Walk On By

by Al Yellon on Sep 21, 2006 9:24 AM CDT in Chicago Cubs Recaps

The most damning indictment of Dusty Baker and the entire coaching staff, particularly Larry Rothschild, are the walks.

It's much worse from walks allowed than from walks not taken, but the way the Cubs have done both has gone a long way toward generating the 62-91 record with which they awaken this morning.

The Cubs lost to the Phillies 6-2 last night. Cubs pitchers walked seven; the first two of those scored, and that was just about all the Phillies needed. What's bad about the walks isn't JUST that it "clogs up the bases", in the familiar words of someone we all want gone from Chicago in ten days, but that it forces your pitchers to throw so many more pitches than the opposition, thus going far deeper into your bullpen, overtaxing the relief pitchers, leading to more walks and runs scored.

Last night was a perfect example. Les Walrond, who has absolutely no business in a major league uniform, much less starting a game, issued five walks in throwing just a little over three innings, and thus threw seventy-six pitches to get nine outs. This is ridiculous. All told, six Cub pitchers combined for one hundred and seventy-four pitches -- in one LESS inning than Philly starter Brett Myers threw 119 pitches. Oh, and Jae-Kuk Ryu, who has earned at least one more start in this misbegotten season, probably lost that chance when he threw forty relief pitches last night.

Why is it that all of us can see this and a highly-paid major league manager and pitching coach can't?

Just in case Cubs management is reading this and they won't believe me, perhaps they will believe Cubs beat writer Paul Sullivan:

With another five innings of work, the relief corps has pitched 529 1/3 innings. The most innings pitched by Cubs relievers since they began keeping records of relief pitching in 1957 was 532 in 1983, a 91-loss season.

Point proven. The Cubs have also walked 642 batters, which is FAR more than any other team. The Royals are second in this "negative" category, with 596, and for comparison's sake, the Twins, who lead the majors in fewest batters walked, have issued only 329 free passes, HALF the number Cub pitchers have. This goes a long way toward explaining why the Twins have allowed 641 runs (second-fewest in baseball) and the Cubs have allowed 789.

More than that, the Cubs have allowed seventy-four unearned runs, fourth-most in baseball (the Angels, 80, the Indians, 78 and the Pirates, 75, are higher), which shows you in part how bad the Cubs' defense has been this year. Oh, but wait, not according to Dusty Baker, who, when asked about Jacque Jones' season, said:

"Jacque took heat even before he really got on the field," manager Dusty Baker said, referring to criticism of Jones' three-year contract. "Jacque has had a good year, and Jacque knows he can get better. I talked to [him on Tuesday] and he said, 'Man, I gave away over 100 at-bats.' He wants to cut down on the strikeouts (112). He has played an outstanding right field. Right field in Wrigley Field is about as tough as it gets."

(emphasis added)

"An outstanding right field"!?!?!?!?! This leads me to ask, "What games has HE been watching?" Jones has been a poor outfielder. Sure, he can run balls down reasonably well, but his arm is just about the worst I've ever seen out there. Either he throws the ball into the turf ten feet in front of him, or airmails (hey, you kids out there, you DO remember "airmail", right?) it ten feet over the head of its intended target. I note Dusty didn't even mention all the baserunning errors Jones made.

In that same article, Baker said of Ronny Cedeno, referring specifically to the error Cedeno made that probably cost the Cubs Tuesday's game:

"That was a critical tough error," Baker said. "We've seen some vast improvement with his throwing. Earlier in the year, he was having trouble with throwing errors. He has a lot of errors, but he doesn't have a lot of errors the last month or so. That's what you have to see. ? The main thing is we want to keep seeing improvement."

"Improvement"!?!?!?!?!?! "Doesn't have a lot of errors in the last month or so"!?!?!?!?!?!?! Again, what games is he watching?

As many of you know, I used to like and respect Dusty Baker. But he has clearly gone off the deep end here. It's one thing to back up your players. It's another thing to deny things that everyone else can see in plain sight.

OK, I'm done for today. Thankfully, I didn't even see last night's game, as I attended an open house for Mark's school. It was much more fun to sit in sixth-grade classrooms than to watch the Cubs self-destruct again.

Tweet Comment 91 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Dusty

says and does whatever he wants and expects us to believe and not question him. Anyone who tells you with a straight face that walks clog the bases or Ronnie is a good fielder and expects you to believe them thinks you are a fool.

He has gone off the deep end and his tenure as a Cubs is coming to a close. Anyone think this is going to go well? I don't think there is any chance Dusty goes quietly. He will slash and burn his way out of Chicago once he knows for certain he isn't coming back. Then we will find out what is really in his heart and what kind of individual he really is. Everyone but him is going to get thrown under the last Greyhound out of Wrigleyville.

by pageian on Sep 21, 2006 9:33 AM CDT reply actions

Al,

Dusty has said these same stupid and ridiculous remarks the last 4 years, and I suspect his 10 years in San Francisco as well. Nothing has changed about Dusty. He's still the same idiot that was hired to take over this team (a hiring I was excited about, I should note) 4 years ago.

The only difference here is that you're looking at things differently. You notice the stupidity of what he says and when he says and how often he says them. Your like and respect for Baker didn't allow you to see these things before. He's the same man. He went off the deep end a long time ago.

by Maddog on Sep 21, 2006 9:38 AM CDT reply actions

October 3

What sort of buzz are you hearing out there for a new manager? Is Fredi Gonzalez still being mentioned? Chip Hale just won the AAA championship - I think he'd be great, if Girardi isn't available.

BTW, I think Frank Robinson's going to be available as well...

"Don't worry, Joey. We'll go next year. They're in the World Series all the time" ---My grandfather to my sick father, October 10, 1945

by flyingdonut on Sep 21, 2006 9:39 AM CDT reply actions

Frank Robinson

Would be great but I think he won't be going anywhere else once his time in Washington is done. He'll probably take a front office position rather than leave for another team at his age. I'm not sure about his in-game managing skills because I haven't paid enough attention but I love his attitude and how he cares about his players. He won me over when he cried at the press conference the day he took his 3rd string catcher (LeCroy?) out of the game in the middle of an inning when the Astros were running wild on him. That says a lot about his character and I guess about his managing ability.

by pageian on Sep 21, 2006 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions

robinson

I'm not sure about his in-game managing skills

haven't they caught him on camera more than once sleeping in the dugout?

by flyball on Sep 21, 2006 9:51 AM CDT up reply actions

Lol

yeah but the guy is up in his 70's, it was probably just nap time. Still though he's probably more effective in his sleep than Dusty is awake.

by pageian on Sep 21, 2006 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions

Nap time

Hey, let's not knock nap time. In fact, I think more people should indulge in it.

Now if only my boss felt the same way.

"When things are at their blackest, I say to myself, 'Cheer up, things could be worse.' And sure enough, they get worse." - Robert Asprin

by Jesse Guam on Sep 21, 2006 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions

Frank Robinson...

would be a terrible choice for manager. He's 70 years old with little history of winning. Just because he cries about his players doesn't make him a good manager. I imagine Dusty cries privately for Bynum after a rough game as well.

Extreme hopes are born from extreme misery. -Bertrand Russell

by thekansasian on Sep 21, 2006 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions

It says something about

his honesty and his character. After 4 years of hearing Dusty say things like "walks clog the bases" and make excuses for players it would be nice to have someone who was honest with the fans.

Two other things... Being 70 years old isn't a plus but it shouldn't be a negative either, if the guy knows how to manage he knows how to manage, regardless of his age. Are you discriminating against him because of his age? Secondly, he may not have a history of winning but that doesn't mean he isn't a good manager. Lot's of good managers haven't won anything and lot's of bad managers have. Bob Brenly won a World Series and I'd take Robinson over him any day.

by pageian on Sep 21, 2006 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions

Well...

Maybe Mr. Rogers is available to manage next year.

Extreme hopes are born from extreme misery. -Bertrand Russell

by thekansasian on Sep 21, 2006 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions

c'mon

we all know Maria from Sesame St could manage circles around Mr. Rogers

by flyball on Sep 21, 2006 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions

Ronny Cedeno

Clearly, Dusty puffs away from his hookah when providing commentary on the play of Cedeno. I can't recall a more dreadful Cub player in the last 10 years. And that is really saying a lot. It isn't that he is young and inexperienced but rather that he is young and awful.

by BlueBooHoo on Sep 21, 2006 9:48 AM CDT reply actions

Most dreadful might be a stretch

I agree that watching Ronny for a full season has made me want to stick my head in an oven. Unfortunately, I can't Monday morning quarterback this move, because after the botched Furcal thing in the offseason, I really felt like Cedeno was the way to go. But as far as saying he is the most dreadful Cubs player of the last 10 years, that is a stretch. May I refer you to previous discussions on BCB regarding Todd Hundley.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Sep 21, 2006 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions

I love this comment from Sullivans article

"You have to get strike one, No. 1, and keep that leadoff man from getting on base," manager Dusty Baker said. "You're asking for trouble, getting in the stretch all the time. Sooner or later, that pressure is going to bust you."

Uhh, so which is it? Are walks helpful or not? Putting a pitcher in the stretch and putting pressure on them is going to bust them, but it only applies to our pitchers? Seems like we'd want the other team to clog up the bases, isn't it helpful that way when our pitchers walk batters?

Contradiction is a trait of a man with no real conviction, no real understanding of the subject matter. Dusty, you've made me happy twice, once when we hired you and now that you're leaving.

by pageian on Sep 21, 2006 9:55 AM CDT reply actions

Not a surprise that

a bunch of rookie pitchers are going to walk a ton of guys...

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Kennedy, Wood, Pie in CF, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 21, 2006 10:02 AM CDT reply actions

This staff has walked a ton of guys

throughout Dusty's tenure. Most of the offenders have not been rookies. Kerry Wood consistently walked tons of batters. Zambrano leads the league in BBs this year and has walked 80+ guys in all four of his full ML seasons. Prior's BB/9IP ratio was much higher in '04/'05 than '03. If you want to defend Dusty, you probably ouight to pick something that has at least a bit of merit.

by Thunderclap Newman on Sep 21, 2006 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions

Just an observation...

Not really a defense here.. For the record, I want baker fired.

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Kennedy, Wood, Pie in CF, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 21, 2006 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions

I agree, with no starters what do you expect?

This team and season were doomed before the season even began.

Discussed countless times, I remind everyone that when it came to the health of Wood & Prior that Hendry, Baker, & Rotschild chose to tightly shut their eyes, place their hands over their ears, and hum "Kumbaya" as loud as they could.

With the heart of the starting pitching corps out of action for effectively the entire season and untested AA & AAA rookies taking their spots on the rotation, the poor starting pitching, subsequent losses, and crap stats naturally follow.

The season is over, we know what the problem is - what moves will our illustrious GM make to solve it so this team has at least a snowball's chance in hell next year?

by JFCubFan on Sep 21, 2006 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions

I think its more about pitching philosophy

Not only do the Cubs pitchers walk a lot, they also strike out alot of batters (they lead the NL). I DO NOT think this is a good thing. This leads to very high pitch counts and worn out arms. I think this Rothchild philosphy is directly behind all the injuries on this staff.

In Wrigley the Cubs should be trying to get as many groundball pitchers as possible and get a stellar infield defensively.

by gathas on Sep 21, 2006 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions

Is Dusty

playing a video game with these people in it? I simply don't understand how one man can be so delusional.

"I respect the mind's power over the body, it's why I do what I do" - Dr. Jonathan Crane

by Faith plus 1 on Sep 21, 2006 10:02 AM CDT reply actions

He doesn't give a rip

He gets paid $4 million a year and could probably retire very comfortably for the rest of his life. He could care less what some people think of him. Say what you will, but the man had a distinguished 19 year playing career and has been a big league manager for 14 seasons. He sports a World Series ring from his Dodger days and is wealthy beyond belief. 99.5% of the world would trade their life for Dusty's in a nano-second.

by BlueBooHoo on Sep 21, 2006 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions

gospel according to Mike63

Amen.

Tool.

"I respect the mind's power over the body, it's why I do what I do" - Dr. Jonathan Crane

by Faith plus 1 on Sep 21, 2006 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions

Jealously

and bigotry are tough things.

by BlueBooHoo on Sep 21, 2006 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions

Definitely a tool.

You bash Dusty claiming he's pulling tubes in the dugout, then get on your soapbox and tell the world that we want his life. Do you just pick random words to make sentences?

Keep it spinnin...

"Booze, broads, and bullshit. If you got all that, what else do you need?" - Harry Caray

by 10 14 23 26 on Sep 21, 2006 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions

bongs

i met somebody who claims he sells him pot in hawaii. lots of people would love to have a few ml in the bank and spend their days baked on the beach. not to imply that the claim is true or he is baked anywhere ever.

by sickofthis on Sep 21, 2006 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions

Oh Mike

I am so terribly jealous of you and all your star wars/trek, million dollar man, superfriends and Three's Company Action Figures and your mom's basement I just can't bear to bring myself to words without weaping.

Well, maybe one.

Tool.

"I respect the mind's power over the body, it's why I do what I do" - Dr. Jonathan Crane

by Faith plus 1 on Sep 22, 2006 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions

I doubt he has as much money as you think.....

considering he was (and still might be) a huge tax cheat.....the IRS tends to screw people like that over.

by PriorandAramisfan23 on Sep 21, 2006 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions

Yep

I think he wanted a high paying gig to help settle some of his obligations to the IRS. I don't remember the specifics but it seems like what he owed was around $1 million or so. Probably it was just a mistake on his end and not him trying to cheat. Either way I hope he's doing better with his money now and I hope he's saved some of it because after what we've seen this year I can't imagine anyone would want to hire him. Someone will though because they are afraid they are going to run out of snake oil.

by pageian on Sep 21, 2006 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions

Budgets and Bozos

I think the Cubs budget is second in the NL, only behind the Mets. Unfotunately, we have the worse record in the NL.

The real travesty here is the Bozos that administer that budget.

Those of you that listen to the score radio station should have heard Mike Murphy yesterday.

He played a tape of an interview he had with Andy McPhail regarding the $20 some million increased revenue that would be generated from, increased bleacher seating, increased tivket prices and increased advertising signage throughout the ballpark.

When Murphy asked McPhail how that added revenue would be used, McPhail emphatically said that the added revenue would go into the Cubs budget.

Murphy then chided in after playing that conversation that he wants the CPD, FBI and IRS called to investigate the missing $20 million.

It was priceless I tell you.

by Clute on Sep 21, 2006 10:17 AM CDT reply actions

Hey

They can get 5 average players with that money!

McFailonomics 101

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Kennedy, Wood, Pie in CF, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 21, 2006 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions

Exactly

Plus they'll look busy signing all those players instead of getting one or two good ones and looking all lazy and stuff. It's a win/win, the money gets spent and they look like they care.

by pageian on Sep 21, 2006 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions

the Astros have the highest NL payroll

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 21, 2006 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions

No they don't

The Mets do. Followed by the Dodgers then Cubs
then Astros. The Yankees , Red Sox Angels and
White Sox are the AL teams with higher payrolls
than the Cubs.
It is not what you spend , it is how you spend it
Mets and Yankees will make the post season
Cubs, Astos , Angels, White Sox wil not
Dodgers might,
Complain about the bad decisions the Cubs have
made all you want but money was not the problem

I HATE NED COLLETTI

by jessica on Sep 21, 2006 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions

Yup

The Mets spend it on Beltran. The Cubs on 3 guy, and count on COrey Patterson.

The Angels spend it on Guerrero & Colon. The Cubs sign 5 guys for that money. 5 > 2!

LA spends it on Furcal. The Cubs go w/ Cedeno casue Furcal cost $2 million too much. Fuk,,, they can't afford Rusch, if they sign Furcal!

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Kennedy, Wood, Pie in CF, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 21, 2006 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions

Ok I checked

Mets: $119.68
Cubs: $109.92
Astros: $108.17
Dodgers: $104.73

Brought to you by Hardballdollars.com

I'm sorry I misspoke, the Astros are 3rd in the NL.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 21, 2006 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions

FYI I don't get those hardball numbers

I am NOT an expert on this but 3 things at least
did not seem right. It had the Cubs liable for FIVE million
for Nevin PLUS 2.3 for Hairston and I don't see any way
that is correct. Nevin was with the Cubs for I think
two plus months and he wasn't getting 5 million for that
I can't recall how Cubs & Rangers re did the Nevin &
Hairston salaries but the Cubs are not on the hook
for 7.3 for those two . For Maddux however they have
the Cubs paying 5 million and that is two low
Maddux made 1.5 million per month and spend 4 months
with the Cubs AND the Cubs were paying I think at least
one million of his remaining 3 million so he should be
something like 7 million.
Basically these numbers get twisted and barring some
massive salary dump or increase during the season I think
the salaries at the start of the season are the best measure
of a teams financial committment.

I HATE NED COLLETTI

by jessica on Sep 21, 2006 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions

I had the same problem

with their figures. They also include non direct costs which confuse the issue.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Sep 21, 2006 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions

How does Nevin appear

on the Texas page?

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 21, 2006 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions

3 Million

and NOTHING for Hairston which would mean
that the Cubs were paying 7.3 Million for the two
months of Nevin which despite what one might think
of Hendry makes NO sense
I will google the trade info and see what I can find

I HATE NED COLLETTI

by jessica on Sep 21, 2006 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions

They must signed the deal

while waiting to checkout, those viewing lines at Krispy Kreme are enchanting. It's my calling card :)

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 21, 2006 6:13 PM CDT up reply actions

Because...

... the Rangers are paying most of his salary for this year.

by Al Yellon on Sep 21, 2006 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions

Nevin

Salary was about 10.4
He was traded 5/31 so TX already paid
roughly 3.5 with a little less than 7 remaining
they ALSO kicked in 3.5 to the Cubs dropping
the Cubs down to 3.5 liability. I have to assume
the Twins are paying something. Assume a bit
less than the 1.7 per month he would get , takes
the Cubs down to about 2.5 for the the two months
and there is NO indication that the Cubs paid
any part of Hairstons. 2.3 million so they would have
paid him about 800.000 for the two months
And again the Maddux figure was LOW so these
numbers are not reliable in my view

I HATE NED COLLETTI

by jessica on Sep 21, 2006 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions

No, its not how much you spend

there is a CLEAR relationship between dollars spent and wins (Ill find the study) You CAN win without spending, but the more you spent the PROBABILITY of winning increases nearly in step (it's like .82 rho, Ill find it though)

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 21, 2006 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions

Everyone seems to have different numbers

Partly based on if they count players buyouts
August changes etcc
I got mine from here http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/default.aspx
Which showed
The Mets at 101
Dodgers at 98
Cubs at 94
Astros at 92
Rounded off

I don't argue that there is a correlation between
money and success just that the Cubs were spending
more than enough to win if they had made better decisions

FYI in a bit of irony I was the one who went after
Hendry in the Q & A last year at convention last year
re the payroll to which he responded something like
"90 million (or whatever ) is enough to win and if
I can't win with that I am no doing my job
I will look the exact quote up tomorrow because
oddly enough it ended up in both papers which
I have at home

I HATE NED COLLETTI

by jessica on Sep 21, 2006 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions

Money is relative

Money in baseball is like money in a casino. Spending big money does not guarantee you anything. But if you don't spend, you have no chance of winning. $90-$95 million should be enough to win, true. However, when you consider that a good chunk of change of this high payroll goes to the likes of Kerry Wood, Glendon Rusch, Ryan Dempster, and Jacque Jones. And if these contracts can't be unloaded (I wouldn't give up on Jones yet), then the Cubs have to bite the bullet and simply increase their payroll, because $95 million is not getting the job done.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Sep 21, 2006 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions

I think there are people

in the blogosphere with .mp3 of the q&a. might want to ask around? GROTA is where id start.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 21, 2006 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions

true

but i saw a study which states that you need only to reach a salary floor to have spent enough to be considered a contender. anything spent over that is likely to just further reduce your spending efficiency.
i think the cubs spend enough, they should just spend it much better. the current staff doesn't seem capable of spending well--THAT is the problem.
Saying the cubs need to spend more is like saying the problem with your crappy dinner is that you didn't have enough ketchup to hide the taste.

by tomas21 on Sep 21, 2006 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions

Im sure the probability is curvilinear

I dont know if there is a published study but I would assume wins are very "elastic" in respect to payroll from 60 to 90 million dollars, becoming more "inelastic" between 90-120 million, and then again becoming MUCH MORE elastic >120 million. Once a team gets past the 120 million dollar threshold they are impervious to injury (the yankees) their depth is SO GREAT literally ANYTHING can happen to the team and they won't miss a beat.

At 230-250+ million a year, the Yankees WILL MAKE EVERY PLAYOFF.

The Yankees will survive the current CBA negotiations, but I would guess after almost 20 years (the next negotiations) the league's other 29 owners will demand a salary cap (and probably floor) This will result in a player strike, it won't be pretty.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 21, 2006 7:40 PM CDT up reply actions

Um news to the Red Sox

Being over 120 million did not make THEM
impervious to injury

I HATE NED COLLETTI

by jessica on Sep 21, 2006 7:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Take a look at the Red Sox record

they are STILL 10 games over .500. they'll probably with 85-87 games AND they have a laundry list of injuries and odd ailments (even cancers) longer than that of the Cubs, the Red Sox are actually case in point. But point of fact I should have made that mark at around 135mm, that's actually probably closer to the "Impervious" threshold.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 21, 2006 7:50 PM CDT up reply actions

"with" should be "win"

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 21, 2006 7:51 PM CDT up reply actions

take out

the outliers, such as the yankees and royals, who's payrolls are so far away from the rest of the group as to not be comparable, and the relationship between winning and spending is not that strong. once you reach a certain salary threshold, which seems to be about 60 million or so, it doesn't seem to make much difference how much you spend unless you dwarf the league in spending (yankees).

the key remains to spend enough and spend it well. the cubs have gotten that half right the last few years. it seemed like when hendry got here he was starting to fix the other half, then baker ruined him.

by tomas21 on Sep 22, 2006 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions

Loud, sustained applause!!!

n/t

by Al Yellon on Sep 22, 2006 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions

You basically said what I said

above in describing my supposed curvilinear payroll elasticity curve.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 23, 2006 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions

Yabbut...

... he did it in plain English. ;)

My "applause" above is for the statement that Baker ruined Hendry. I believe this. I think Hendry got sucked into the idea that Baker was, because of his success in SF, some sort of genius, and he let Baker dictate various roster spots/acquisitions.

We know better, of course, and I think Hendry does too, which is why I think the next Cub manager will be a first-timer.

by Al Yellon on Sep 23, 2006 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions

LOL

Sometimes English is a foreign language on here. One question though, Al, is there more wishing or expecting a first-timer?

P.S. You aren't being graded on this test.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Sep 23, 2006 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions

Sounds stupid.

As most everything that Mike Murphy says usually does.

by yahoodi on Sep 21, 2006 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions

If Mike Murphy

wasn't on the Score, he'd be working the 3rd shift down at the plant. The Score is terrible. If you want intelligible sports talk, then listen to Dave Kaplan or Tom Waddle on WGN. Or Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN.

by BlueBooHoo on Sep 21, 2006 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions

OTOH

is he misstating the facts? If so, he's a liar. If he isn't, then MacPhail lied.

Certainly no one can deny that the Cubs payroll has declined the past few years while their revenue has had a substantial increase with price increases and more seats available along with the significant additional advertising revenue.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Sep 21, 2006 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions

The payroll has not declined

It is up but again not well spent

I HATE NED COLLETTI

by jessica on Sep 21, 2006 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions

You're correct

The payroll went down in 2005 but back up again this year. My apologies.

The payroll has gone up 2% per year since 2004. That's hardly in line with inflation, let alone revenue increases.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Sep 21, 2006 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions

More Hill love

Mike (Alexandria, VA) : Rob: Do you think the Cubs' Rich Hill has finally turned the corner and will be (at least) a serviceable starter for 2007? Or is this flash of brilliance merely that; a flash?

SportsNation Rob Neyer: (12:35 PM ET ) Rich Hill's really this good. He just needs to make the adjustments and/or get a bit luckier. I was never worried about him (though I was a bit worried about the Cubs' intelligence).

by VS on Sep 21, 2006 11:51 AM CDT reply actions

I know some people don't like Neyer

but I do and I think he's usually right on when he tries to identify good/bad players. I think he's right in this case, Hill can be pretty good.

by pageian on Sep 21, 2006 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions

Rich Hill

Another thing I like about Rich Hill is that he is the only young pitcher who really seemed to step up and embrace the opporunity that all of these young guys had this year....the opportunity to show what they could do at the big league level. Sean Marshall started off so well, and gradually faded as the year went on, and ditto Carlos Marmol. Hill started off so bad, but kept grinding it out, and seemed to improve each time out. Because of that, I think he has earned his job in 2007. None of these other young guys really seemed to pitch this season with any sense of urgency or opportunity, at least on a consistent basis, and that does not bode well for their futures.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Sep 21, 2006 12:42 PM CDT reply actions

I really like

Hill too. I think that some of the reason he came back strong late in the season more so than the others is his age. Maturity may have had something to do with it.

Go Hawkeyes...Beat the Illini!!!

by sue369 on Sep 21, 2006 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions

Wait a minute ...

While I wasn't completely impressed with Marmol, Guzman or Marshall either to say they missed their opportunity isn't a fair comparison. Hill is older, more experienced and had a "chance" last year. Hill has over 200 innings at AA and AAA. Marshall has less then 50.

If the Cubs had a major league rotation, neither Marmol, Guzman or Marshall would have even gotten this much of a chance this year. They would still be in AAA where they belonged.

I'm not saying that any of them will eventually assume a starting position but writing them off because they didn't take advantage this year is judging them when they shouldn't have even been here.

Personally, I see Guzman and Marmol as bullpen guys long-term. Marshall might become a decent mid-rotation guy.

by rlpete on Sep 21, 2006 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions

exactly

rich hill was barely on the radar when he was 23 & 24...

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Kennedy, Wood, Pie in CF, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 21, 2006 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions

Marmol and Guzman

True what you said about Marmol and Guzman as bullpen guys, Marmol especially. I have not seen anything impressive out of Guzman at all. Marmol is definitely a bullpen guy. Marshall is the guy that puzzles me. You're right that he doesn't have nearly the experience that Hill does, but the way he pitched in maybe his first seven or eight starts could have put him on the fast track to big league success. I saw him pitch at a couple of games I went to and he was impressive to say the least. I guess he fell victim to the oblique plague of '06 and has not been the same since. But I'm not writing him off. He could still be a consistent big league pitcher.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Sep 21, 2006 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions

I'd guess

that Marshall is worn out. He's never thrown this many innings and pitches prior to this year. To do so on a major league team only adds to the stress. Le's see how he performs next year.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Sep 21, 2006 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions

I dont know

my dyson sucks less than marshall.

Trade him if you can, but the guy is injured like Prior and Wood, without the talent.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 21, 2006 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions

More Dusty Comments...

I loved this from Dusty in the ST today, Jackson's article. Dusty again showing that what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander. More clueless hacks riding the gravy train from the inbred network of baseball managing clowns, please Hendry, please extend this monument to wasted money, nepotism, name-droppinggymnastics, and stupidity!!!

[[[[But Cubs starter Les Walrond (0-1) likely accounted for much of Baker's heartburn by walking five batters in three-plus innings. The relievers didn't help matters by surrendering two home runs.

''This club can score runs,'' Baker said of the Phillies, ''and when you're walking them, you're helping them and hurting yourself.

''Myers threw a great game against us, but at the same time what hurt us was walks and homers. I've said it a bunch of times, the same two words -- walks and homers.'']]]]]

Dusty, here' s hoping that you walk and go the f---- home at season's end! I am sure you can find needed work carrying Lasorda's water for him...

by DudeVf1 on Sep 21, 2006 2:46 PM CDT reply actions

In defense of Jacque's defense...

Baseball Prospectus has Jones with a Rate of 102 this season... so slightly above average. Granted, he's had some ridiculous looking throws, but I think those just tend to stick in the mind more than all the balls he reaches for outs. It seems that making catches is way more important than making good throws when you're an outfielder, and Jacque has done a good job getting to balls.
As long as I'm on the subject, I'd like to point out how good of a season Jacque has had - he's put up a .274 EqA, which places him 6th among NL rightfielders, behind only Abreu, Drew, Giles, Kearns, and Hawpe. Couple that with above average defense, and the Cubs are getting an above average RF performance for a little over $5M/year. To put that in perspective, we can use BP's 'MORP' statistic, which places a dollar amount on a player's performance based on recent free agent markets. When you plug Jacque's 4.4 WARP into the formula, you find that his 2006 performance has a 'fair value' of $6.6M. If he can perform anywhere near this level for 2007 and 2008, his contract would have been a real bargain. It's more likely that he'll revert to his previous performance level, but so far, Jacque's been worth the contract. If only the Cubs could find him a platoon partner...

by mportsch on Sep 21, 2006 2:59 PM CDT reply actions

I would agree...

... that offensively, he has been just about as good as we could have hoped. That's not very good -- sixth in the NL is decent, not great -- but it's better than he did the last two years.

Will it continue? Who knows?

About the defense, maybe you are right that the bad throws stick in my mind more than the catches he's made.

And you didn't mention the horrendous baserunning errors.

All told, the bottom line appears to be that Jones isn't a bad player, but he isn't really a good player either. The $5 million was hardly the worst thing the Cubs did this year.

by Al Yellon on Sep 21, 2006 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions

Good point...

the baserunning blunders aren't accounted for in this analysis. Baseball Prospectus has recently been analyzing baserunning, and they've found that the best baserunner generally contributes about 8 runs more than an average baserunner, and the worst baserunner costs his team about 8 runs worse than average. Those numbers include everything to do with baserunning - stolen bases, caught stealings, advancing on hits, advancing on outs, etc.
They only figured the statistics for past seasons, so I don't know what the 2006 number is for Jones, but we can assume it is no worse than -8 runs (he didn't showed up on the '10 worst' list for 2005, if that means anything). If that's the case, Jones would be worth 3.6 WARP instead of 4.4 WARP, which would put his fair value for 2006 around $4.9M. So, when baserunning is factored in, Jacque looks like less of a bargain, assuming he is among the worst baserunners in the league (he actually might not be, despite his high profile screwups).
Incidentally, Juan Pierre ranked as the 6th most valuable baserunner over the period from 2000-2005, with +18.64 runs contributed with his legs alone. Even more interesting, Pierre's basestealing component of the stat was actually NEGATIVE 8.85 runs - he actually would have ranked as the most valuable baserunner in baseball if he had just not tried to steal any bases (i.e. had a zero in the basestealing component). He just gets caught stealing too much. Pretty interesting stuff.

by mportsch on Sep 21, 2006 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions

Enough of

Eqa's, morp's, and all of this Baseball Prospectus crap, the guy ran the bases like a little leaguer, threw more balls around the infield that the infielders needed helmets, and his .185 average against lefties is just stellar also.
Hey I think Jones is OK, but those equations make him sound like a steal.

Throw out your Gold Teeth and see how they Roll

by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Sep 21, 2006 10:30 PM CDT up reply actions

Zito update for Santos & Friends

An article on SI site says ( GASP) that he wants
to play in Southern Californa or New York and while
he will get plenty of it thrown at him , money will
probably NOT be the deciding factor
and no have NO relation to the writer and I did not
pay him off. Here is link
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/jon_heyman/09/21/wed.scoop/index.html

I HATE NED COLLETTI

by jessica on Sep 21, 2006 3:11 PM CDT reply actions

They all say that

Blah, blah, blah. So Zito says money is not the deciding factor. Of course. They all say that. I'm sure Rafael Furcal chose L.A. over Chicago because he likes palm trees and movie stars, right? If the Cubs threw a five-year $75 million contract his way, he'd be here. It would take hypnosis by aliens for McFail and Hendry to do that, so it's not even worth discussing, but Zito is full of it. It's all about the money, 100 percent of the time. If you pay them, they will come. Period. Do you think all of those guys with the Yankees are in New York because they enjoy Broadway shows?

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Sep 21, 2006 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions

exactly

you show the check they show up

for the right price he will learn to effin love the great lakes and sausage

"Getting the current version of Maddux is a minor help. Losing Izturis, who's just a glove playing out of position on the Dodgers, is a major one. "

by ksucubbie on Sep 21, 2006 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Zito

is not coming to Chicago. He's a California guy and will end up on one of the coasts. As the premier FA pitcher, he will have enough comparable offers to choose from.

Furcal was a little different. It's not like every team needs a SS. Every team can use pitching.

by rlpete on Sep 21, 2006 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions

My friend

that is asinine. If you pay them, they will come. The rest is just fanciful platitudes.

by Santos Sorrow @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Sep 21, 2006 6:09 PM CDT up reply actions

My friend

you missed the point. Of course if the Cubs offer $25/yr, he'll be here. My point is that he'll get numerous good comparable offers. I doubt the Cubs will be that much better that he will be here.

by rlpete on Sep 22, 2006 12:36 AM CDT up reply actions

If the Cubs, LA and NY

all offer $16 million per year, he'll go to LA where he lives. Just aren't a lot of models in Chicago or an ocean...

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Durham, Wood, Lofton, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 22, 2006 1:32 AM CDT up reply actions

No

Those guys are all in New York because the Yankees have 27 World Series trophies and an owner absolutely committed to winning. Obviously the dollars help and are important. But I take Zito at his word that he wants to play in California or New York. It's been his repeated theme. Fortunately for him, the teams in New York and the Dodgers and Angels in California have ample truckloads of money to throw his way. Therefore his wish will be granted.

He is going to get $80 million easy. Probably a good deal more.

by BlueBooHoo on Sep 21, 2006 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions

Forgive the cynic in me

but if Zito wants to play in New York or L.A. it is still money-related and nothing else. If the Cubs were really comitted to getting him, they could change his mind if they gave him enough green. But they're not committed to getting him, or any other high-profile guys, so they won't get them, and that will be that.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Sep 21, 2006 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions

Yes if you are angling for the most money

It always wise to let it be known that you
really only want to play in Socal & NYC
Does everyone have a price ? Well I think
if you offered him 25 million a year for 6 years
he might be peruaded to come to Chicago
but money is often only one of several factors
ESPECIALLY when most offers are not that far
apart on some level. When you are a type A free
agent commanding 10 million plus per year
it is a LOT easier deciding to go to a winning team,
one near your home, one in huge market or whatever
you like vs a team that might offer you and extra 10 or
even 20 million over the course of multi-year contract

I wish it were as easy as throwing bags full of money
because the Cubs are in a very weak postition on the other
factors. Players in the past DID factor in playing for Dusty.
Eyre not only wanted to play for Dusty, he was excited
about playing with Maddux and of course those warm
& fuzzy Cub fans too. Money is all we have to offer now
I think Lee & Soriano CAN be gotten for bag fulls of money
but that is just my read on it.

I HATE NED COLLETTI

by jessica on Sep 21, 2006 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't think

that's news to most people. Our chances of getting him were always near zero and you just clarified that.

I just don't want Hendry to waste time pursuing him only to come up short and tell everyone....I tried.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Sep 21, 2006 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions

I'd be saying the same if I were Zito...

see if you can get a phenomenal offer that NY and/or CA must compete with...It's not like he's telling teams NOT to draft him because he won't show up. Geeze, if I were in his shoes I'd probably have my agent spread rumors about me retiring just to stir the pot, lol...

The one caveat is that he probably does want to play for a winner, so if K.C. sends a truck of grrr, he's probably not going there, lol...

But if teams like Boston, Sox, Stros, Cards, Braves, etc...Cubs????, make a significantly better offer, I can see him going there.

by DudeVf1 on Sep 21, 2006 8:02 PM CDT up reply actions

glad

you and Barry talked about his plans so you know what the scoop is : )

i personally dont care if we get Zito or not my main target would be Soriano and then go after some 2nd tier pitchers to cmplement Z , Hill and whomever else emerges from our young arms

"Getting the current version of Maddux is a minor help. Losing Izturis, who's just a glove playing out of position on the Dodgers, is a major one. "

by ksucubbie on Sep 21, 2006 3:50 PM CDT reply actions

Disagree

about us getting a second tier free agent pitcher to go along with Z/Hill/everybody else. If we have to resort to that I don't think we should even bother. Cory Lidle isn't going to make us a much better team and the money he's going to "earn" could be better spent else where. We need to go after good players, no league average at best players.

Incidentally, ESPN rumor mill had this to say about Zito's chances of playing in New York next year:

Sep 17 - When Barry Zito strikes it rich on the free agent market next season, it reportedly won't be in New York.

Multiple officials from both the Yankees and Mets told the New York Post that both clubs have no interest in signing the lefty ace this offseason.

The Mets made a run at the Astros' Roy Oswalt at the trading deadline, but stayed away from Zito. And both clubs don't consider Zito a No. 1 starter.

"Zito is no Oswalt," a Mets official told The Post.

Take that for what it's worth....

by pageian on Sep 21, 2006 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions

the scoop out of LA

is that LA will be over Zito and he'd love to stay in LA where he lives during the offseason. He loves the LA lifestyle. It's a little different than tippin cows in Kansas. ;)

SOrry, I can't provide a mathematical model to prove this all.

Forget Zito, Soriano, Schmidt, Matsuzaka & Lee. Its Eaton, Durham, Wood, Lofton, and a backup RH OF instead.

by CubFaninCA on Sep 21, 2006 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Zito and the Cubs

The question to ask: "Is Zito worth the money he is going to get?" For the Cubs the answer is a resounding NO.Everybody talks about him like he's the second coming of Koufax, but his numbers are not going to Cooperstown. Granted he will pitch 200 innings (until Rothschild trains him) and win about 14 games. How many games this year were lost because of an inability to get a timely hit or advance a baserunner? They need to spend that type of money on everday players who are going to hit the ball; a lineup that has a chance even if they go down 3 runs; hitters who play 81 games at Wrigley Field and can take advantage of the wind blowing out. Another solid starter would be great, don't blow the payroll for ONE. Get Soriano and/or Lee.

AZCubsFan

by azcubsfan on Sep 22, 2006 5:56 AM CDT reply actions