Laments that Sandberg is no longer a Cub?

[tiggerhawk]

Yeah, except for he didn't have offers from any of those teams besides the Phillies. And where are you getting the part about "assurance on tenure" and that he will be given priority when Manuel retires? I haven't seen this anywhere. What is actually true is this:

Sandberg said he took the Phillies’ job with no expectations beyond the Class AAA level. But Green acknowledged the obvious: with Phillies Manager Charlie Manuel turning 67 in January, Sandberg might again loom as a replacement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/sports/baseball/16kepner.html

So it's saying he might be a possible replacement, not that he was given any guarantee.

The NY Times article is just the transcript of his press conference opening statement. It does not deal with his responses to questions, or any of the many reports & media discussions of the negotiations over the five days from the time he was first interviewed and when he accepted a much revised offer.

What I don't understand is why you expect to find adequate coverage of a hire by a Philadelphia team in a New York newspaper. Perhaps you afe unaware that Philly is a large city in its own right? (not to mention that newspapers, radio, television all over South Jersey and Eastern PA avidly & extensiverly cover the Phillies--the saturation is far beyond what is the case in the Chicago area where the Cubs share attention with the Sox & the Bears are the 800 pound gorilla).

The dynamics of the Sandberg contract were discussed endlessly, as were the attentions from the Yankees, Red Sox, etc that forced the Phillies to keep sweetening the deal. In the process the Phillies ended up making major changes in their coaching staff, minor league managers, roving coaches etc. Most important consequence was the musical chairs that resulted as the Phillies let Davey Lopes go, moved 3B coach to the 1B job to make a place for Juan Samuel on the major league staff rather than managing Triple A, Jeff Manto was reassigned to serve as Sandberg's hitting coach, Mickey Morandini was assigned to be a lower Class A manager. And the Philles increased the money & fringe inducements very significantly, with Sandberg getting a great deal more salary than he got in Des Moines.

Of course neither Sandberg nor Phillies GM Ruben Amaro was going to confirm to the media the nuances of a possible future role as Phillies manager--they won't do something that potentially embarassing nor would any sensible GM put that kind of pressure on Sandberg from his first day on the job, nor subject Charlie Manual to months of speculation and inquiries about just when he plans to retire. Sandberg's status as heir-apparent was discussed at length by the Philly media, including guys like Stark & Conlin who are insiders and frequently are the conduit by which the Phillies front office leaks stories without attribution. I never said anything about "guarantees"; quite to the contrary, I simply noted that both parties were clearly aware that Sandberg's time as Lehigh Valley manager has obvious overtones of a tryout for a guy the Phillies have sought to hire ever since he retired as a player.

You apparently are not familiar with Dallas Green's role. He is long-retired but still has the recognition of being a "senior advisor" to the club president. Green is a pushy, meddlesome sort and in his first year as the Phillies GM, Pat Gillick told the ownership to muzzle Green and Gillick told him bluntly not to interfere.. Make no mistake about the power relationships in their organization. Gillick handpicked Amaro as his successor; Amaro is in firm control and he runs the ship with more latitude than most GMs. Green has NOTHING to do with the Phillies farm system; if he did, Sandberg would be working for the Yankees or Red Sox instead because there is no way that he would put himself in a situation where he had to deal with Green again.

 

[silvanthalas]

So by your reasoning since Hendry always makes bad moves, hiring Quade is a bad move.

Quade is a SAFE move after two high profile hires that ended in misery.

Riddle me this: How many baseball GM's survive this many hirings/firings?

Sorry my "pathetic reasoning" doesn't match up with your great logic.

No, your pathetic reasoning is you dismiss what the Cubs under Hendry did to Sandberg, all the while for some unfathomable reason defending Hendry.

If you've got a boner for the man, just admit it.

Meanwhile, you can also completely ignore all the terrible contracts that the Cubs had and still have on the books that Hendry was responsible for.

Soriano? Awful. Zambrano? Awful. Fukudome? Awful (although in that case other teams were also clamoring to sign him to an awful contract). Ramirez? Awful.

And do I even need to mention Milton Bradley? Apparently I do, as Hendry should have been fired for that alone.

Hendry has set the club back years. Meanwhile, teams with half the payroll have actually GONE to the World Series while the Cubs got swept out of the playoffs. Go on, continue to defend the absurd.

 

[hawkeyz10]

don't hire someone you can't fire. U can't fire RS

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

Quade is a SAFE move after two high profile hires that ended in misery.

Riddle me this: How many baseball GM's survive this many hirings/firings?



No, your pathetic reasoning is you dismiss what the Cubs under Hendry did to Sandberg, all the while for some unfathomable reason defending Hendry.

If you've got a boner for the man, just admit it.

Meanwhile, you can also completely ignore all the terrible contracts that the Cubs had and still have on the books that Hendry was responsible for.

Soriano? Awful. Zambrano? Awful. Fukudome? Awful (although in that case other teams were also clamoring to sign him to an awful contract). Ramirez? Awful.

And do I even need to mention Milton Bradley? Apparently I do, as Hendry should have been fired for that alone.

Hendry has set the club back years. Meanwhile, teams with half the payroll have actually GONE to the World Series while the Cubs got swept out of the playoffs. Go on, continue to defend the absurd.

You think Ramirez was signed to an awful contract? That pretty much tells me all I need to know about your baseball knowledge. Ramirez signed a 5 year/$75 M contract thru 2011. His first three years of that deal he hit .310/26 HRs/101 RBI, .289/27/111 and .317/15/65, he had a down year last year but to say it's a terrible contract is absolutely ridiculous.

I also don't think you understand the history of the Cubs if you think Hendry has set the club back years. Hendry got there in 2001, in the 11 years before him the Cubs had 0 division titles, 1 playoff appearances and 2 winning seasons. In the 9 years he's been here, the Cubs have won 3 division titles, had 5 winning seasons and been three outs from the world series. Is he the greatest GM? No, but to say he's set the Cubs back is completely wrong and goes to show your lack of baseball knowledge.

Also, there are many GMs that survive multiple manager hiring and firings. Mark Shapiro was the Indians GM for 9 years and was there for three managerial changes. Dan O'Dowd has been GM of the Rockies for 11 years and has had four different managers. Brian Sabean has been in SF for 13 years and at least three managers. And this is just off the top of my head so despite what you think, it's not uncommon at all.

 

[tiggerhawk]

You think Ramirez was signed to an awful contract? That pretty much tells me all I need to know about your baseball knowledge. Ramirez signed a 5 year/$75 M contract thru 2011. His first three years of that deal he hit .310/26 HRs/101 RBI, .289/27/111 and .317/15/65, he had a down year last year but to say it's a terrible contract is absolutely ridiculous.

Ramirez had two good seasons until his chronic shoulder problem mas made his contract a very bad one. He missed half the third year, 2009 of the contract, and had a poor year this past 2010 season both with the bat and in the field. If he were a free agent now he would do well to get a one year, $5 million offer. For their $75 million, the Cubs in essence paid $30 million a year each for two solid seasons--A-rod, Pujols kind of money.
for $75 million it was indeed a terrible contract.

I also don't think you understand the history of the Cubs if you think Hendry has set the club back years. Hendry got there in 2001, in the 11 years before him the Cubs had 0 division titles, 1 playoff appearances and 2 winning seasons. In the 9 years he's been here, the Cubs have won 3 division titles, had 5 winning seasons and been three outs from the world series.

Clearly the vastly more significant misunderstanding is yours. Those numbers actually distort the record so badly as to be meaningless.

The beginning point in any comparative analysis between teams and over time is to take into account the impact of the extremely unbalanced schedules that Selig pushed (primarily to improve the prospects of his Milwaukee club). What the unbalanced schedule means is that the Cubs play more than half their games against NL Central rivals.

In the eight years after the three division plus wild card setup was adopted and before Hendry was hired, the NL Central was the strongest of the three divisions, with the Astros the dominant team winning it four times, the Reds twice, the Cards twice (the five years before in the two division setup the Cubs won once, while the Pirates dominated the division). In short, the Cubs were playing in very strong, very competitive divisions.

In the nine years that Hendry has been in Chicago, the NL Central has been the weakest division of the three: the Pirates consistently pathetic throughout, the Brewers a losing team whose record has been better on paper than the team on the field by virtue of playing so many games in the NL Central. Same for Cincinnati, which was woeful until this past season.
The Astros were last a strong contender the year before Hendry became Cubbie GM, and for Houston as well as the Pirates & Reds their record has been better on paper than on the field because of the lesser competition of the N Central.

AS for those three Cub division winners, the cold truth is that in none of those three years were the Cubs one of even th4e top four teams in the NL--as was underlined by the quick non-competitive exits from the playoffs in 2008 & 2009.

And while the Cardinals had the players to be a consistent power through the first decade of the 21st Century, they have been plagued by serious injuries to their best players (pitching especially), the ill-advised dismissal of Walt Jocketty, front-office mistakes, etc. No team in the NL as under-achieved as significantly.

The biggest joke, though--even more than the horrid distortion of "five winning seasons" (beating up on Pirates, Reds, Brewers)--is the "three outs
from the World Series" nonsense. There probably will never be a better example of the mischief that the unbalanced schedule & the vagaries of inter-league play can cause.

In 2003 the Cubs were somewhere between the sixth and tenth best team in the NL. Not just the Braves, Giants, Marlins with much beter won-lost records, but certainly Philadelphia who lost only two more games in the powerful NL East that year, and the Dodgers with three fewer in the strong NL West (arguably, Montreal--five more, Arizona--four more in much stronger divisions, playing more more difficult schedules, would have finished ahead of the Cubs if a balanced schedule had made fair & even competitive ground for every team).

Even within the weak NL Central, the Cubs beat the Astros by a single game, the Cards by only three--despite the much easier inter-league schedule the Cubs had in comparison.

Face it, the last (of only two in the modern era) true winning Cubbies team was the Dawson-Sandberg team of 1989. That team was the best in the NL, was a pennant winner until they ran into the Giants when they were the hotter club.

Hendry has saddled the Chicago Cubs with the largest payroll in the NL over the past three, four years--and has nothing to show for it except a burden of hugely over-priced contracts that are a virtually impregnable barrier to successful, short-term rebuilding.

 

[chinahawk]

As a Cubs fan I was all for Sandberg, Hendry screwed up and I think should be on his way out. I really see one of two things happening:

1) Cubs start winning and Hendry and Quade look like a genius and no one complains
2) Cubs lose like usual and Quade gets 2 or 3 years tops as Cubs fans will be calling for Hendry and Quade's head

 

[chinahawk]

Ramirez had two good seasons until his chronic shoulder problem mas made his contract a very bad one. He missed half the third year, 2009 of the contract, and had a poor year this past 2010 season both with the bat and in the field. If he were a free agent now he would do well to get a one year, $5 million offer. For their $75 million, the Cubs in essence paid $30 million a year each for two solid seasons--A-rod, Pujols kind of money.
for $75 million it was indeed a terrible contract.

Clearly the vastly more significant misunderstanding is yours. Those numbers actually distort the record so badly as to be meaningless.

The beginning point in any comparative analysis between teams and over time is to take into account the impact of the extremely unbalanced schedules that Selig pushed (primarily to improve the prospects of his Milwaukee club). What the unbalanced schedule means is that the Cubs play more than half their games against NL Central rivals.

In the eight years after the three division plus wild card setup was adopted and before Hendry was hired, the NL Central was the strongest of the three divisions, with the Astros the dominant team winning it four times, the Reds twice, the Cards twice (the five years before in the two division setup the Cubs won once, while the Pirates dominated the division). In short, the Cubs were playing in very strong, very competitive divisions.

In the nine years that Hendry has been in Chicago, the NL Central has been the weakest division of the three: the Pirates consistently pathetic throughout, the Brewers a losing team whose record has been better on paper than the team on the field by virtue of playing so many games in the NL Central. Same for Cincinnati, which was woeful until this past season.
The Astros were last a strong contender the year before Hendry became Cubbie GM, and for Houston as well as the Pirates & Reds their record has been better on paper than on the field because of the lesser competition of the N Central.

AS for those three Cub division winners, the cold truth is that in none of those three years were the Cubs one of even th4e top four teams in the NL--as was underlined by the quick non-competitive exits from the playoffs in 2008 & 2009.

And while the Cardinals had the players to be a consistent power through the first decade of the 21st Century, they have been plagued by serious injuries to their best players (pitching especially), the ill-advised dismissal of Walt Jocketty, front-office mistakes, etc. No team in the NL as under-achieved as significantly.

The biggest joke, though--even more than the horrid distortion of "five winning seasons" (beating up on Pirates, Reds, Brewers)--is the "three outs
from the World Series" nonsense. There probably will never be a better example of the mischief that the unbalanced schedule & the vagaries of inter-league play can cause.

In 2003 the Cubs were somewhere between the sixth and tenth best team in the NL. Not just the Braves, Giants, Marlins with much beter won-lost records, but certainly Philadelphia who lost only two more games in the powerful NL East that year, and the Dodgers with three fewer in the strong NL West (arguably, Montreal--five more, Arizona--four more in much stronger divisions, playing more more difficult schedules, would have finished ahead of the Cubs if a balanced schedule had made fair & even competitive ground for every team).

Even within the weak NL Central, the Cubs beat the Astros by a single game, the Cards by only three--despite the much easier inter-league schedule the Cubs had in comparison.

Face it, the last (of only two in the modern era) true winning Cubbies team was the Dawson-Sandberg team of 1989. That team was the best in the NL, was a pennant winner until they ran into the Giants when they were the hotter club.

Hendry has saddled the Chicago Cubs with the largest payroll in the NL over the past three, four years--and has nothing to show for it except a burden of hugely over-priced contracts that are a virtually impregnable barrier to successful, short-term rebuilding.

I see your argument about the NL Central, but what about in 2007 or 2008 (i dont remember which year) when the Cubs had one of the best records in baseball and played in a tough division with the Brewers and Cards but went on to choke in the playoffs. That was a good Cubs team.

 

[VintageHawkeye]

Now ready...

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

Ramirez had two good seasons until his chronic shoulder problem mas made his contract a very bad one. He missed half the third year, 2009 of the contract, and had a poor year this past 2010 season both with the bat and in the field. If he were a free agent now he would do well to get a one year, $5 million offer. For their $75 million, the Cubs in essence paid $30 million a year each for two solid seasons--A-rod, Pujols kind of money.
for $75 million it was indeed a terrible contract.

Clearly the vastly more significant misunderstanding is yours. Those numbers actually distort the record so badly as to be meaningless.

The beginning point in any comparative analysis between teams and over time is to take into account the impact of the extremely unbalanced schedules that Selig pushed (primarily to improve the prospects of his Milwaukee club). What the unbalanced schedule means is that the Cubs play more than half their games against NL Central rivals.

In the eight years after the three division plus wild card setup was adopted and before Hendry was hired, the NL Central was the strongest of the three divisions, with the Astros the dominant team winning it four times, the Reds twice, the Cards twice (the five years before in the two division setup the Cubs won once, while the Pirates dominated the division). In short, the Cubs were playing in very strong, very competitive divisions.

In the nine years that Hendry has been in Chicago, the NL Central has been the weakest division of the three: the Pirates consistently pathetic throughout, the Brewers a losing team whose record has been better on paper than the team on the field by virtue of playing so many games in the NL Central. Same for Cincinnati, which was woeful until this past season.
The Astros were last a strong contender the year before Hendry became Cubbie GM, and for Houston as well as the Pirates & Reds their record has been better on paper than on the field because of the lesser competition of the N Central.

AS for those three Cub division winners, the cold truth is that in none of those three years were the Cubs one of even th4e top four teams in the NL--as was underlined by the quick non-competitive exits from the playoffs in 2008 & 2009.

And while the Cardinals had the players to be a consistent power through the first decade of the 21st Century, they have been plagued by serious injuries to their best players (pitching especially), the ill-advised dismissal of Walt Jocketty, front-office mistakes, etc. No team in the NL as under-achieved as significantly.

The biggest joke, though--even more than the horrid distortion of "five winning seasons" (beating up on Pirates, Reds, Brewers)--is the "three outs
from the World Series" nonsense. There probably will never be a better example of the mischief that the unbalanced schedule & the vagaries of inter-league play can cause.

In 2003 the Cubs were somewhere between the sixth and tenth best team in the NL. Not just the Braves, Giants, Marlins with much beter won-lost records, but certainly Philadelphia who lost only two more games in the powerful NL East that year, and the Dodgers with three fewer in the strong NL West (arguably, Montreal--five more, Arizona--four more in much stronger divisions, playing more more difficult schedules, would have finished ahead of the Cubs if a balanced schedule had made fair & even competitive ground for every team).

Even within the weak NL Central, the Cubs beat the Astros by a single game, the Cards by only three--despite the much easier inter-league schedule the Cubs had in comparison.

Face it, the last (of only two in the modern era) true winning Cubbies team was the Dawson-Sandberg team of 1989. That team was the best in the NL, was a pennant winner until they ran into the Giants when they were the hotter club.

Hendry has saddled the Chicago Cubs with the largest payroll in the NL over the past three, four years--and has nothing to show for it except a burden of hugely over-priced contracts that are a virtually impregnable barrier to successful, short-term rebuilding.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start. Obviously you expect Hendry to be able to predict injuries. Ramirez was an all star third baseman and was the heart of the Cubs order, at the time, his contract was an extremely reasonable deal, and no one felt like he was overpaying at the time.

You flip flop your logic as to what determines a good team several times throughout your post. According to you the 1989 Cubs were the best team in the NL despite the fact they lost to the Giants. You use complete different logic to claim the 2008 Cubs who were 97-64 weren't even one of the top four teams in the NL. Despite the fact the Cubs had a +184 run differential and the next highest was +119, despite the fact that they were 20-12 against the NL east and 21-10 against the NL west and despite the fact the NL central had four teams over .500 and the wild card came out of that division. Yet somehow they weren't one of the top four teams in the NL that year because of three games they lost in the postseason.

Yet you use completely different logic to justify why the 2003 Cubs who beat the Braves and nearly beat the Marlins were between the 6th and 10th best team in the NL. The Cubs were a .500 team until the additions of Ramirez, Kenny, Lofton and Randall Simon at the trade deadline by Hendry. The Cubs had the best NL record in Sep going 18-8 with dominate starting pitching by Wood and Prior. They beat a 101 win Braves team in the first round, and led the eventual Word Series champion Florida Marlins 3 games to 1. How is this team not one of the six best NL teams that year?

Also, you claim the Astros weren't competitive after 2001 ignoring the fact they made the playoffs in '04 and '05, winning the NL in '05.

Now, see how I use actual facts and statistics to prove my point. This is much easier than making general statements with no statistical backing, and just your uninformed opinion behind them.

 

[woodyk1]

Update ... it's not quite Flashback Friday worthy (OK, there is some good stuff in this thread), but here's an update on Ryne Sandberg.

Philadelphia Phillies add Ryne Sandberg to coaching staff - ESPN

 

[hawkfarmer]

Update ... it's not quite Flashback Friday worthy (OK, there is some good stuff in this thread), but here's an update on Ryne Sandberg.

Philadelphia Phillies add Ryne Sandberg to coaching staff - ESPN

Hmmm, seems like that same position just opened up with the cubbies

 

[iahawks912]

I for one as a Cardinal fan am perfectly happy watching the Cubs self destruct. The only thing that makes me happy'er than a Cardinal win is a Cubs lost. I have enjoyed the many Cub meltdowns over the past 10...20... oh heck every since I have been alive and I look forward to many more in the future. The Cubs never fail to disapoint