PDA

View Full Version : Is Lou the Difference?


soxwon
08-01-2007, 09:14 PM
My wife asked me this. Is it Lou Pinella making the difference with the cubs?
Meaning if Dusty was still managing them, with this years players, would the Cubs be as good as they are?
Suppose Ozzie was managing the Cubs, would they be as good as Lou Managing them, Or Dusty managing them?
Its a good question.

I personally think yes definetly Lou has been the difference.
Dusty would not have as much luck, But Ozzie would have them where they are at today.

What do you think?

the1tab
08-01-2007, 09:23 PM
Lou has made a huge difference on the North side because he's actually got the "intestinal fortitude" to make changes until he figures it out, and admits when he's wrong. He, like Ozzie, is one of very few managers that will accept blame and criticize himself. An accepted contradiction to Dusty Baker, who sat back and chewed on his $5 toothpicks and watched his team fail, and then proclaimed to the media "We really tried hard, though."

There is, however, one huge difference OTHER than Lou on the North Side, something I hope KW takes notice of: Jim Hendry took care of his bullpen in 2006, and then loaded the roster w/ versatile bats coming into 2007. Guys like The Riot, Fontenot, and Mark DeRosa can all play all four infield positions and appear to do each at an above-average ability level. They can also hit. He also picked up Cliff Floyd, but handicapped him by keeping Jacque Jones and Angel Pagan. The Cubs have 12 position players that get regular at bats, all of whom are good major league players.

Kinda reminds me of another team's roster in 2005...

soxinem1
08-01-2007, 11:04 PM
Other than his time in TB, Lou is one of the best handlers of a bullpen. We all know what went wrong there in TB.

With NYY, CIN, SEA, and now the cubs, the pens he has put together have been top of the line. He has not been afraid to use rookies in tough situations, and he has revamped this bullpen without much fanfare to a very effective group.

He is similar to Ozzie but I think Lou has been by far better at developing players, hands down.

And his 'tell it like it is' brashness is a great throwback to a time when Managers didn't kiss players asses like most do today.

So I'd say yes, he has definitely made a difference. And versus Dusty, who was nothing more than an oxygen tank in the dugout, that is a big step up.

Brian26
08-01-2007, 11:12 PM
My wife asked me this. Is it Lou Pinella making the difference with the cubs?
Meaning if Dusty was still managing them, with this years players, would the Cubs be as good as they are?
Suppose Ozzie was managing the Cubs, would they be as good as Lou Managing them, Or Dusty managing them?
Its a good question.

I personally think yes definetly Lou has been the difference.
Dusty would not have as much luck, But Ozzie would have them where they are at today.

What do you think?

A question so good, it had to be on more than one message board.

oeo
08-01-2007, 11:23 PM
There is, however, one huge difference OTHER than Lou on the North Side, something I hope KW takes notice of: Jim Hendry took care of his bullpen in 2006, and then loaded the roster w/ versatile bats coming into 2007. Guys like The Riot, Fontenot, and Mark DeRosa can all play all four infield positions and appear to do each at an above-average ability level. They can also hit. He also picked up Cliff Floyd, but handicapped him by keeping Jacque Jones and Angel Pagan. The Cubs have 12 position players that get regular at bats, all of whom are good major league players.

Hendry has gotten awfully lucky so far this year. Theriot, Fontenot, Marmol, Hill, Marshall? None in Hendry's plans.

DickAllen72
08-01-2007, 11:57 PM
Lou has his team in first place. Any manager that can get a sorry-ass team like the Cubs in first place on August first deserves a lot of credit.

Lou has a track record of being one of the best managers in baseball. He's proving that once more.

I still hope the Cubs fall flat on their faces again. After all, they're still the Cubs.

esbrechtel
08-02-2007, 12:24 AM
Hendry has gotten awfully lucky so far this year. Theriot, Fontenot, Marmol, Hill, Marshall? None in Hendry's plans.
AMEN...luck has alot to do with it...not to mention Marquis at the beginning of the year...

pierzynski07
08-02-2007, 12:29 AM
Hendry has gotten awfully lucky so far this year. Theriot, Fontenot, Marmol, Hill, Marshall? None in Hendry's plans.
And neither was Jenks. And that turned out pretty well.

oeo
08-02-2007, 12:38 AM
And neither was Jenks. And that turned out pretty well.

Yeah, Jenks is comparable to five other guys. :rolleyes:

My point is, Hendry shouldn't get any credit here. The reason they're winning with the team they have now is because Piniella made the changes to do that. Hendry's plan was to have Izturis at short, Derosa at second, Barrett at C, Soriano in center, Jones in right, Murton in left (I think), and in the rotation...Wade Miller and I forget who else (Guzman or Marmol). So to answer the original poster's question, yes Lou is the difference. Dusty Baker would have never made those changes.

Hendry did not assemble a great team, they've had guys step up and it has become a good team (aka, he's one lucky mother****er). We'll see, though, if their younger guys can keep it up (Theriot, Fontenot, Marmol, Marshall, Hill), because that's what is going to make or break their postseason chances...those guys are the reason they're in first place right now; if they start struggling, the Cubs are screwed.

The team Kenny put together didn't change at all (besides Jenks stepping up). This year is all Piniella's genius, not Hendry's. Although, you could at the same time say that Piniella has been lucky. While he hasn't been afraid to make changes, it's the player's stepping up that make him look like a genius. If we could actually get some production from our farm, Ozzie would be looking like a genius right now, too.

Irishsox1
08-02-2007, 12:51 AM
Pinella is a great manager, no doubt about it. In the past he's been able to sniff out the weak links on the team and dispose of them. He's very aggressive on the basepaths and his teams are usually fundamentally sound. Plus he gets a lot out of his pitchers, especially guys like Moyer and now Marquis and Lilly. I was watching a game early in the season and Dumpster was walking some guys in the ninth with like a 3 run lead. Lou comes out and just tears into him and then just turns around. Dumpster didn't walk anyone and got the save. Couldn't be more opposite of Dusty.

I wanted Lou to replace Manual, but Ozzie's worked out fine and is pretty similar to Pinella. The problems with the 2007 White Sox start and end with the GM. I think the success of 2005 has gone to Kenny's head.

Noneck
08-02-2007, 01:15 AM
Pinella is a hard nose manager. He is hard on his players and takes no crap. He's also not a buddy of theirs so it doesn't give a mixed message, he's in charge and they know it. Finally, a definite yes he has made a huge difference from that other lazy, roll out the ball, hope for the best because I have a 5 year contract manager before him.

TomBradley72
08-02-2007, 10:27 AM
I'll give both Piniella and Hendry credit for the turnaround. Lou seems to have completely eliminated the "whining/excuses" culture that Baker allowed to fester. No one's blaming announcers, etc...for problems any more. I don't know how you can avoid giving Hendry credit. His additions have for the most part worked out, their farm system has contributed Hill, Marshall, Marmol, Fontenot, Theriot...Lilly has been a great pick up.

BUT...to keep things in perspective (while the media and Cubbie fans are planning their parade)...their .538 winning percentage would put them in 3rd place in any of the AL Divisions, and 2nd place in the other NL Divisions. They are on pace to win 87 games.

rdivaldi
08-02-2007, 11:34 AM
This smells exactly like 2003, when Dusty Baker was a "genius" and how every team in Chicago needed a manager just like him.

Lou is an average manager enjoying a weak division.

PatK
08-02-2007, 11:42 AM
I don't see how anybody can give Hendry credit.

Lou is somehow in first place with an outfield that it absolutley terrible defensively.

You can name all the players from their system that are now playing, but Lou's the one that's playing them. He could have forced Baker to last year.

Chicken Dinner
08-02-2007, 11:45 AM
My point is, Hendry shouldn't get any credit here. The reason they're winning with the team they have now is because Piniella made the changes to do that.

This year is all Piniella's genius, not Hendry's.

Didn't Hendry hire Pinnella?? :yup:

RedHeadPaleHoser
08-02-2007, 11:55 AM
This smells exactly like 2003, when Dusty Baker was a "genius" and how every team in Chicago needed a manager just like him.

Lou is an average manager enjoying a weak division.

Lou gets credit for calling people out who should be responsible - i.e., players not doing their jobs. Dusty blamed Stone, Chip Caray and everyone else for his teams' woes.

So the Cubs went from a corpse to a crazy person as their manager....in a weak division. At some point, the breaks fall their way.

Chips
08-02-2007, 12:07 PM
I like Lou.

Juice16
08-02-2007, 12:20 PM
In all honestly, this a decent team beating bad teams by one and two runs. They have only won 2 series against good teams since the Seattle series. They only have 3 tough series for the remainder of the year and it is aug 2. There is no reason why the Cubs shoudn't cruise to the playoffs. I think the mediocrity of the NL and poor NL Central is the difference.It funny how all the Cub fans at work say the Sox were "lucky" in 2005, look at this schedule and league they play in this year.

chaerulez
08-02-2007, 12:36 PM
Lou has changed the entire culture of the team. Dusty's whole gimmick was being a people's manager. It works when you have the talent, with his Giants teams and the Cubs in 2003, and you don't really have to manage. If Dusty was still the manager. Izturis would have been the everyday SS and DeRosa the everyday 2B. Soriano would still be in CF and Jones the everday RF and Floyd the everyday LF. Barrett would probably still be on the team. Theroit, Fontenot, Pie, Murton, and Marmol would not have gotten the fair chances throughout the season they got. Some have suceeded and some have not. But Lou understands you have to play some rookies ahead of veterans sometimes.