I didn't see anything else about this, so I thought I'd pass it along to see reactions.  Though I am reluctant to give Rick Morrissey any credit, his article does highlight this detail about Girardi's tenure in Florida (which, I suppose, should be obvious):

"But it needs to be pointed out the Marlins have a history of fielding low-budget teams and having success. They scout well. The short story: The Marlins' success this season wasn't a solo production."

I'm not saying Girardi fits or he doesn't, but looking back over the Marlins' long-term low-budget success (must we Cub fans be reminded?) is a nice wake-up call to reconsider just how much impact Girardi's really had.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-060923morrissey,1,5969800.column?col l=cs-home-utility

peace,
hoosiercubbie

I know i shouldn't fall for these, but this one feels like it has a little more teeth than the Padres rumor from yesterday, courtesy of The Chicago Tribune.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-060727cubsside,1,1852543.story?coll=cs-home-headlines oll=cs-home-headlines

The thing that grabs my attention is that "Maddux has agreed to go to a contender, perhaps even to New York, which previously was believed to be off limits."  These are two revelations I hadn't heard before.

Anyway, take with a grain of salt, chew up, then spit out.

peace,
hoosiercubbie

I deliberately phrased that title in such a convoluted manner, so as to reflect the abstract tired-ness of this whole discussion.  Nonetheless, I think we have to live with this at least until the trade deadline.

Anywho, for what its worth (and I'm sure its not much), another Maddux-to-the-Padres story has popped up, this time in the Sun-Times, which I respect enough to notice.  Here's the link:

<http://suntimes.com/output/cubs/cst-spt-cubnt26.html>

I didn't see anything else about this on BCB, so I thought I'd take two seconds to throw it out there for you all.

Do I think it will happen, no.  And I'm sure Jessica doesn't think so either. :)

peace,
hoosiercubbie

Reading today's Trib, I got really annoyed by the implication in David Haugh's article, "Its Still Baker's Team," that the Cubs might be playing harder to save Dusty's job--that they've been winning since knowledge of Hendry's "evaluation" first surfaced.  It sounds good that perhaps Dusty's still wanted by the players and there's hope that he can still turn this team around (which I hope is the case), but I can't help but feel that what's really going on here is that the players are only playing just hard enough to keep things the same.

I don't mean to dump on Dusty more, and I certainly don't claim to know who would do any better in the short-term as manager.  However, its very frustrating that the current Cubs might be trying only hard enough to keep the laid-back Dusty in charge, and then as soon as perhaps his job is safe for the time being again they'll slack off like they've been doing for the last two years.

It smacks of the free agent-to-be who only bothers to try to win when his future stability is in doubt.  On the surface, it sounds great--"oh, the players play hard for Dusty when his job's on the line."  But, read between the lines, and it sounds more like, "the players are just trying to preserve the status quo of their own comfort zone."

And I guess this bothers me too, because it taps into the one problem I've always had with Baker--his Cubs teams, at least, always play the best when they've got nothing to lose, just like they play their worst when they've got everything to lose.

It seems to be a never-ending circle.  As much as I want to see the Cubs win immediately and keep winning, I cannot help but feel that they are trapped in this cycle.

And no, its not because I think he can do anything with this year's group.  I agree with what has already been said about Baker.  Namely, "what's the point in firing him if there's no one better to do the job?"  True enough.

But I was thinking on my way in today that a fire sale is likely and should be on the horizon--or at least, say July.  I just don't see how our injured players coming back are going to turn this around before the trade deadline.

I think the single biggest problem with the Cubs in terms of a larger vision is that they keep thinking they can re-patch together the 2003 team.  Put Lee here.  Bring Maddux in here.  Get Pierre.  Get a closer, bullpen, etc.  But the reality is that there just isn't that veteran nucleus anymore.  So, the team needs to be gutted entirely.  I mean, WS "White Flag" sale type gutting.  Keep A-Ram, Lee, maybe Barrett among the veteran position players.  Hold onto Prior, Wood and Z.  Trade away every other veteran to desperate contenders for the best you can get for them--including all that quality bullpen help, which will probably get you the most back.

Really, truly, go young.  Start over.  I know that is not what we Cub fans want to think or hear, but to deny it is to live in `03 forever, when that window has slammed shut.  It can't be piece-mealed back together.

And this is why I think Pinella is a good idea.  His best (somewhat) recent success was in Seattle where he could manage a talented young team.  Yes, he failed in Tampa Bay with youth, but there he didn't have the talent or the payroll to win.  I think he might have better luck here, since this franchise needs to go young anyway.  No, he can't win with the Cubs' current roster, but he might be able to with the subsequent one.  He seems like a manager better suited to youth than to veterans.

So, my point is--if the Cubs are going to switch directions like this later in the season (and why not?)--then they need a Pinella-type anyway for the next generation of Cubs.

And, in any case, if Dusty does go, I'd just really like not to see another laid-back type, after all the recent managers we've had--Baylor, Kimm, Dusty, and so forth.  Dusty was right for the `03 team--but again, that's gone.  I don't see how a laid-back guy is going to win with youth, and that's the reality of the Cubs right now.

peace.

  According to ESPN.com, Clemens is not coming back to the Astros next year, or at least, he can't until May 1.  Any thoughts on whether or not the Cubs could woe him away from retirement (it sounds more like a money issue than anything else)? Any thoughts on whether or not they should want to?  I don't even know how I feel about it for health reasons, but the Cubs need another starter and can afford him--if he's upset with the Astros for not offering arbitration and feels the competitive desire one more time, who knows?