1:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Great Hitters Fail 70% of the time?

Mrcubsfan wrote that "great hitters fail 70% of the time". Uh. No. Only if you consider a "walk" a failure. An OBP of .300 is not "great", it isn't even "good".

And even if Lee had not gone down, we would be having this conversation. (Yes, the Cubs might not have lost last night, but he wouldn't have made the difference in a bunch of the recent games. These haven't been close loses, the Cubs have been getting hammered by large margins.)

As for the rest of your comments, they are equally "valid". Look at the number of pitchers, very good pitchers, from the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's that went down at very early ages. And look at their pitch counts. Medical technology and sports phyisiology has greatly advanced. And now we know that high pitch counts can be harmful.

But hey man, fans of conventional wisdom who pay no attention to science and facts, are big fans of Dusty Baker.

by Frustrated Fan on May 6, 2006 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

High pitch counts

They certainly caused these pitchers to fail:

Phil Niekro
Nolan Ryan
Gaylord Perry
Don Sutton
Warren Spahn
Steve Carlton
Bert Blyleven
Tom Seaver
Tommy John
Roger Clemens

What do they have in common? They all pitched in the decades you mentioned (with the exception of Clemens), and they're all in the top twenty in career innings. And Nolan Ryan (#5 on the list) was no stranger to a 120-pitch outing.

Other than Sandy Koufax (whose career was not cut short due to high pitch counts), I would love to hear the names of these pitchers who went down at early ages due to high pitch counts.

(Oh, by the way, Greg Maddux is #29 and climbing on this list, and I believe he throws twice between starts, or at least used to.)

by gauchodirk on May 6, 2006 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sigh

Yes. All of those pitchers had high pitch counts and didn't destroy their arms. So what. Some pitchers handle high pitch counts well and some do not. And, of course, its hard to cite to "great" pitchers that didn't make it because of high pitch counts BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT. And quite frankly, its a fools errand to try and argue with you. You are like the person who draws successfully once to an inside straight in a poker game and from that point onward always thinks it is a good bet. In the case of baseball, you can gamble that your pitcher can handle a high pitch count, and if you are right, you get a few extra innings a year and if you are wrong, you have to go out and get another pitcher. Question. Would the Cubs be much better off with a healthy Prior and Wood this year even if they could only pitch 100 or so pitches per game?

Here are a few real good pitchers that had very short careers. And, yes, I know that you will simply argue that they are exceptions or the like. Go ahead. Stick you head in the ground. Pretent that pitcher abuse doesn't happen. And all of us fans that actually pay attention to facts, and not fiction, will thank god every day that YOU are not actually involved in running the team.
Mark Fidrych - Done after one season.
Denny McClain - out of baseball at 28
Jim Lonborg - Great early then boom.
Dizzy Dean - Washed up at 27
Sam McDowell - out of baseball at 32, washed up at 28
Jim Palmer - One good season after the age of 32
Gary Nolan - finished at 29, last great season at 26
Don Drysdale - finished at 32
Vida Blue - Last good season at 32
Ken Holzman - Last good season at 29
Joe Coleman - One good season after 26
Dick Ellsworth - Phenomenal season at 23, never the same pitcher afterward
Dave McNally - Finished at 30
Britt Burns - Phenom at 20 and 21. Out of baseball at 26.
Bill Monbouquette - finished at 31
Blue Moon Odum - finished at 31
Don Gullet - out of baseball at 27

The list goes on and on.

by Frustrated Fan on May 6, 2006 8:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with pitch counts

is that I don't think anyone has demonstrated a clear cause and effect relationship. Remember, years ago almost all teams had a 4 man rotation, not 5. I think very few teams were counting pitches.

by wicubfan on May 7, 2006 6:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cigarettes

These comments about how the scientific studies don't support that high pitch counts hurt many pitchers sound a great deal like the comments on the tobacco industry on studies from the 50's and 60's suggesting that smoking was harmful. The Tobacco industry would say that no one has "demonstrated a clear cause and effect relationship" or cited to counter examples of old smokers to counter the proposition that smoking shortened lives.

by Frustrated Fan on May 7, 2006 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well then..

we know how to stop all pitching injuries. Limit all outings to 90 pitches. Of course you'd say that won't stop all injuries, yet in Prior and Woods case it obviously would have. Sorry, I just don't buy it.

by wicubfan on May 7, 2006 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can't prove that high pitch counts...

...ruined any of these guys' careers. Mark Fidrych was basically a one-year wonder, and Denny McClain had more than his share of off-field problems which contributed to his demise. Call me naive if you want (you basically already have), but it's possible that the hitters just plain figured some of these guys out, unless we know for a fact that injuries, specifically injuries related to high-pitch counts, put them out of baseball. The cause-and-effect relationship can cut both ways.

But I'm obviously an idiot who shouldn't be running a baseball team, so what do I know?

by gauchodirk on May 7, 2006 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

High Pitch Counts

Cigarette smoking hasn't been proven to cause cancer and heart disease. Just becuase smokers tend to die of cancer and heart disease at an earlier age doesn't mean anything. Call me naive if you want (you basically have), but its possible that they just died, unless we know for a fact that illnesses, specifically illnesses related to smoking, killed them. The cause-and-effect relationship can cut both ways.

Mark Fidrych was no longer effective becuase batters figured him out. He had a great season with 250 innings, the next two years he again had great numbers, but with very few innings because of arm problems. The next year boom. Sure looks like a pattern of arm injury from overuse. But since we can't prove it, just like Cigarette smoking...

No, you are not naive. You are either willfully ignorant or have a subnormal IQ.

by Frustrated Fan on May 7, 2006 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

steve stone???

......

by luv4cubs2 on May 6, 2006 1:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

No excuse

I understand offensive production is going to drop, but the inability of the Cubs to even score one run over the past twenty-plus innings is absolutely inexcusable. There have been player problems all over the place, from Ramirez's slump to Jacque "Rallykiller" Jones... but then there's the fact that Freddy Bynum keeps showing up (as noted above), not to mention the fact that Jerry Hairston, Jr. looks like a little leaguer, but keeps getting playing time. Ultimately, while the players are responsible for their individual performance, it's up to the coaching staff to make sure that the team doesn't look lost at the plate and on the basepaths, and right now the Chicago Cubs do.

I agree more about this than I ever have -- fire Baker.

AC036198

by gjdow on May 6, 2006 1:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

LOL!

....did someone say, Chris Speier?!

85% of the world's working and the other 15% come out here (to Wrigley). --Lee Elia

by southerncubbie on May 6, 2006 1:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Does.....

....Baker really have a "plethora of pent-up racial issues"?

85% of the world's working and the other 15% come out here (to Wrigley). --Lee Elia

by southerncubbie on May 6, 2006 1:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Pitch Counts

Gauchodirk, you can't just list those exemplary pitchers to prove your point. Of course there will always be miracle specimens and medical marvels that are seemingly able to throw hard and pitch forever, like Nolan Ryan, but those pitchers are few and far between. Ask yourself:

Why are there so few 300 game winners from previous eras, when they made so many starts.
Why are most of the members of the 300 win club hard throwers of their era that were able to pitch for a long time (eg. walter Johnson, Cy Young, Nolan Ryan etc.)
What did most pitchers do before Tommy John Surgery.

The answer is that pitchers from previous eras blew their arms out far faster. I'm not going to sit here and list players, but obviously players had tendons in their arms before Tommy John Surgery. Unless you are insinuating that players of past eras are in better physical condition than they are now (which they aren't), you have to recognize that human biology hasn't changed and medical science has only gotten better. Also, mid to high 90s velocity, which was practically unique when Walter Johnson pitched, is relatively commonplace now. Obviously, that is far more taxing on the arm.

Oh, and that must have been a joke when you listed Phil Niekro with your "examples". I'm pretty sure if throwing the knuckler was easy, most people could throw late into their 40s with that slow pitch.

But I've digressed far from the cubs. The point is that with players like Wood, and Prior, there was no need to tax their arms that heavily, that early in their careers. They both have tremendous torque action on their elbows and shoulders. Do I blame their chronic injuries completely on Dusty? No, of course not. But you can't argue that he's helped at all. He's only hurt them. You only need listen to what smarter baseball minds around the league say about Dusty: he is widely known to be overly hard on his pitchers' arms. I'm inclined to believe them.

And according to Mrcubsfan, pitchers from the 1960s and before laugh at the pitchers and their pitchcounts now. Who cares, let them laugh. Their arms weren't worth millions of dollars to their teams, and most of them didn't throw that hard.

by CosmicCharlie911 on May 6, 2006 6:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'd really think the 'race card' should be left

way, way out of this discussion....and Dusty's
'mental' make-up should be too....as far as I'm concerned , that's not opinion, that's slander.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on May 6, 2006 6:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'd love to leave

the "race card" out of this. But it's Dusty who's brought it up. It permeates his outlook.

And as far as his mental makeup, it's not slander, it's observation of the character of the man in charge of leading the Cubs on the field. It's more than relevant.

We should have gotten Leyland when we had the chance.

by Matt Allison on May 6, 2006 11:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Question...

Any managering experience, Al?
P.S. Does anyone else think of Christopher Lloyd's character in Angels in the Outfield every time they see an Al associated with baseball?

Before there was Carlos...there was Eddie!

by thekansasian on May 6, 2006 11:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Well...

... I could hardly do worse, considering the last week.

Again, teams go into slumps. This is a slump. Admittedly, it's one of the worst ones I've ever seen.

But it WILL turn around.

by Al on May 7, 2006 4:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Odds are favorable?

Yes, the Cubs should come out of their slump. But in order to get back into the playoff chase, the Cubs have to basically succeed in the most extreme manner. The odds of that happening aren't all that favorable.

So how do you bust this team-wide slump? Is it by making a trade or two? You have repeatedly told us this isn't likely to happen until nearer the trading deadline. Is it by shuffling the lineup? The bench is pitifully weak at this point so that doesn't seem to be the answer. Is it by calling up someone from the minors? Nobody really seems to be ready to play at the big league level. Do you take the team out on some sort of excursion to get their minds off the slump? Something like a team dinner or an afternoon at an amusement park or something? (No, I'm not suggesting a trip to a Nevada whorehouse!) Not a whole lot of off days on the schedule now.

Well, baseball's traditional way of lighting a fire under a team is firing the manager. It doesn't always work as we can remember from the firing of Don Baylor. But I was just wondering. Since the Cubs have had two managers with the initials of DB, would a third DB manager be the charm? What the heck is Dave Bialas up to these days? He had a pretty good record as a minor league manager. Everyone could bring out the DBFC caps again. What would the Cubs have to lose other than Dusty Baker?

by FrankSereno on May 7, 2006 7:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs