People in Chicago can count real good

In Commentary And Analysis, News And Rumors by Obstructed View Staff77 Comments

I love Dusty Baker. I'm not afraid to say it. I'm not a fan of the way he manages, though he does seem to be improving. I like hearing the dude talk. Man, he makes me laugh. Now he's wishing Dale Sveum good luck and let me be the 87,965th person to tell you this: all the luck in the world ain't gonna save Dale Sveum's job in Chicago. That's just how it is with the Cubs. If the manager doesn't win, he's hated. That simple. Cubs aren't going to be doing much winning and by mid-summer the Thoyer love affair will have grown old for some who will have already been expecting significant improvement. I'm telling you, patience is not something Cubs fans have. But back to Dusty.

“Patience is a real virtue here,” Dusty Baker said Monday. “They’ve been patient for a hundred years. That’s a hard sell in Chicago – more patience. They might be patient for a little while, but unlike any other place I’ve been, people count. They can add real good in Chicago. Everybody – men, women and children.”

This season is going to be interesting. For one thing, we might get extended looks at top prospects like Brett Jackson and Anthony Rizzo. It's even possible we get to see newly signed Gerardo Concepcion at some point though I think t's unlikely. Maybe Josh Vitters turns a corner and figures out which pitches are out of the zone. Perhaps Trey McNutt puts the blister issues behind him and takes a big step forward.

The season will also be interesting to see in which ways the Cubs make changes to the roster. The draft is coming in June. The trade deadline follows about 7 to 8 weeks later. Who will still be in Chicago? Who do they acquire? The international free agent signing period will begin. Like the draft, they're limited by how much they can spend, but do they come away with a top prospect or two? By season's end are we talking about how Ian Stewart is beginning to show flashes of what made him an MLB top prospect a few years ago? Or are we talking about how the Cubs need to get rid of him and let just about anyone else play the position?

Maybe at that point the Cubs can start fielding a consistently good team and a manager can stick around longer than that.

Finally, what are Cubs fans going to be thinking? We already know they aren't interested in the team right now. They can't even sell tickets to the opening of Theo and Jed, Part 1. it's already clear the box office sales for the first installment will flop. Can they show even the slightest improvement over the year to make fans want to show up for Part 2? If not, what happens to their value when their WGN contract runs out after the next sequel? If fans aren't watching, they're not going to get maximum value in any tv deal. How can they get asses in the seats in 2014 if they suck in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013?

Related to that, just how impatient will the fans be? There's no point in asking how patient they will be. It's not a matter of them being patient or not. At some point soon they will lose it and turn on Thoyer. It's a matter of time. The question is just how much they're going to turn and how many of them? Does the media?

Getting back to Dale Sveum's shelf life, it won't be long. Two years. Maybe three. You have to go back to Jim Riggleman to find a Cubs manager who lasted more than 4 years. That was during a time when the Tribune couldn't have cared less how the Cubs did. Those teams won 73, 76, 68, 90 and 67 games. After Riggleman you have to go back to Leo Durocher's 6+ years as the team's manager from 166 through part of the 1972 season. Since Durocher, few Cubs managers have lasted more than 3 years. Zimmer lasted 3+. Didn't make it to 4. Don Baylor almost reached 3. Baker managed 4 years. Lou managed 3+.

Based on how likely it is the Cubs contend at any point in the next 2 to 3 years, I don't see how Dale Sveum sticks around longer than that. In my opinion, the best he can hope to claim is being a part of the better Cubs teams that come after he's been let go. So go ahead, get to know Dale Sveum. Just don't get too attached. He won't be around more than 3 years.

Share this Post

Comments

  1. Author
    Rice Cube

    After Riggleman you have to go back to Leo Durocher’s 6+ years as the team’s manager from 166 through part of the 1972 season.

    That’s, like, a long-ass time, man.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  2. Author
    Rice Cube

    He won’t be around more than 3 years.

    I think he does have a three year contract (might have an option for year four) so if he doesn’t at least get them incrementally better each year, then I agree. Unfortunate and unfair, but that’s the way it is I suppose.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  3. Aisle424

    Damn you, MB. I was actually going to write something on this, but I’ll just have to settle on a comment.

    I think the fans will be as patient as the media is. As long as the media is busy sucking off Theo, Hoyer, and by extension, Tommy Boy, the fans will shrug and wait. That doesn’t mean they’re going to show up and pay the kind of prices the Rickettses insist on charging to watch bad baseball in a rotting ballpark, but I think the booing will be less this year (except in the cases of holdovers from the Hendry era – Soriano for sure, Marmol, maybe even Dempster).

    The marketing department is helping a little by not promising that THIS IS THE YEAR or other nonsense, so expectations are low. I worry they’ll start a little hot and falsely raise expectations, but the odds of that are pretty low. They’ll get manhandled by Strasburg on Opening Day to set the tone.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  4. Berselius

    Aisle424 wrote:

    (except in the cases of holdovers from the Hendry era – Soriano for sure, Marmol, maybe even Dempster).

    I don’t think we’ll see much Dempster-booing. Probably just a return of the “Dumpster” nickname being commonly thrown around.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  5. Aisle424

    Berselius wrote:

    I don’t think we’ll see much Dempster-booing. Probably just a return of the “Dumpster” nickname being commonly thrown around.

    When he can’t throw a strike it will get to people. He’s most coated with Teflon of the high-salary guys remaining though.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  6. Author
    Rice Cube

    Do you think the Cubs can realistically make three million fans this coming season? I guess if nobody’s buying tickets they might be in a bit of a bind when it comes time to buy up some expensive free agent pitching etc.

    I’m also guessing that they figured something like this would happen with such a shitty team and have contingency plans and reserves to wait out the suckiness.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  7. Berselius

    Berselius wrote:

    Payroll page updated. I have the Cubs at $114m, including the Z and Pena money as well as Concepcion’s signing.

    Oddly enough that figure would put the Cubs below both the Brewers (115.8) and Cardinals (118.7), at least by b-ref’s numbers

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  8. Author
    Suburban kid

    Rice Cube wrote:

    I think he does have a three year contract (might have an option for year four) so if he doesn’t at least get them incrementally better each year, then I agree. Unfortunate and unfair, but that’s the way it is I suppose.

    Starting from where they are starting, I think it’s very likely that they will get incrementally better each of the next three seasons.

    The question is, if you go from 70 to 74 to 79 wins, do you get your contract renewed for any longer than one year?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  9. Author
    WaLi

    @ Mish:
    I didn’t read all of yesterday’s, but this one seems better. At least there is no mention of Brenly (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  10. Author
    mb21

    @ Aisle424:
    You should go ahead and write something. It sounds like you have a different take on this than I do. I think the media will be influential, but I also think the fans are equally influential on the media. In other words, when the fans are getting pissed off and booing at the games, it’s going to affect what the media writes, which then influences even more people.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  11. Author
    mb21

    Suburban kid wrote:

    Starting from where they are starting, I think it’s very likely that they will get incrementally better each of the next three seasons.

    They can’t get worse so Sveum has that going for him. I just don’t think they’re going to get all that much better either. Outside of Brett Jackson and Anthony Rizzo the Cubs don’t have anything in the minors that’s going to be providing much value until the 2011 draft picks start showing up (if they even do). Best case scenario in my opinion is that Baez and maybe Maples fly through the minors and reach the big leagues in 3 years. The worst case scenario is the Houston Astros.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  12. Author
    mb21

    I love that berselius used “stercus ad temere intempestivo temporibus” for the group motto on the ESPN bracket. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  13. Author
    Mish

    Berselius wrote:

    Payroll page updated. I have the Cubs at $114m, including the money owed Carlos Silva and the costs in determining whether Aramis had a mutual option or not.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  14. Aisle424

    mb21 wrote:

    I love that berselius used “stercus ad temere intempestivo temporibus” for the group motto on the ESPN bracket. (dying laughing)

    That is good. I used, “Don’t tell me what to do.” I also considered, “Al is a cunt.”

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  15. Author
    EnricoPallazzo

    mb21 wrote:

    I love that berselius used “stercus ad temere intempestivo temporibus” for the group motto on the ESPN bracket. (dying laughing)

    what exactly does this mean? google translate tells me that it means “poop at random times ill-timed” so i’m guessing there is something that is being lost in translation…

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  16. Aisle424

    EnricoPallazzo wrote:

    what exactly does this mean? google translate tells me that it means “poop at random times ill-timed” so i’m guessing there is something that is being lost in translation…

    I don’t remember what it means exactly, but something like “Poorly timed random shit”

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  17. Aisle424

    Aisle424 wrote:

    I don’t remember what it means exactly, but something like “Poorly timed random shit”

    It was funny when we were designing the site for some reason.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  18. Author
    Suburban kid

    @ Mish:
    It’s a tough time for you right now Mish. Hopefully the Cubs and blog commenting can provide some level of pleasant diversion from the shit you’re dealing with.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  19. Author
    Mucker

    Mish, sorry about your friend. If you don’t mind, what kind of cancer? It just really scares me to hear about a 30 year old dying from cancer.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  20. mb22

    Random shit at inopportune times if I recall correctly. AC would have to verify as he’s the one who translated it. Like 424 said, it was just something that made us laugh in the few weeks it was just us 4 discussing the site before we launched it. It’s worked out pretty well since here were are a year later and people are still asking about it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  21. Author
    Mish

    @ Mucker:
    It was a type of brain cancer. The real problem was that the cancer grew down his spinal cord, limiting his motor skills. It is a very rare occurence for a brain cancer to spread as such, and it was basically crushing his spinal cord. He hadn’t been in the office since December.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  22. Berselius

    Also, how many teams is Stan Kasten going to buy? I wouldn’t be surprised to find out he’s a slient partner in the Ricketts purchase of the team too (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  23. Author
    Mucker

    Mish wrote:

    @ Mucker:
    It was a type of brain cancer. The real problem was that the cancer grew down his spinal cord, limiting his motor skills. It is a very rare occurence for a brain cancer to spread as such, and it was basically crushing his spinal cord. He hadn’t been in the office since December.

    Yeah, my great grandfather died from brain cancer. He was 82 and he couldn’t form sentences and could hardly walk. It was sad watching him deteriorate so fast. He was a WW2 marine that had the strongest hand shake I’ve ever shook. Cancer sucks.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  24. Author
    Mucker

    Regarding this managerial subject, how much credit or blame does a manager get? It seems that most good managers have good players. Most shitty managers have shitty players. Svuem should’nt be judged by his win or loss record because that’s out of his control. But he should be judged by things he can control like leaving a pitcher in too long, letting a pitcher hit and taking him out after one batter in the next inning or giving stupid fucking nicknames that aren’t even nicknames but rather shortening somebodies first or last name and adding a “ey” to the end of it. You know, shit like that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  25. Berselius

    @ mb21:

    I’m sad for your loss too Mish. Just feeling a little overwhelmed with death these days. One of my HS classmates died in a Marine helicopter crash a few weeks ago, and my wife’s grandfather died yesterday. Sad days all around.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  26. Author
    josh

    I’m still retaining some modest hope that the Cubs will compete in a couple of years. I know it’s unrealistic, but I feel like some free agent chips could end up falling into place, and I like the moves they’ve made, though obviously they need a few more pieces to make it all work. I think Sveum will be judged at least partly on his ability to make the best of what he’s been given, at least teamwise. If he can coax this team into winning .500 within the next two seasons, that’ll be a big boost for him, and maybe justify making a couple of bigger splash type moves. Anyway, I guess I’m saying that this year will be more about making due, but I’m still optimistic, overall.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  27. Author
    WaLi

    josh wrote:

    I’m still retaining some modest hope that the Cubs will compete in a couple of years. …… Anyway, I guess I’m saying that this year will be more about making due, but I’m still optimistic, overall.

    Run away!

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  28. Author
    Mish

    Sorry to hear, b. I don’t usually bring my troubles to work (a.k.a. this blog) but the emotion in the office is too heavy to talk to anyone here.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  29. Author
    EnricoPallazzo

    Berselius wrote:

    Dodgers sale news. McCourt/the Dodgers are at least $701m in debt. Yowza. http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5626:while-lower-offer-steve-cohens-900m-cash-equity-for-dodgers-sets-the-bar&catid=70:mlb-club-sales&Itemid=157

    wait, the top bid was $1.6b? what the fuck? how are the dodgers worth 2x the cubs? on the surface, the buyers don’t seem to be getting any more than the Ricketts got (i.e. team/stadium/partial media stake/etc). even if you add a few hundred million for the fact that dodger stadium is worth more than wrigley, i still don’t see how this makes sense…

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  30. Berselius

    @ EnricoPallazzo:

    I think a big part of it is the massive new TV deal that the Dodgers are on the verge of signing. The Cubs are still stuck in their lousy WGN/CSN deal. IIRC the Dodgers were selling their rights for ~10 times that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  31. Author
    mb21

    @ EnricoPallazzo:
    The Dodgers are a fan favorite among many people out West. They were the first team out there. They also still have loyal fans out East. The Dodgers are right there with the Red Sox when it comes to popularity and both only trail the Yankees. I think the Cubs are more in the Giants, Cardinals and Mets range. We’ve talked a lot about how the Cubs have drawn fans because they lose, but I think that’s only limited the number of new fans. People who get interested in the sport or who are looking for a team to root for generally pick the good ones. The Cubs haven’t attracted those fans since the early 1900s. If the Cubs run off a decade or two of excellent seasons I think they’ll pull ahead of the Giants, Mets and Cardinals, but probably still won’t equal the Red Sox and Dodgers.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  32. Author
    mb21

    It helps that the NL Central is one of the weaker divisions, but the Cubs’ rebuilding has barely broken ground at this point — the new front office has barely had a chance to clear the land. Their moves this winter, other than the trade of reliever Andrew Cashner for first base prospect Anthony Rizzo and pitcher Zack Cates, were largely about moving money around and keeping the 2012 product respectable without making dangerous long-term commitments such as the one wandering aimlessly around left field these days. (And it should be quite respectable, maybe even a little better if their gambles on starting pitchers whose peripheral stats were better than their ERAs work out.)

    Chicago’s farm system is thin up top but has a lot of high-risk, high-upside players in its lowest levels; even their extended spring training club will be fun to watch this year. But the Cubs’ best chance to engineer a turnaround will probably come from trades, starting with Matt Garza but perhaps extending to players such as Geovany Soto or Carlos Marmol if they can re-establish their value with solid 2012 performances; they bought low on Ian Stewart and Chris Volstad and could end up selling high if either player fulfills his former first-round promise in the next two years.

    By the 2013-14 offseason, they’ll have a significant amount of cash to spend but only a handful of less expensive players in significant roles, so cashing in Garza for the maximum return looks like the critical step in their rebuilding process.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  33. Author
    EnricoPallazzo

    Berselius wrote:

    I think a big part of it is the massive new TV deal that the Dodgers are on the verge of signing. The Cubs are still stuck in their lousy WGN/CSN deal. IIRC the Dodgers were selling their rights for ~10 times that.

    it was like $150m, right? add that to the $845m that the cubs sold for and then add $100m for the increased value of dodger stadium and you’re at $1.1b. nowhere near the $1.6b bid. hell, add $300m for the stadium and you still fall short of the top bid by 19%. and this is assuming that the dodgers are as marketable of a franchise as the cubs, which i don’t think is the case.

    not saying you’re wrong, i just don’t get where that number came from.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  34. Aisle424

    I don’t agree with all the hate directed at him, but this would be the best news the Cubs could possibly get this year if it were to come true:

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  35. Author
    EnricoPallazzo

    mb21 wrote:

    The Dodgers are right there with the Red Sox when it comes to popularity and both only trail the Yankees. I think the Cubs are more in the Giants, Cardinals and Mets range.

    well that would explain it then. i guess i figured that the cubs were in the red sox tier whereas the dodgers would be with the giants/mets but i don’t really have any backup for this and now that i think about it, it seems like it’s probably wrong.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  36. Author
    mb21

    @ Aisle424:
    I don’t hate him either, but I’d much rather he be playing and earning money somewhere else. Most of all, I’d just prefer the Cubs not be paying him. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  37. Berselius

    Some quick googling around was that the deal “could be worth” over $3b over 17 seasons, though MLB valued it at around $1.7b. The deal was nixed by MLB because there was an upfront $385m number that they didn’t want to be thrown into that divorce mess. I’m not sure what has been worked out since but I think the overall number should be somewhere around there.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  38. Author
    mb21

    @ EnricoPallazzo:
    The Dodgers and Giants benefit from being located on each coast. The fans out East are dwindling of course, but they’re still there. Especially for the Dodgers who are a national brand. Of the teams out West, the Dodgers have been, by far, the most successful of all of them. it’s partly why the Cardinals are worth so much money. Among all the teams in the Midwest none have been more successful than the Cardinals. That attracts large numbers of fans. I’m pretty sure if the Cubs had begun winning around the time I was a fan that we’d be talking about which is more profitable: Cubs or Red Sox? No team is going to catch the Yankees. Not only are they a national brand, but they have a lot of international fans too.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  39. Author
    GBTS

    Many condolences, Mish. Cancer fucking sucks.

    If I were on my home computer I’d offer a Yellon photoshop of your choice. Consider it an open offer.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment