Ben Christensen was supposed to be another fire-balling weapon in the Cubs young-armed arsenal.

Christensen was a first round pick by the Cubs in the '99 draft, the first draft after Kerry Wood's debut season.  And at 6'4" the righty out of the central plains would hope to soon join Wood as the Cubs Gunslingers.  

But Christensen notes his 30th birthday today far removed from pitching mounds in pro ballparks.

The stud left Wichita State with a .955 winning percentage, not because he was drafted.  He was suspended.

In April 1999, Christensen intentionally threw a warm-up pitch in the direction of on-deck hitter Anthony Molina.  He hit Molina in the face.  Molina never played professional ball and later sued Christiansen.

Despite the beaning and the subsequent negative press, the Cubs spent their first round pick on Christensen.

Christensen spent parts of six seasons in the Cubs' minor leagues earning more notoriety for that one warm-up pitch than for anything he did as a Cub farmhand. He was released in 2004.  Seattle picked him up, but after walking 10 in 8 double-A innings, he was cut again and his professional career was over.

I'm not sure if it was the beaning that psychologically hampered his development, or the shoulder woes he would eventually suffer, or if he was just another first rounder that didn't have the talent to make the majors.

Christensen continues to be an example of any management's desire to win taking precedence over what its fans consider 'right':

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/slezak/740900,CST-SPT-carol15.article

Christensen, to me, will never seem far removed from that 21-year-old kid with a momentary but critical lapse in judgment.  It surprised me to see he's 30 now.  As a Cub fan, to me it's ancient history. I've moved on.  

But I wonder if he has.
 

There's a sense that some would rather have the Cubs lose now for a better chance of winning later.

Some want to win now, regardless of how that may affect player/personnel moves this winter.

If the Cubs could go 36-14 and win the Wild Card, but it meant a two-year extension for Baker, would you choose that?

If the Cubs could go 14-36 and lose 100 games, and Baker would be gone, would you choose that?

How bad do you want Baker gone?

Has any division in history looked so bad for so long?  

Games played since May 28th:

CIN  27-30  .473
STL  26-30  .464
CUB  26-31  .456
HOU  25-31  .446
MIL  25-33  .431
PIT  24-34  .414

Over a whole season .473 = 77-85.  That's for your 'best' team.

And this division might send two teams to the playoffs.

The Cubs have played as well as anyone in the division for more than two months now:  
   They were 13.5 GB on May 28.  
   They are 14 GB now.  

The Cubs may be bad, but bad is a relative term in this neighborhood.  'Bad' is the new 'average'.

Bottom line:  It's not going to take an overhaul for the Cubs to win the NLC in '07.  

Jeremy Papelbon, the Cubs' 19th round pick this year, is rolling at Boise.

He is 3-0, 0.79 ERA, 2 sv, Opp BA .118.  Jeremy's brother Jon is the Red Sox' closer.

Also doing well at Boise is former hot prospect Billy Petrick.  The 6'6" RHP is 5-0, 2.23.  He missed last year with shoulder surgery.

The Cubs' top pick in '06, Tyler Colvin, is batting .313 with 4 HR, 24 RBI.  He had 5 hits last night.

Boise is 23-15 and lead the division.

Firing the man on the top step of the Cubs dugout seems like a fitting and just conclusion to the disappointment we've felt since mid-October 2003.  A team that has looked punch-drunk ever since a game-tying 3-run HR by Victor Diaz on Sept. 25, 2004 (losing 132 times and logging just a .450 winning percentage since), we've been waiting for this team to play up to its expectations.

Dusty Baker may or may not lead this team to its next winning season. Only Jim Hendry knows for sure.  But recent Cub history and some currently existing and not easily changeable elements show that making the manager the fall guy in mid-season leads to more disappointment and an inability to judge the replacement fairly.

The new manager will be using the same personnel as Baker.  

Casey Stengel would have the same options if he was managing the Cubs: bat Neifi 2nd or 7th, start Bynum in LF or RF tonight, would Z have the same chance of Mabry of a late-inning pitch-hit.  I dare anyone to make a winner with the 25 men (24 at this point) that Dusty has had at his disposal during the first 2 months of the season.   More ABs from Bynum (70), Womack (67) and Blanco (63) than Derrek Lee (44)??  Rich Hill and Angel Guzman equaling Wood's start totals (4)??  Or Jay Kuk U. matching Prior (1)??   Could any manager anywhere win consistently with players like that to choose from?

The new manager would bring in a new set of coaches and new philosophies.  

That works well in spring training.  But its success in mid-season is less probable than a crapshoot.  Think of human nature when a substitute teacher is brought in.  A new boss at work.  A new step-father.  The threshold of success, even the threshold of tolerance is often set so high that instant gratification...any gratification... is nearly unheard of. "A new hitting coach, huh?  Great.  I wonder how this guy is going to try to change me."  Players, already sensing that the season is a lost cause, now get confirmation from the organization when the manager and coaches they've been listening to for years are gone and a new group of men that likely all players have never met, and in some cases, never heard of comes in to try to divert a last place finish.  If introductions are made in February and the team has a chance to get to know the players for six weeks when win-loss records don't count and players have a chance to adjust, changes can be productive.  But when changes are made mid-season, you risk players tuning out, turning off and showing even less drive.  Managers, some living their ultimate dream for the first time, will choose the mediocre sure thing over developing a rookie anyday (see Fred McGriff vs. Hee Seop Choi).

The 29 best managers have a job right now.

The selection is thin on the managerial store shelves at this time of the season.  During the winter, you might get to reel in the big name coming off a successful tenure elsewhere.  Even in September, you might snag a guy that was fired by a different yet equally disappointed organization.  But finding the kind of guy that you'd want to "see what they can do with this team" in the last 100 games often turns disastrous.  Since Whitey Lockman replaced Leo Durocher in 1972 and when 39-26 (.600) to lead the team to a 2nd place finish, mid-season Cub replacements have failed, and in some cases failed miserably.

1974 - Whitey Lockman is replaced by Jim Marshall, who goes 22-44 (.362) as the team finished last.

1983 - Lee Elia is replaced by Charlie Fox, who goes 17-22 (.436) as the team finished fifth.

1986 - Jim Frey is replaced by Gene Michael, who goes 46-56 (.451) as the team finished fifth.

1987 - Gene Michael is replaced by Frank Lucchesi, who goes 8-17 (.320) as the team finished last.

1991 - Don Zimmer is replaced by Jim Essian, who goes 59-63 (.484) as the team finished fourth.

2002 - Don Baylor is replaced by Bruce Kimm who goes 33-45 (.423) as the team finished fifth.

There is no guarantee of improvement over the deposed manager, no indication in any of these hirings that the team hired the 'right man', no indication that "all this team needs is to get rid of that bum and bring in fresh blood."  Look again at that list:

Jim Marshall
Charlie Fox
Gene Michael
Frank Lucchesi
Jim Essian
Bruce Kimm

Is there anyone available right now that wouldn't end up on this list in a couple years for future Cub fan to mock?  All were arguably good baseball men.  But were they better than Leo Durocher, Jim Frey or Don Zimmer?  They were brought into a situation in which success wasn't possible.  The candidate pool is so shallow that it's nearly impossible to find anyone that can single-handed turn this team, or any bad team around.

Does Baker deserve to continue managing the Cubs?  Would he have been better with a better team?  Perhaps, as he certainly came here with a winning record.  Would things have been different with Prior, Wood and Lee healthy?  Should he be blamed for the injuries?  Should Hendry?  Maybe.  But the bigger question is: Is there someone out there that, if filling out the line-up card in Cleveland tonight, would actually get better results on the field than Baker?